NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that greed is one of the major factors in causing our economic and political systems to fail.
Greed causes exploitation in a capitalist system, greed causes communism to fail, greed causes corruption in government.
And there's not much we can do about it.

Yes we can. Abolish property.

Can't abolish property. People believe in it innately.

Better idea:

Develop robots to do all labor. Develop fusion power so that we have enough power to do anything we want.

Live like children, cared for by machines, living carefree lives with no wants.

Then, since everyone should theoretically be satisfied, we can treat anyone who is not satisfied as being pathological cases.

We could also recruit such cases to be crews of interstellar ships, so they can foment problems somewhere else.

Do like a guy I met once did. Get some friends together, build a massive castle out of river rocks, stop paying taxes, lock the front gate except for occasional school field-trips for local gradeschool kids, and lie around all day smoking grass with everyone who worked on the project. Sure, there'd still be greed outside the walls, but if you don't know about it, it's not real to you. You don't pay tax, but you don't use a cent of public money, either. :) Just saying, it can be done.

Establish a system which harnesses greed to enhance the public good. Scottish chap wrote about it, by the name of Adam Smith. Some good ideas. Called "Capitalism," you may have heard about it.

greed is what capitalism is all about.
without the greed (and a few choice other qualities of the human psyche) socialist utopia might be possible

the way i see it is greed causes most of the world's problems

The trick is, greed is innate. So, we can either close our eyes and wish really hard for that not to be the case (as I understand it that's the bedrock principle of Socialism) or we can admit we can't wish away human nature, factor it into our economic and social structure, and try to use it for good. And that's the bedrock principle of Capitalism.

So far as I'm aware, economies the world over have been growing in recent years. China moves away from semi-communism and develops a sense of greed, and its economy suddenly becomes the fastest growing in the world. Not sure how that can be 'failing'.

Establish a system which harnesses greed to enhance the public good. Scottish chap wrote about it, by the name of Adam Smith. Some good ideas. Called "Capitalism," you may have heard about it.
The one problem here is that I've always been one of the sort that thinks in the way that as long as even a few people are getting screwesd by a particular system, then that system isn't working wonderfully. I understand(well at least thiow it seems to me) that the pronciples of capitalism are trying to divert greed into something either harmless or something that helps others. The problem is that I haven't yet seen an implementation of it where it's worked precisely the way it is supposed to, it always seems that somebody finds a way to screw over someone else, just like in any other system.

Then again, I'm just a hopeless dreamer, so I'm probably not worth listening to...

a couple of my favourite quotes regarding greed:


The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau


To achieve Nirvana one must extinguish the belief in a separate self that gives rise to cravings, desires, and attachments.
The path to enlightenment includes loving-kindness and compassion, moral conduct, charity, wisdom, and meditation.
- central tenet of Theravada Buddhism "off Beliefnet.com"

You don't actually believe Rousseau's meaningless drivel, do you?

The thing is, NO system works perfectly. none will, so long as it's devised by and operated by humans. So, we must do the best we can. To borrow from Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible economic system, except for all the others.

So far as I'm aware, economies the world over have been growing in recent years. China moves away from semi-communism and develops a sense of greed, and its economy suddenly becomes the fastest growing in the world. Not sure how that can be 'failing'.
Ah, see, that's me being a dreamer again.
Economies may be growing, but I see people struggling to make a living all around. I'm just one of the sort that's always thought it's not succeeding as long as there are people screwing someone else over.

The thing is, NO system works perfectly. none will, so long as it's devised by and operated by humans. So, we must do the best we can. To borrow from Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible economic system, except for all the others.
Yeah, that makes sense.
I suppose I should shut up with my utopian dreaming and get back to oding something useful.

It's all right to dream. Adam Smith was a dreamer at first, after all. Without dreamers we don't advance. I'm not saying Capitalism is the be-all end-all, just better than anything else that's been thought up

You don't actually believe Rousseau's meaningless drivel, do you?

yep. well, not excluisvely, but bits of, yes

Yeah, that makes sense.
I suppose I should shut up with my utopian dreaming and get back to oding something useful.

Hey, the guy I wrote about earlier in the thread made it happen for himself and a few dozen friends, and became a local celebrity to boot. Utopias may be "impossible," but can function indefinitely on a small enough scale of likeminded individuals dedicated to a goal. It's when you decide all people must conform to it that it disintegrates.

Ah, see, that's me being a dreamer again.
Economies may be growing, but I see people struggling to make a living all around. I'm just one of the sort that's always thought it's not succeeding as long as there are people screwing someone else over.

You can either have some people very rich, with some people very poor, and a few people in the middle (us, in other words); or you can just have everybody poor. Unless you can come up with an alternative system, I'll be fine with capitalism for now.

You can either have some people very rich, with some people very poor, and a few people in the middle (us, in other words); or you can just have everybody poor. Unless you can come up with an alternative system, I'll be fine with capitalism for now.
Why is everyone poor in "not-capitalism"?

You can either have some people very rich, with some people very poor, and a few people in the middle (us, in other words); or you can just have everybody poor. Unless you can come up with an alternative system, I'll be fine with capitalism for now.
I'm not arguing for communism. I don't think communism will work too well.
It's just that all the systems I've yet seen have their problems. I like the way someone else put it earlier in the thread:
To borrow from Churchill, capitalism is the worst possible economic system, except for all the others.

Why is everyone poor in "not-capitalism"?

Spreading the wealth of a few million people out over billions of people, added to the lower levels of production inherent in a system that offers no substantial rewards for working harder, leads to nobody being particularly well-off.

Worker enthusiasm is one of the primary reasons communism in the proper sense can't work. The problem is starting to show in the increasingly socialist policies of Europe. Think of it this way; when you're at work, do you think "my contribution will benefit the economy!", or do you think "if I work hard I might get a promotion and more money!"?

Worker enthusiasm is one of the primary reasons communism in the proper sense can't work. The problem is starting to show in the increasingly socialist policies of Europe. Think of it this way; when you're at work, do you think "my contribution will benefit the economy!", or do you think "if I work hard I might get a promotion and more money!"?
if society were geared around the latter, yes. the problem is trying to impose socialist policies in today's capitalist world - some things are intensely capitalist while others are socialist (a mixed economy). i think things would work better if the whole of society were to go down the route of socialism, not just a few government departments. then again i am ranting and my brain feels like its just died


edit: and part of this would be to change society so the aquistion of wealth was not the primary concern of the people

Spreading the wealth of a few million people out over billions of people, added to the lower levels of production inherent in a system that offers no substantial rewards for working harder, leads to nobody being particularly well-off.

Worker enthusiasm is one of the primary reasons communism in the proper sense can't work. The problem is starting to show in the increasingly socialist policies of Europe. Think of it this way; when you're at work, do you think "my contribution will benefit the economy!", or do you think "if I work hard I might get a promotion and more money!"?
I think the first one.

And it doesn't work to distribute everything in a capitalist system, obviously.

I prefer the term self interest over greed. Chiefly because the term greed has such negative connotations.

edit: and part of this would be to change society so the aquistion of wealth was not the primary concern of the people

Changing society won't change something which is hardwired into human instinct -- greed is eternal. It is as prevailent as the need to engage in sexual reproduction.

I think the first one.

Then you are far more idealistic than the majority of the human population.



Frankly speaking, there is nobody on the internet who is truly interested in helping the impoverished and redistributing wealth. Because in order to end world poverty, the sacrifices we in the West would have to make would be enormous, and anybody who is truly interested in achieving that would have sold all their unnecessary items such as computers a long time ago. Few people seem to have a grasp of just how impoverished so many people are on this planet. Just making it so that every one of them could survive would be the most expensive undertaking in human history. Giving them any sort of quality of life would require lowering our own. I doubt that anyone here would be prepared for the sorts of sacrifices that would be necessary, regardless of what they say.

Establish a system which harnesses greed to enhance the public good. Scottish chap wrote about it, by the name of Adam Smith. Some good ideas. Called "Capitalism," you may have heard about it.
Yeah, and the central idea of Adam Smith's capitalism was the 'invisible hand' which would keep greed from getting out of control. Too bad that hand has remained invisible (and ineffective).

I prefer the term self interest over greed. Chiefly because the term greed has such negative connotations.
Well shucks...'final solution' sounds a lot nicer than genocide...

But they're still the same thing.

Ah, see, that's me being a dreamer again.
Economies may be growing, but I see people struggling to make a living all around. I'm just one of the sort that's always thought it's not succeeding as long as there are people screwing someone else over.
Exactly. Which is why no system will every completely work. However, this idea that 'capitalism is the best we've got' is limiting, and narrow-minded. Cripes, you'd think that communism and capitalism were the only systems that have existed...and that can ever exist. It's like saying, "there's no point in inventing anything, because everything's already been invented".

We can ALWAYS improve on the model we have. And we should. All systems need periodic renewal so that they do not atrophy and become stagnant. If people believe that capitalism is the vehicle we want to use to drive the global economy, then fine. But do some friggin' tuneups on the old junker! Cripes!

greed is what capitalism is all about.
without the greed (and a few choice other qualities of the human psyche) socialist utopia might be possible

the way i see it is greed causes most of the world's problems

"socialist" and "utopia" are mutually exclusive.

whom would you steal from to feed the poor if not for rich and upper-middle-class... and how do people get rich?

Changing society won't change something which is hardwired into human instinct -- greed is eternal. It is as prevailent as the need to engage in sexual reproduction.



Then you are far more idealistic than the majority of the human population.



Frankly speaking, there is nobody on the internet who is truly interested in helping the impoverished and redistributing wealth. Because in order to end world poverty, the sacrifices we in the West would have to make would be enormous, and anybody who is truly interested in achieving that would have sold all their unnecessary items such as computers a long time ago. Few people seem to have a grasp of just how impoverished so many people are on this planet. Just making it so that every one of them could survive would be the most expensive undertaking in human history. Giving them any sort of quality of life would require lowering our own. I doubt that anyone here would be prepared for the sorts of sacrifices that would be necessary, regardless of what they say.

you hit the nail on the head.

i'm not for it anyway... i think the best we can do is set people up in a democratic/free setting and let individual cultures and their people shape economies.

if we were going to FORCE-FEED the third world, it would cost trillions of dollars and WHAT IF THEY FAILED WITH WHAT WE GAVE THEM?

Then... the world would be F'd, because the West would be out of money (or out of, say, half of what it had), and we're the ones who know how to make money.

I'm not arguing for communism. I don't think communism will work too well.
It's just that all the systems I've yet seen have their problems. I like the way someone else put it earlier in the thread:

I think you mean that Communism *hasn't* worked out too well. :)

(Before anyone starts arguing that the USSR & Comintern nations weren't Communist: the G8 aren't perfectly Capitalist, either. Anytime anything is implemented, the role of man must be considered. Thus, there is no way to build a "more Communist" society than those that have already existed, just as any Capitalist or Democratic nation is just that -- an implementation. It can change, but it's never "better" or "truer".)

Some very interesting threads are springing from this. But to add my two cents/penny’s I think that for the majority of Europeans "capitalist" (hence greed) is used in the pejorative sense with "socialism" for the majority of Americans creating a similar distaste, (just a unique cultural/historical consequence of both).

But to my mind "Capitalism" or "Greed" if we're going to use the two to mean basically the same thing is looked down upon because ultimately it is a ruthless but probably the best reflection of the human condition. I don't mean to say this in a cynical way but to my mind capitalism is a truer reflection of human society than most other political philosophy's/creations in the sense that it is ultimately elitist in its very essence. If we accept that people are wholly different in their genetic and personal makeup, (for example one is cleverer/better able to lead/more motivated/focused/willing to work than others), then I believe capitalism rewards these advantageous people and punishes the less able. This is its greatest strength, (it is geared towards meritocracy), and its greatest weakness (the less able end up on the scrap heap).

I believe "greed" has received a similar pejorative knocking in the sense that to be greedy is wrong and/or sin. But cannot greed for freedom or a better way of life or to improve oneself be seen as a good rather than bad thing? In a sense I'm asking, can't the ends justify the means in some cases?

Yeah, and the central idea of Adam Smith's capitalism was the 'invisible hand' which would keep greed from getting out of control. Too bad that hand has remained invisible (and ineffective).

You clearly haven't studied economics in any real sense. The invisible hand is VERY effective, far more so than the dead hand of the State.

Exactly. Which is why no system will every completely work. However, this idea that 'capitalism is the best we've got' is limiting, and narrow-minded. Cripes, you'd think that communism and capitalism were the only systems that have existed...and that can ever exist. It's like saying, "there's no point in inventing anything, because everything's already been invented".

We can ALWAYS improve on the model we have. And we should. All systems need periodic renewal so that they do not atrophy and become stagnant. If people believe that capitalism is the vehicle we want to use to drive the global economy, then fine. But do some friggin' tuneups on the old junker! Cripes!

Which is exactly what I said in my reply to the same post you were replying to.