NationStates Jolt Archive

Today the Australian PM, Kevin Rudd, had a bit of a rant about the financial crisis to maximise any political gain from his recently announced fiscal stimulus package aimed at protecting the Australian economy from the crisis' effects.

His main theme, so aptly summarised by Channel Ten's "news", was "Fat Cat Attack". In it, he used the word "Greed" about a million times. He's of course hardly the only one to do that these days, and it doesn't matter whether you ask someone on the street, or a finance commentator or an economist, greed will find its way into an explanation of what happened.

So given how important and universally accepted the use of this word is at the moment, I'm wondering how to define it. I must admit it triggers a "defense mode" in me, so don't ask me for a neutral evaluation.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed) provides this:
greed

noun
1. excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
2. reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins) [syn: avarice]

The important word in there is of course "excessive". So I suppose I'm asking: what is an excessive desire for material wealth? Of course what one needs isn't a constant and has changed throughout history. I also suspect that few people would suggest that living in a bigger or nicer house than would strictly be required for a problem-free existence constitutes "reprehensible acquisitiveness".

So when would you say someone is being greedy?

I think greed comes in to play when your material gains get to such a point that they start to lose actual meaning and instead you acquire them to just have them, and, more importantly, take them away from others or one up others' possessions.

I think greed comes in to play when your material gains get to such a point that they start to lose actual meaning and instead you acquire them to just have them...
So if I were to earn $100 million a year, but I use it to fulfill my lifelong dream of a private 747 with all the luxuries, then it wouldn't be greedy?

...and, more importantly, take them away from others or one up others' possessions.
But there are many cases in which people take from others but wouldn't really be greedy, for example when they're stealing bread to feed themselves.

when something goes beyond rationality (I'm getting this from phobia) like having a solid gold pet dog or that feeling you get when you have just one malteser

In the context of this crisis, it's making business decisions of an unacceptably high risk to the business, for personal gain.

The important word in there is of course "excessive". So I suppose I'm asking: what is an excessive desire for material wealth? Of course what one needs isn't a constant and has changed throughout history. I also suspect that few people would suggest that living in a bigger or nicer house than would strictly be required for a problem-free existence constitutes "reprehensible acquisitiveness".
So when would you say someone is being greedy?
I would draw the line at when the priority of desire for material wealth overrides other desires and principles, norms of behavior. Basically, when you start to neglect your needs, or, more commonly, neglect others in a pursuit of wealth.

And here I was thinking Rudd was changing, then he goes and does shit like this.

I think greed is when someone does something without taking into consideration what these actions might entail.

Greed is good

So I suppose I'm asking: what is an excessive desire for material wealth?

Any desire for material wealth that trumps ethical considerations of respect and love for others. It's not the amount that's important, it's the means we are willing to use and the attitudes we are willing to adopt to achieve it.

Excessive wealth in and of itself is not a personal moral problem, though it may be a social justice problem. A willingness to be callous and exploitative toward others is a personal moral problem, even if it occurs in the context of a just economic system.

Today the Australian PM, Kevin Rudd, had a bit of a rant about the financial crisis to maximise any political gain from his recently announced fiscal stimulus package aimed at protecting the Australian economy from the crisis' effects.

His main theme, so aptly summarised by Channel Ten's "news", was "Fat Cat Attack". In it, he used the word "Greed" about a million times. He's of course hardly the only one to do that these days, and it doesn't matter whether you ask someone on the street, or a finance commentator or an economist, greed will find its way into an explanation of what happened.

So given how important and universally accepted the use of this word is at the moment, I'm wondering how to define it. I must admit it triggers a "defense mode" in me, so don't ask me for a neutral evaluation.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed) provides this:


The important word in there is of course "excessive". So I suppose I'm asking: what is an excessive desire for material wealth? Of course what one needs isn't a constant and has changed throughout history. I also suspect that few people would suggest that living in a bigger or nicer house than would strictly be required for a problem-free existence constitutes "reprehensible acquisitiveness".

So when would you say someone is being greedy?

My answer is only semi-related. It's a quote from Robin Williams:

"Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you make too much money."

Today the Australian PM, Kevin Rudd, had a bit of a rant about the financial crisis to maximise any political gain from his recently announced fiscal stimulus package aimed at protecting the Australian economy from the crisis' effects.

His main theme, so aptly summarised by Channel Ten's "news", was "Fat Cat Attack". In it, he used the word "Greed" about a million times. He's of course hardly the only one to do that these days, and it doesn't matter whether you ask someone on the street, or a finance commentator or an economist, greed will find its way into an explanation of what happened.

So given how important and universally accepted the use of this word is at the moment, I'm wondering how to define it. I must admit it triggers a "defense mode" in me, so don't ask me for a neutral evaluation.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed) provides this:


The important word in there is of course "excessive". So I suppose I'm asking: what is an excessive desire for material wealth? Of course what one needs isn't a constant and has changed throughout history. I also suspect that few people would suggest that living in a bigger or nicer house than would strictly be required for a problem-free existence constitutes "reprehensible acquisitiveness".

So when would you say someone is being greedy?
Let the master explain it to you....it's funny how some of this even applies to this crisis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaKkuJVy2YA

So when would you say someone is being greedy?
All the time.

Greed is part of human nature.

What is greed?

About £2.50 a Kilogram. :D

Let the master explain it to you....it's funny how some of this even applies to this crisis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaKkuJVy2YA

A little more apt I think:

http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=4GA8MQGvr_U&feature=related

To the crisis not 'greed'.

Greed is no match for social obligation in terms of being a good thing, one can be successful without being greedy if one's priorities are right.

Purely being successful for the sake of being successful, it's self-obsessed pride really, the greed for more is simply a visible result of that.

A little more apt I think:

http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=4GA8MQGvr_U&feature=related


Yes, touché. That most certainly one-upped mine.

What is greed?

Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

Yes, touché. That most certainly one-upped mine.

I think I'm going to watch that film again, I saw it when I was 13 or so and I don't think I could relate to it then, the clip you posted is a powerful.

Today the Australian PM, Kevin Rudd, had a bit of a rant about the financial crisis to maximise any political gain from his recently announced fiscal stimulus package aimed at protecting the Australian economy from the crisis' effects.

His main theme, so aptly summarised by Channel Ten's "news", was "Fat Cat Attack". In it, he used the word "Greed" about a million times. He's of course hardly the only one to do that these days, and it doesn't matter whether you ask someone on the street, or a finance commentator or an economist, greed will find its way into an explanation of what happened.

So given how important and universally accepted the use of this word is at the moment, I'm wondering how to define it. I must admit it triggers a "defense mode" in me, so don't ask me for a neutral evaluation.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed) provides this:


The important word in there is of course "excessive". So I suppose I'm asking: what is an excessive desire for material wealth? Of course what one needs isn't a constant and has changed throughout history. I also suspect that few people would suggest that living in a bigger or nicer house than would strictly be required for a problem-free existence constitutes "reprehensible acquisitiveness".

So when would you say someone is being greedy?

I think that one is excessive when they use illegal or immoral means of acquiring wealth. It is quite possible to become super duper wealthy and not be greedy. It is more a question of how you play the game than how high your score is.

So if I were to earn $100 million a year, but I use it to fulfill my lifelong dream of a private 747 with all the luxuries, then it wouldn't be greedy?

Sure it is! Live on a DC-8 like the rest of us! >_>

A handy buzz-word that can be thrown around without worrying about normal people considering what the word means and whether it is as negative in this context as their automatic response to the concept as a whole is.

The definition of greed is tied up in our innate sense of fairness. Being greedy is desiring more than one's fair share.

Since our innate sense of fairness -- the one we share with other primates -- underlies rather than follows from our logical capabilities, there isn't a single definition of greed that fits nicely into a logical system and that can be applied to any conceivable situation.

To take NL's example of stealing bread to feed your family: you may be considered greedy if the person you're stealing from now doesn't have bread to feed her family. If she's got a giant pile o' bread, then you're not being greedy. If a huge crowd comes along and each takes a loaf until all her bread is gone, then the individual members of that crowd might not be greedy (if they're all starving,) but the crowd as a whole might be. It doesn't take too complicated a situation for the definition of greed to become muddied by self-contradiction.

This may sound like a cop-out, but I think if one tries to find a consistent, positive definition of any moral concept such as greed or honor, one either accepts a certain amount of ambiguity or squeezes the concept into a logical box that distorts its meaning beyond recognition. Kant, I think, is on my side here.

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.

- Gordon Gekko

Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

That's for love. -_-

For greed it must be

What is greed?

Baby please hurt me, please hurt me, some more.

What is Greed? Greed is what fuels the capitalist system. It's harnessing one of mankind's greatest traits.

Greed: Tobacco companies trying to convince people that they have a safe product

Greed: Oil companies doing the same thing.

I think I'm going to watch that film again, I saw it when I was 13 or so and I don't think I could relate to it then, the clip you posted is a powerful.
Hmm yeah, I'll also rent it probably.

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.

- Gordon Gekko

Already beat you to it.

I think greed comes in to play when your material gains get to such a point that they start to lose actual meaning and instead you acquire them to just have them, and, more importantly, take them away from others or one up others' possessions.

This.

If making more money becomes one's overarching goal, not money for any real purpose or particular reason, just to have more, that is excessive.

I mean, I'd like to have more money. A lot more money. Enough to not have to worry about debt while buying a house. That would be nice. But I want that money for specific reasons, ie, getting a house and not having to worry about debt.

Greed is a bottomless pit in which one feels compelled always to fill, and can never ever succeed.

Of course, the same is true for simply needing and wanting to be getting the material needs of daily live. Except retirement might be the succeeding part... not that that's really an option for this generation.

Greed is a bottomless pit in which one feels compelled always to fill, and can never ever succeed.

Of course, the same is true for simply needing and wanting to be getting the material needs of daily live. Except retirement might be the succeeding part... not that that's really an option for this generation.

How is retirement not an option for any generation?

They say greed is good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaKkuJVy2YA).

Greed is what we call entrepreneurship after the bubble bursts.

How is retirement not an option for any generation?

A lot of people, in the US anyway, rely on social security to get them through retirement. There's quite a bit of talk about social security essentially failing within a few decades.

What is greed?

Baby, don't hurt me...

Let's see:

According to some here, greed is the desire for money. According to God, the desire for money is the root of all Evil (1 Timothy 6:10).

Thus, (Greed)^2 = Evil.

Proven with mathz :)

Let's see:

According to some here, greed is the desire for money. According to God, the desire for money is the root of all Evil (1 Timothy 6:10).

Thus, (Greed)^2 = Evil.

Proven with mathz :)

WRONG! According to PAUL, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. And Paul was a fool.

WRONG! According to PAUL, the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. And Paul was a fool.

Love is a form of desire. If you love a person, do you not desire them?

And besides, Paul was not a fool. I'll not have you defame my name-sake.

Love is a form of desire. If you love a person, do you not desire them?

And besides, Paul was not a fool. I'll not have you defame my name-sake.

Desire and love can be seperate. i love my dog, but I do not desire him.

*Defames Artie's namesake*

What is Greed? Greed is what fuels the capitalist system. It's harnessing one of mankind's most deplorable vices.

Fixed.

The dog that barked at his own reflection to get the bone and lost it in the process.

Greed is one of the most reprehensible characteristics of humankind. It is also the very foundation of our economic system, meaning that those who are the biggest bastards are rewarded with the most money while those who seek to engage in careers where they can help others receive a comparative pittance. Yay for justice.

*Wanders off, muttering bitterly.*

Fixed.

Either way, the Capitalist system harnesses one of the most defining features, whether it's a vice or not,to fuel an economic system that has worked quite well with large numbers.

well if every man is equal is there any reason why the christians arnt calling for socialism?

A willingness to be callous and exploitative toward others is a personal moral problem, even if it occurs in the context of a just economic system.
That's one way of putting it, but I'm not sure it's the whole story. According to this, the mortgage brokers themselves who told whatever they figured the client needed to hear to sign were greedy. But the bankers who then packaged these loans in ways they thought would significantly reduce the risk, and often hold on to them for themselves - were they greedy? Or just stupid?

Purely being successful for the sake of being successful, it's self-obsessed pride really, the greed for more is simply a visible result of that.
Success is a common term that can describe anything you achieve and which makes you happy or promotes your values. I can be successful by becoming a CEO and earning millions or by raising children that end up leading good lives, or by eliminating world hunger. Are these things self-obsessed pride? And, were we to widen the application without touching the meaning, would I be greedy by wanting to put food in yet more poor African children?

Since our innate sense of fairness -- the one we share with other primates -- underlies rather than follows from our logical capabilities, there isn't a single definition of greed that fits nicely into a logical system and that can be applied to any conceivable situation.
Which then poses the question: should a politician be using that word at all? Politicians should really be concerning themselves with statements of fact, but what you're saying is that we'd be lucky if we could get anything factual out of a rant about greed.

Or perhaps that's just my problem, because words like "greed" don't trigger emotional responses with me.

This may sound like a cop-out, but I think if one tries to find a consistent, positive definition of any moral concept such as greed or honor, one either accepts a certain amount of ambiguity or squeezes the concept into a logical box that distorts its meaning beyond recognition. Kant, I think, is on my side here.
Meh, Kant might be happy with a language that doesn't say anything, but I'm not. When a politician accuses people of something, I'd rather hope everyone involved has a chance of being clear what exactly the accusation is.

And that becomes even more pressing when legal measures are then taken to curb whatever ill-defined evildoing has been going on.

Greed is one of the most reprehensible characteristics of humankind. It is also the very foundation of our economic system, meaning that those who are the biggest bastards are rewarded with the most money while those who seek to engage in careers where they can help others receive a comparative pittance. Yay for justice.

*Wanders off, muttering bitterly.*
You haven't actually defined what you think greed is.

Desire and love can be seperate. i love my dog, but I do not desire him.

*Defames Artie's namesake*

I would say greed is both love and desire. Therefore,

(d + l)ⁿ=Σ(ek)

where d and l mean desire for money and love of money, respectively, and en is the kth element of evil. (Notice there is no mention of which root greed is, so we can't assume it is the square root.)

I would say greed is both love and desire. Therefore,

(d + l)ⁿ=Σ(ek)

where d and l mean desire for money and love of money, respectively, and en is the kth element of evil. (Notice there is no mention of which root greed is, so we can't assume it is the square root.)

Okay, so allowing for Sigma, starting with k=0 to infinity, and that k=n...

Yep. You're right. I think you've got a much better definition of the greed element, and your formulation of the value of the element of evil allows for us to find the proper relationship between the two main elements.

Success is a common term that can describe anything you achieve and which makes you happy or promotes your values. I can be successful by becoming a CEO and earning millions or by raising children that end up leading good lives, or by eliminating world hunger. Are these things self-obsessed pride? And, were we to widen the application without touching the meaning, would I be greedy by wanting to put food in yet more poor African children?

That doesn't address what I wrote though, I've no truck with success.

A desire to obviate the potential for scarcity to the point that further accumulation of necessities (if E1=%ΔQuantity Demanded/%ΔIncome, then it is a necessity if -1<E1<1) makes necessities behave like luxuries.

That doesn't address what I wrote though, I've no truck with success.
You said "success for the sake of success". That makes little sense. I don't pick a task to succeed at because I happen to want to be successful. In that case, I'd just pick the easiest thing there is and just succeed at that.

People pick things they do for other reasons, primarily the happiness they get from shaping their environment so that it conforms with their values. You can say some values are better than others (eg million dollar salary vs eliminating world hunger), but that's a different point to make, isn't it?

You said "success for the sake of success". That makes little sense. I don't pick a task to succeed at because I happen to want to be successful. In that case, I'd just pick the easiest thing there is and just succeed at that.

People pick things they do for other reasons, primarily the happiness they get from shaping their environment so that it conforms with their values. You can say some values are better than others (eg million dollar salary vs eliminating world hunger), but that's a different point to make, isn't it?

I think this is a error in interpreting my point, which is more my fault for not outlining it properly due to fly-by posting rather than coherently expressing my meaning.

I'm saying greed is simply an outward sign of something internal, greed is not a prime motivator.

So greed for monetary success, and all the wealthy trappings that comes with that, is a self-esteem issue - esteem is built on those visible signs of success among one's peers.

Take Bill Gates for example, I don't feel he was motivated by greed for money, I think he loved programming, loved Windows and therefore, by dint of some circumstance in terms of the rise of computing in our lives, succeeded phenomenally.

His 'greed' might be for solving complex problems, in this case, I don't see greed as a problem. The point is that where greed is directed at something that has no real value, the making of money for money's sake, I find it disturbing.

I'm greedy for knowledge, I read anything, I need to know answers when people ask me and it's a something I build my esteem on - I'm fine with that, I feel I contribute among my peers as being the go-to guy for information, and I naturally share that information.

Yet those motivated by money are not generally inclined to share it and I don't think it has much value beyond the personal, I also think it's a very shallow thing on which to build esteem, it's an artificial construct.

Have you read Affluenza (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Affluenza-Oliver-James/dp/0091900107), it's quite fascinating if you can get past a lot of assumptions on his part.

More on affluenza - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza

Which then poses the question: should a politician be using that word at all? Politicians should really be concerning themselves with statements of fact, but what you're saying is that we'd be lucky if we could get anything factual out of a rant about greed.

Or perhaps that's just my problem, because words like "greed" don't trigger emotional responses with me.

That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that using the term "greed", or any other moral concept, implies a particular view of a given act (in the case of greed, that the act violates the principle of fairness.) In that sense it's not strictly factual, but it makes no sense to limit politicians to statements of fact: we don't hire politicians for their journalistic skills, but for their judgement. Politicians should, when they're talking about morals, explain how they get from the specifics to their moral conclusions. (Who's getting a raw deal, and whose fault is it, and how can we correct this?) If they just toss buzzwords around without explaining what they mean, that's irresponsible, but that's true for anybody talking about anything.

Seriously? Words like greed, love, fidelity, truth, justice, good, and evil don't provoke any emotional response? You're evaluating those concepts on some sort of rational framework alone? That makes you extremely unusual.

Meh, Kant might be happy with a language that doesn't say anything, but I'm not. When a politician accuses people of something, I'd rather hope everyone involved has a chance of being clear what exactly the accusation is.

I agree with you (as I said above,) but Kant wasn't making the claim that any language was meaningless, but that he could not find an objective moral calculus that didn't either self-contradict or violate common sense. He couldn't find a way to remove all moral postulates from ethics. (As is my understanding. I only read Kant in translation and by myself, so I may be wrong on this.)

I'm saying greed is simply an outward sign of something internal, greed is not a prime motivator.

So greed for monetary success, and all the wealthy trappings that comes with that, is a self-esteem issue - esteem is built on those visible signs of success among one's peers.
So can't one just want a massive villa on the shores of an Italian lake, and a stable of million-dollar cars in front of it? Couldn't it be that things like this have some value to them in terms of the enjoyment I can derive from them?

I think it's possible that some people buy a Porsche so that others see they bought a Porsche. I think that's stupid, I want to buy a Porsche because I want to drive it, because it's a brilliant machine that I would very much enjoy having.

So the former are greedy, and I'm not?

In short, I think it's quite possible to want to be rich because of the nice things it allows you to buy, because you want those things. Whether anyone else in the world knows about it doesn't really matter then.

And sorta related: is Warren Buffett greedy? He famously lives in the same house (http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/10/cx_bill05_homeslide_2.html?thisSpeed=6000000000) he bought in the fifties, and doesn't really spend the vast amounts of money he makes. Yet he still works on earning yet more billions, sometimes being quite ruthless (http://www.independent.ie/business/world/buffett-strikes-a-tough-deal-in-bailing-out-ailing-goldman-sachs-1481790.html) in the way he does it. He doesn't really seem motivated by wanting to be seen to be rich, nor by wanting to buy nice stuff. His biggest expenditure is on philanthropy, but I'd doubt that's really his main motivation (it wouldn't have been earlier in his life). Instead, I think he derives enjoyment from making right decisions, from picking an investment correctly and seeing it pay off. In that case, he's as close as you'd get to making money for the sake of making money. So is he the greediest man on earth?

In that sense it's not strictly factual, but it makes no sense to limit politicians to statements of fact: we don't hire politicians for their journalistic skills, but for their judgement.
I think that's probably the thing I disagree with most (not your statement, but the fact that it is true). I don't want anyone to judge anything on my behalf, because judging situations, people and anything else is what makes us human.

But I see what you're saying.

Seriously? Words like greed, love, fidelity, truth, justice, good, and evil don't provoke any emotional response? You're evaluating those concepts on some sort of rational framework alone? That makes you extremely unusual.
I think I'm more cynical than purely rational about it. I think these terms are often meaningless by virtue of their meaning not being properly defined, and why would anyone want to use a word that doesn't convey information?

So whenever people talk about "greed", "fairness" and so on, I first ask: what is their motivation here? And (and this is where I may not always be rational) I generally come to the conclusion that they do it because they want something for nothing, preferably from me.

Money is like shit - it's no good unless you spread it around.

greed is the desire for money. Greedy is what people call those who have more then them.

Greed is existent in all mankind. To me, greed is the desperate desire to 'have it all', regardless of whether it is a) necessary, or b) within your means. I think that part of the problem lies not with the banks or the credit companies, but with the average Joes', who just had to have that new car, that $300,000 house that wasn't really in their price range, that new TV set when the old one works just fine.

It's a reprehensible social requirement.

greed is a form of aggressiveness, which like all forms of agressiveness, is driven by unhealthy and excessive ego. aggressiveness being the REAL 'social disease', that is; disease OF society.

we've been told by makiavellians for several decades now, that greed is supposed to be good. they've just never explained exactly what its supposed to be good FOR. i don't believe they can because i don't believe there is any real bennifit from it, that depends entirely on it, to any real person, place or thing.

yes we have a whole social-economic way of looking at things, that people have been enculturated with for several generations, but people have had universally 'known' ways of looking at things, based on other, just as wackey assumptions before, and those too, have, if not disappeared entirely, faded very much into the background of most of our everyday lives today.

a world perception based on makiavellianism, is not imune to going the same way, over time, eventually, and i think we're beggining to see this happen, even if the death rattle of that pretence, that makiavellianism might be, could somehow be, made to be sustainable, steals the spotlight, by stealing, and appearantly attempting to destroy everything else, even blindly its own basis.

The definition of greed is tied up in our innate sense of fairness. Being greedy is desiring more than one's fair share.


this i agree with. on a sociologial scale, i suppose excessive greed is having wealth or material goods way beyond that which the average person has. for an off-the-top-of-my-head example, wanting to earn, say, £20k would be average. wanting to earn £50k or even £100k would be ambitious, but going over to wanting millions or more is excessive greed.

that hooks onto this 'fairness' idea. but i suppose you could also look at it from a necessities/luxuries standpoint. excessive greed, in this case, could be (again off the top of my head) when what one considers 'necessities' are, by any normal measure, luxuries. the idea of having to buy a new gucci handbag or another rolls royce because the last one got a scratch on it comes to mind.

and then there's a psychological viewpoint. exessive greed could well be when one's self worth comes from ones wealth or material posessions, as opposed to one's true virtues as a person. of course, this would mean most people in our modern, consumerist society, could be said to be excessively greedy... and yes, i hold that to be largely true. not that i'm any exception to the rule :P

So can't one just want a massive villa on the shores of an Italian lake, and a stable of million-dollar cars in front of it? Couldn't it be that things like this have some value to them in terms of the enjoyment I can derive from them?

I think it's possible that some people buy a Porsche so that others see they bought a Porsche. I think that's stupid, I want to buy a Porsche because I want to drive it, because it's a brilliant machine that I would very much enjoy having.

So the former are greedy, and I'm not?

In short, I think it's quite possible to want to be rich because of the nice things it allows you to buy, because you want those things. Whether anyone else in the world knows about it doesn't really matter then.

Having a stable of million-dollar cars is a good thing? is that not a sign of greed, for your pleasure only when perhaps there's better things to do?

Maybe as an investment, but even then...

Certainly buy yourself nice things, yet at what point is it frivolous, crossing the line from something that adds value to the quality of your life to something that simply reflects your ego?

Again, I'm not saying greed is wrong, I'm saying it's often pointed in the wrong direction.

And sorta related: is Warren Buffett greedy? He famously lives in the same house (http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/10/cx_bill05_homeslide_2.html?thisSpeed=6000000000) he bought in the fifties, and doesn't really spend the vast amounts of money he makes. Yet he still works on earning yet more billions, sometimes being quite ruthless (http://www.independent.ie/business/world/buffett-strikes-a-tough-deal-in-bailing-out-ailing-goldman-sachs-1481790.html) in the way he does it. He doesn't really seem motivated by wanting to be seen to be rich, nor by wanting to buy nice stuff. His biggest expenditure is on philanthropy, but I'd doubt that's really his main motivation (it wouldn't have been earlier in his life). Instead, I think he derives enjoyment from making right decisions, from picking an investment correctly and seeing it pay off. In that case, he's as close as you'd get to making money for the sake of making money. So is he the greediest man on earth?

I honestly don't know Warren Buffet's motivations, I wish I did since if I knew him that well I'd probably have some of his money.

Greed- wanting what you cannot have.

And sorta related: is Warren Buffett greedy? He famously lives in the same house (http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/10/cx_bill05_homeslide_2.html?thisSpeed=6000000000) he bought in the fifties, and doesn't really spend the vast amounts of money he makes. Yet he still works on earning yet more billions, sometimes being quite ruthless (http://www.independent.ie/business/world/buffett-strikes-a-tough-deal-in-bailing-out-ailing-goldman-sachs-1481790.html) in the way he does it. He doesn't really seem motivated by wanting to be seen to be rich, nor by wanting to buy nice stuff. His biggest expenditure is on philanthropy, but I'd doubt that's really his main motivation (it wouldn't have been earlier in his life). Instead, I think he derives enjoyment from making right decisions, from picking an investment correctly and seeing it pay off. In that case, he's as close as you'd get to making money for the sake of making money. So is he the greediest man on earth?

My personal defintion for greed is pretty much that. Screwing others for no purpose other than making money. Sums up modern thinking pretty well, IMHO.

and then there's a psychological viewpoint. exessive greed could well be when one's self worth comes from ones wealth or material posessions, as opposed to one's true virtues as a person. of course, this would mean most people in our modern, consumerist society, could be said to be excessively greedy... and yes, i hold that to be largely true. not that i'm any exception to the rule :P
So in other words, you know the correct, true virtue of a person, while nobody else does?

How come?

Having a stable of million-dollar cars is a good thing? is that not a sign of greed, for your pleasure only when perhaps there's better things to do?
I don't really think anyone but me can judge what the best thing for me to do is. So I derive happiness from owning these cars, and I don't hurt anyone by doing it. So how is it not a good thing?

Certainly buy yourself nice things, yet at what point is it frivolous, crossing the line from something that adds value to the quality of your life to something that simply reflects your ego?
I don't really think such a point exists. If your ego is your sense of self, then having enough food, or having a working toilet so you don't have to shit behind a bush, is a big boost to your ego as well. You could probably even survive without the toilet. But it would offend your sense of self and your personal dignity.

So you can't really tell me that even very basic things that add quality to my life don't also reflect my ego, in that they directly impact the way I see myself as a person.

I honestly don't know Warren Buffet's motivations, I wish I did since if I knew him that well I'd probably have some of his money.
I was just saying that nobody ever just earns money purely for the sake of earning money. Even the process of earning money has some purpose to it, and I don't think this purpose is fundamentally different to the one associated with raising a child, or feeding the starving.

So in other words, you know the correct, true virtue of a person, while nobody else does?

How come?


I don't really think anyone but me can judge what the best thing for me to do is. So I derive happiness from owning these cars, and I don't hurt anyone by doing it. So how is it not a good thing?

Well it comes down to self-serving individualism and social obligation.

If your happiness is solely predicated on owning those cars, well that's your choice I suppose.

Anyway, I suspect we'll start to go around in circles, I'm expressing a sentiment, that greed can be utilised for good or bad, as people we need to decide on what that is. Where I give an overall example - which is admittedly based on my opinion - it's easy to find a loophole in that if you want, but the sentiment remains the same.

well if every man is equal is there any reason why the christians arnt calling for socialism?

I blame the influence of the Roman Empire on early Christianity. It's fun to play the blame game!