Why is greed rewarded?

[OneGrassRoot]

I read a comment in another thread which said, in capitalism, greed is rewarded.

Damn straight, it is.

Is there any "ism" that has worked well once there is a large population -- and thus various viewpoints and interests?

Is greed simply human nature, a byproduct of fear...fear about survival?

I think I make many here nauseated because I try to have faith in Humanity. There's a famous quote that goes something like: I love Humanity, it's people I can't stand.

That's me. ;)

I'm not a good enough student of history to be able to point to examples where our innate desire to be cooperative and compassionate has enabled a large society to evolve with much more grace than we're witnessing. A large society truly dedicated to The Common Good.

Other countries certainly do better in this regard than the US, but it seems things are rough all over. Of course, many of us believe it's because the vast majority of the wealth and resources are controlled by such a small group -- worldwide, not just here in this country.

That simple line -- "Greed is rewarded" -- is so true of our society now. The only thing I know for sure is that we CAN do better. A helluva lot better.

We simply must.

How do we shift things from most people admiring the Gordon Gekko ("Wall Street") character, to being sickened by that type of person?

How can we make compassion and cooperation the norm, rather than a short-lived trend; entrenched values rather than periodic PR stunts, fed by a culture of celebrity?

Just wondering aloud.

:shrug:




edit for typo

[ThomWV]

1. The greedy are not rewarded, rewards are given, greedy people take.

[glinda]

4. The word for that is "aggression".

[tridim]

5. Greed pays off. Every time.

That's a big problem.

It is the fatal flaw of market driven capitalism IMO.

[socialist_n_TN]

6. Is there any other kind of capitalism other than

market driven? And you're right greed does pay off in our current system.

[tridim]

7. Regulated capitalism?

Capitalism that discourages greed via high tax rates. America used to do that, and we thrived.

I don't know, you may be right.

[socialist_n_TN]

9. My opinion, and I think that history has proven me correct,

is that "regulated" capitalism is the abnormal state. Capitalism always strives for the least regulation possible in order for it to work more "efficiently". The more money and power it accumulates the easier it is to buy itself it's normal state which is "unregulated" capitalism.

For Americans especially, this is a VERY difficult truth to handle. We've grown up with all the propaganda equating capitalism with God, freedom, and the American Way. It take observing and then THINKING about the observation to see what REALLY happens when capitalism takes over. It's happened a few times in history and EVERY time we get what we have now.

[ThomWV]

17. The one plain fact they won't teach children in school

Somewhere before high school in some sort of civics or Government class you'd expect children to be told that a countries' economic system and its system of government are not the same thing. You can have a socialistic democracy just exactly as easily as a capitalistic one.

Our problem is not having the wrong economic system or the wrong system of governance. Our problem is we do not enforce the laws we have that are designed to prevent predators, be they monstrous persons or monstrous corporations, from feeding on 'we the people'. Our laws are broken, and our regulators are co-opted by the regulated (violation of law in itself) but no one stands in front of a Judge for it. In the last decade trillions - yes, that's right, trillions of dollars have been stolen from us. But it is not our economic system that is corrupt, its the banking system that is a cancer at its heart.

What we need is laws and regulations that are enforced. That alone will fix our economic problems and go one hell of a long way toward fixing a good number of our social ills too.

[socialist_n_TN]

22. Disagree. De facto, if not de jure, what we have is what

capitalism always brings sooner or later. It's inevitable. Capitalism is like a Monopoly game in that the SYSTEM is set up to funnel all the wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

The only reason we had ANY controls on capitalism in the first place is because of a competing economic system in socialism. When the USSR fell, it just accelerated the deregulation that was already in place. The laws and regulations that were in place were derided and then erased or ignored because the capitalists had the money to BUY that derision, erasure and ignorance.

Capitalism concentrates money. Money buys the influence that handcuffs or buys off regulations and regulators. It's an inevitable cycle that's endemic in the system itself.

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. the greedy are rewarded by taking.

[Aerows]

2. The selfish

believe in selfishness above all other things. They are *required* to covet their neighbors things, wives etc. They know it's wrong, but chuckle glee-fully when ripping people off because it proves they are "superior".

In short, they celebrate in beating other people, not in triumphing for themselves and those they love.

[socialist_n_TN]

8. That's also system based......

Capitalism pushes the meme that the ones who have the most ARE superior. And alhtough the system sometimes gives lip service to "fair competition", it's ALWAYS been about the bottom line. And that means winning. The METHODS are subordinate to the end result of winning. Fair of unfair doesn't really matter IF the "unfair" are not punished.

In capitalism, the ones with the most money are considered "superior". It doesn't matter if they got that most money by inheritence, unfair business practices, or the WORST of outright theft (as long as it's not theft of other capitalists) it's OK as long as the end result gives you the most money.

[OneGrassRoot]

I agree with everything you've said, socialist_n_TN....

The system is rotten to the core.

:(

[Aerows]

18. I can declare myself of any party I wish to

and still see that it's humane to ensure that the most vulnerable among us get health care, enough food to survive, and have a political voice to ensure it.

[Aerows]

19. And you are completely right, just in case

you didn't think I thought so out of my replies.

When little children are allowed to starve in the street, and our veterans who protect this country face budget cuts to their health care, wouldn't a sane person call for birth control, and a lack of wars?

Yeah, I know, it makes no sense to me, either.

[Initech]

3. They're not rewarded, it's given to them.

[grasswire]

10. I've been working to start a small business in a "social enterprise" model...

...where all the profits are donated to certain programs in local public schools. Many people just can't get their mind around the fact that I do not want the profits -- that I want to donate them all after expenses that include a modest salary. The property owner of the site I wanted mocked my business plan and said "it's not normal!"

So I'm here to tell ya that the concept of social justice being more important than personal gain -- in business -- is not easily understood, or approved!

[OneGrassRoot]

11. I've been battling this for decades...

I've been a social entrepreneur for decades, long before it had a name, and -- like you -- people have responded to my ideas with a deer-in-the-headlights look.

You're right: People can't wrap their brains around it because we're entrenched in greed and selfishness.

So sad.

You might be interested in this online newspaper I'm testing, devoted to New Entrepreneurship:

http://www.scoop.it/t/the-new-entrepreneur

I'm determined to encourage people to open up to a new way of seeing and doing things. I may die trying, but so be it.

;)

[Aerows]

20. The US population

Would prefer that you take their life savings at gunpoint, than off a dollar to a desperate, starving human being.

[izquierdista]

12. Size has a lot to do with it

In small hunter gatherer tribes, which we humans have not evolved beyond, compassion and cooperation are the norm, and a greedy person is at a big disadvantage, sometimes to the point of being cast out of the group. In those tribes, the most generous person is often the most looked up to, because people know they can depend on him or her in times of trouble.

In small agricultural villages where people may not go to market more than once a week, the miser or hoarder is just thought a bit eccentric and there is no reason to shun him as long as everyone else can earn a living somehow. They engage in market exchanges that pretty much fit the axioms for what a free market should be.

In the very large villages that have developed as civilization turned into nation-states, the hoarder of capital has now become the boss, owning the factory that produces the goods and now the size of his pile depends directly on taking from the laborers. Where formerly social pressures would keep his greed in check, now he can buy his way out of it, buying priests to tell the people that his wealth is ordained from a higher power, buying politicians who will keep shoveling the profits of labor to him, and buying thugs to beat the crap out of those who would denounce him.

If you want to see where compassion and cooperation are the norm, go to a small village of subsistence farmers in the third world, one that is not sitting on some lucre coveted by multinationals, and you will find what you are looking for.

[OneGrassRoot]

13. Thank you. That's a perfect summary. :)

If we could get back to authentic grassroots communities, sincere interaction and engagement, sustainable living, cooperative local enterprises...perhaps we could find our Humanity once again.

A reverse of our "bigger is better" mentality espoused in this country.

[Boojatta]

14. "Gordon Gekko"

Gordon Gekko breaks up a company to get at the surplus in an over-funded pension plan. Typically, a functioning business is worth more than its assets. That's why bankruptcy law doesn't automatically force liquidation, but allows for the possibility of restructuring a business while it continues to function. Thus, breaking up a company to extract value isn't merely greedy. It's short-sighted.

However, this thread seems to have turned into a complaint that there exist large enterprises, owned by small numbers of people, that provide employment. In that case, it doesn't make much sense to complain about the liquidation of such an enterprise. If it's bad for such an enterprise to be liquidated, and for people to lose their jobs, then it's good for such an enterprise to be created, and for it to provide jobs.

[OneGrassRoot]

15. Gordon Gekko, in the mind of most people, symbolizes "greed is good"...

I, quite frankly, had no memory of the specifics of what his character did in that movie. I'd venture to say I'm far from alone.

His famous quote, "Greed is good," was why I brought up his name, because so many wanted to be just like him. Seems like they still do.

:hi:

[keroro gunsou]

21. the full quote...

just cause i'm a bit of a nit for these sort of things...

"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 U.S.A"

[OneGrassRoot]

29. Thanks. :) n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

16. I don't believe in liquidating them.........

I believe in nationalizing them for the production of goods for the commonwealth. That way nobody gets laid off and goods are still produced, probably at a lower cost. But then that's why I'm a socialist.

[hack89]

26. Why does socialism produce lower production costs?

not saying it won't but the connection is not obvious to me.

[socialist_n_TN]

30. Well basically, no profit motive.......

at least for a start. Medicare is sort of socialism and the administrative costs for it are something like 3%/4% and the care is, apparently, excellent. The private insurers spend (I think) something like 20% to 30% for administrative/advertising/profit.

Of course, the advertising that's spent to CONVINCE people to choose product A over product B is a HUGE outlay. A government owned industry would have FAR less advertising costs because it would only be used to let people know it was available, not try to convince them to actually USE the product.

These lower costs is the reason that the capitalists scream like stuck hogs when anybody even THINKS about a government entity taking a piece of what has in the past been "private". They HAVE to protect their profits. Government owned could be nonprofit.

[hack89]

32. What is your mechanism for innovation and growth?

for example, how does a entrepreneur fit into such a system - does the government provide seed money and guarantee a future buy out if successful?

[socialist_n_TN]

33. That's the way I would do it..............

but that's probably something that would have to be worked out. There are a lot of models of socialism. You've also got to look, IMO, to minimizing the disruption of changing the system.

One thing that I would think would be NON negotiable though. The "general welfare" industries would be run under the people's control so that NO one goes hungry or homeless, or without the basics of life.

[Boojatta]

34. Would you prohibit or impede the formation of new enterprises?

Which of the following is closest to your goal?

1. To nationalize some enterprises.

2. To nationalize all currently existing enterprises. Given that it will take some time to nationalize them, by the time that they have been nationalized, there might be new enterprises that aren't nationalized.

3. To ensure that, as of some moment, all enterprises existing after that moment will be nationalized enterprises.

[socialist_n_TN]

35. I, personally, wouldn't. I'd prefer direct worker ownership of

as many businesses as possible. I think that that would be the LEAST disruptive way to transition. The exception would be "general welfare" industries to start with and then move on to industries of an interstate nature.

I would also give government low (or no) interest loans to start new small enterprises. You get to keep the "no" interest part of it as long as it's a worker owned co-op.

[OneGrassRoot]

36. Direct worker ownership....

That's what worker-owned co-ops are, yet I get very little response when I try to discuss that here.

Is it the word co-op perhaps that turns people off, because they have a produce co-op in mind or something, do you think?

Or can progressives truly not be in favor of more worker-owned enterprises?

[socialist_n_TN]

37. I posted in your other OP about co-ops, but

to answer this specific question, I'll go here.

I think that on DU, you have a solid contingent of people who can't even CONCEIVE of any other business model that's not the hierarchical, owner/workers one. And DU is pretty much of a "leftish" forum, so I'm sure in the general population it's an even MORE alien concept.

However, that doesn't mean that general run of DUers don't understand it. In fact THIS forum has gotten a WHOLE lot more "socialistic" over the last year. But there's also a solid contingent of Classic Red left (of which I'm proud to consider myself one) where this model is a little too anarchistic for comfort.

That's why I keep stressing that this "Red Union" model of DIRECT worker ownership of means of production CANNOT be used for larger, interstate, or "general welfare" type industries. Those MUST be nationalized and run by the people represented by their government. Even the "market" model is tolerable only on a (relatively) micro scale. I'll consider the "market" when nobody's hungry or homeless in the world. Until then I want a demand economy that produces enough food and housing and clothing for the general welfare.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. The status quo needs souls to survive.

[treestar]

25. It gives them energy

They are motivated. That's what gives them an advantage. Along with lying and misrepresenting themselves.

[Cid_B]

27. The problem lies that the other side of the spectrum is unsustainable...

... without greed/desire eventually you have to many people taking and not enough people providing.

[OneGrassRoot]

28. I think we can have desire and drive...

without it being in excess, which is when it becomes greed.

Many have a great desire and drive to alleviate suffering. Why can't we create systems that reward the alleviation of suffering rather than the proliferation of suffering?

Imho, it's largely because it's been shoved down our throats that greed is good, that manipulation and taking advantage of others is strength, that cooperation is weakness.

Our priorities as a civilization are completely out of whack, and it's destroying us. And it will eventually destroy the descendants of those who currently HAVE, unless they're all going to live in a bubble.

:(

[socialist_n_TN]

31. Agreed. One thing that I like to say is that the

capitalists can't even save THEMSELVES, much less the rest of us.

Once again, it's a SYSTEM that's set up to acquire more and more. If you don't acquire, you're losing the game, but the more you acquire, especially now that resources are getting scarcer, the less there is for the rest of us. Eventually, we ALL go in the tank, even the capitalists, but because that outcome is down the road a ways (especially for them), it's not even considered.

[msider]

38. K&R