The concept of "Greed"

So, the OWS crowd trying to outlaw greed and other nonsense got me thinking about the concept of "greed" and its validity. "Greed" is defined as excessive desire for material values. Excessive relative to what standard? With life as a standard of value there cannot be an excessive desire for life or any other rationally chosen material value that supports it. So, does it pertain then to the irrationally chosen material values? For instance, when someone has enough wealth for a lifetime but chooses to keep producing wealth to acquire, let's say real estate not for business purposes but to watch it accumulate. Any thoughts?

Post 1

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 - 9:20pm

I think the socialists usually mean "Taking more than one deserves". One get acquire more than one deserves through various means such as: hard work, "luck", monopoly over IP, undercutting your competition, or various forms of initiation of force. Generally a socialists believes that everyone should have an equal income, hence a lot of people would be considered greedy by them.

Post 2

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 - 10:54pm

Well I for one would like to see that socialists actually get what they deserve...

Less than nothing.
(Edited by Jules Troy on 12/07, 10:56pm)

Post 3

Thursday, December 8, 2011 - 4:17pm

But if we leave aside the mess of a socialist mind and look at "greed" objectively, is it valid concept? Does it relate to reality?

So, to build upon what I said, the rationally chosen values cannot be excessive because one cannot have too much life. Irrationally chosen values can be excessive, but because those values really do not relate to the value of life, any amount of those values is excessive.

Therefore, is "greed" the desire for irrational values? If values are contingent upon the valuer and their life then no one except that person can know if what they desire is "greed" or not. Except there is one particular case, in which any rational individual can know that someone else is greedy: taking values by force.

So, "greed" is much more of a desire to deprive others of their values by force then a peaceful desire for irrational values. Therefore, to protest the "greed" there is no need for the OWS supporters to march on any street, they just need to look in the mirror.

(Edited by Sam West on 12/08, 4:19pm)

Post 4

Thursday, December 8, 2011 - 5:03pm

I don't believe in the concept of greed as socialists term the concept.
Greed is a word made "dirty" in an attempt to foist unearned guilt upon those who work harder than most, have more ability drive and ambition or any combination of which will produce superior earning potential than those around him.

It is yet another word used in an attempt to aquire the unearned by those least deserving.

To me greed is a virtue well earned by sticking to my other virtues of self interest,competence and pride held by superior values produced by hard work coupled by expertise learned from years of experience.

There can be no limit of wealth imposed by those men who earned it.
Men and women of the mind that drive innovation and superior value should never have limits..ever.

Yes I am a capitalist and I apologize to no one.

Post 5

Monday, December 12, 2011 - 6:51am

The socialist/progressive movement was born of frustrated religionists seeking a more aggressively muscular religion. Classical passive religion was not making enough 'progress' by forever meekly asking; they wanted to 'tell' their fellow tribesman. They wanted to fully enter the political fray, unimpeded by that pesky 1st Amendment.

See Scott Nearing, turn of last century, "Social Religion." Published twice; once as a crusading religionist, later as a crusading socialist. Same book, same title, same foundation.

And yet, as the socialists transformed their classical religion into a stealth religion, they shed some inconvenient baggage along the way, such as, 'thou shall not covet.'

Greed -- taking more than what is deserved-- is bad. But greed for what others have-- coveting what others have -- is a new virtue, a birthright, and the foundation for fully half of modern politics.

In order to sell 'covet' as a new virtue, it is necessary to sell the myth of The One Pie World, and these closet religionists have been selling that for over a century.

The model of The One Pie World is so appealing because it is so simple to understand. And, let's face it; children love pie, as do many adults. It's delicious. Who doesn't love pie? Especially around the holidays.

It might be a reasonably accessible to children model for something called 'The Economy", but is it a reasonable adult model for our economies?

Of course I don't think so. But so many of our fellow tribesmen do.

regards,
Fred

Post 6

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 7:10am

Sam,

Good question. The Greek word for greed is "pleonexia" and here is an excerpt from the Wiki-entry for that word:

Pleonexia, sometimes called pleonexy, originates from the Greek language �� and is a philosophical concept employed both in the New Testament and in writings by Plato and Aristotle. It roughly corresponds to greed, covetousness, or avarice, and is strictly defined as "the insatiable desire to have what rightfully belongs to others" ...

So the issue is that greed was originally intended to refer to what rightfully belongs to others (making it just like covetousness), and all that's left for us to do is to find out what rightfully belongs to others. Socialists say that nothing rightfully belongs to others and capitalists say that everything that others have earned ... rightfully belongs to them.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/16, 3:17pm)

Post 7

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 7:44am

Interestingly, the concept of greed applies retrospectively, across the 2 political poles of socialism and capitalism. To a socialist, capitalists appear greedy because it is assumed that their accumulated wealth belongs to others. To a capitalist, a socialist appears greedy because of the fact that they want what rightfully belongs to others.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/16, 7:45am)

Post 8

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 5:44pm

Thanks, Ed!

I did have the problem of reconciling the two distinct concepts that "greed" seemed to designate: the pursuit of irrational values and the desire for values that belong to others by right. And, I now agree that it is the latter.

Post 9

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 6:09pm

"The model of The One Pie World is so appealing because it is so simple to understand."

Yes, and also�I think there is�a widespread misconception about the�"distribution of income". How many do you think perceive it not as the statistical term that characterizes occurrence of numerical income�values by quintiles�but as some powerful group at the top actually taking the pie and slicing it according to their interests?

As many products and services become cheaper even the people at the very bottom whose income did not grow at all still can afford more than ever. I wish there was an objective way of measuring how the real people are doing instead of just measuring how much they make or comparing that to the arbitrarily set "poverty line".

Unfortunately, bursting of the credit bubble that is yet to happen will cause a lot of people to get poorer than they ever experienced in their lives and that fact will play into the socialists hands.

(Edited by Sam West on 12/16, 6:10pm)

(Edited by Sam West on 12/16, 6:11pm)

Post 10

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 6:14pm

Sam wrote, "Unfortunately, bursting of the credit bubble that is yet to happen will cause a lot of people to get poorer than they ever experienced in their lives and that fact will play into the socialists hands."

That is sad but true. It is one of my nightmares that we will get a fiscally conservative Senate, House and White House and they will start putting good reforms in place and start lifting regulations... and then the economy will blow up. Not from what they are doing, but because it wasn't started earlier. And the socialists will say it was from deregulating and from capitalist greed.

Post 11

Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 7:01am

Sam:

Yes, and also I think there is a widespread misconception about the "distribution of income". How many do you think perceive it not as the statistical term that characterizes occurrence of numerical income values by quintiles but as some powerful group at the top actually taking the pie and slicing it according to their interests?

Distribution of Income and 'quintile' abuse is a favorite chestnut of mine.

In one of my favorite economic talks of all time, Dr. Laura D'Andrea Tyson, in Nov 1997 at UCal/Berk, spoke on CSpan about economic planning during the Clinton years.

Here

In it, at one point, she admits, basically, 'Nothing we did.' She also discusses the relative ineffectiveness (by the numbers)of the 3.6% surcharge on incomes over $250,000/yr in explaining the surplus.

But one of the other highlights, for me, was the Q&A after the talk, when one of the local Berkloids laments the '8 or 9 to 1' ratio of upper quintile to lower quintile income in America. When I heard that, I nearly fell out of my seat.

Imagine the following thought experiment: assume incomes are purely uniformly 'distributed' from 0 to MAX_INCOME. That is, exactly the same number of folks earn 0 as earn $1/yr as earn $2/yr as earn....MAX_INCOME/yr. A totally flat 'distribution' of income. (How? Assume that 'income' is assigned by a perfectly random income generator, and is assigned to each of us as we leave HS.)

What will the ratio of the upper quintile to lower quintile be in this hypothetical world?

The average income of the lowest quintile will be 10% of MAX_INCOME, because the income of the lowest quintile ranges from 0 to 20%.

The average income of the upper quintile will be 90% of MAX_INCOME, because the income of the upper quintile ranges from 80 to 100%.

The 'quintile income' ratio would be exactly ... 9:1.

And so, my laughter at the Berkloid's lament. Apparently, there is inherent danger to something called "S"ociety when the ratio of a hypothetical non-entity called 'quintile income' is compared across hypothetical quintiles, and when this number reaches "about 8 or 9 to 1" our quintile income sensors(they are located in the middle ear, hidden behind the Incus--named for its ability to magically sense the ratio of quintile incomes-- literally, 'the income of us')start to flappergas.

And when we do the same exercise for decimiles, we get a ratio of 95/5 = 19:1!!!!!

And percentiles? Holy Percentile Crap! A whopping 99.5/.5 = 199:1! OH THE HUMANITY! OH, THE TYRANNY OF ... magnitude. As long as we 'allow' incomes to vary at all, even if we 'enforced' this totally blind/random distribution of incomes-- that, relative to a Bell curve had more share in the lower quintile by having more poor people than a Bell curve-- we are stuck with the consequences of ... simple magnitude. The only solution to this 'problem' of 'maldistribution' is to enforce INCOME=SAME FOR EVERYBODY...including my 18 yr old son with WS. Ie, the enforced abolition of quintiles...

Seriously.

I have been asking the same question for probably 30 years, and not a single redistribution warrior has ever been able to provide an answer: name even one thing that any human being in existence does primarily, secondarily, or 'at all' acting as a quintile. I will settle even for totally made up things, like, from a lost episode of Star Trek. Anything. Anything at all.

I beg of them....name just one thing that 'a quintile(with its income)' does in any of our economies---acting as a quintile. Please. After 30 years of asking, will one of these redistributuion warriors finally shut me up with an actual answer to this should be simple question, so that I can finally see the very first hint of the basis for their entire premise?

I looked at every one of my 1040s, and they all say INDIVIDUAL at the top. It took a while, because some of them were filed away. The word is not even even hidden. Big letters. Every one of them. Right at the top of the 1040. The IRS has lots of forms, and not one of them is filled out or directed at something called a 'quintile.'

Quintiles do not exist in our economies. They are mythical creatures of mathematical categorization that 'exist' only on the spreadsheets at Census.

I even try to help them with their argument, as in the following:

It is as if, once a year, we all show up to get into one of five freight trains, to have our freight train income counted(for some reason associated with abuse of politics.)

And then we get off the trains and go back to our lives. Next year, we don't all get back on the same trains, and by and large, over the course of our lives, we move from train to train.

Except for one glaring fact; we don't even get on the trains. The trains don't exist. We don't even do THAT as members of something called a 'quintile.'

And so, I'm not of much help to their cause.

Why does the quintile distribution of anything matter to anybody in the least? I mean, assuming that I was making up that whole Incus thing?

All it would take would be one example of a quintile acting as an economic entity.

Just one.

One.

30 years, and still waiting, but not holding my breath.

regards,
Fred

Post 12

Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 7:51am

Sam,

I wish there was an objective way of measuring how the real people are doing instead of just measuring how much they make or comparing that to the arbitrarily set "poverty line".

Well, there is (sort of). It's called Private Product Remaining (PPR) and it was developed by economist, Murray Rothbard, in order to provide a more realistic measure of human prosperity than Gross National Product (GNP). To get to it, you subtract cost of government from the Gross Private Product (GPP), leaving you with a realistic number for how much wealth -- how much purchasing power -- stays in the hands of real people. Here is an excerpt from a journal article on it:

Suppose there were a very simply economy, in which farmers produced 1,000 bushels of wheat and the government collected 200 bushels in taxes to support workers whose output was not sold to the farmers on the market. GNP would be 1,200 bushels (private output plus costs of producing government output), GPP would be 1,000 bushels, and PPR would be 800 bushels. Indeed, 800 bushels of wheat is all that remains in the hands of the farmers who produced it, which would be the definition of PPR in this case.

Note how, in Table 1 of the article, real PPR was measured for the years 1947-1983 (column on far right) -- standardized to the purchasing power of the 1972 U.S. dollar. It measures real wealth. Total real wealth in the U.S. -- i.e., the ability for the citizenship to purchase things -- was $317 Billion in 1947 and peaked at $806 Billion in 1979 (that's what $806 Billion could have bought you in 1972). The primary reason that real wealth in America dropped after that is because of the latent effects of the socialist policies of then-president, Jimmy Carter. By 1983, US citizens still had $753 Billion dollars in purchasing power (though still more than twice what their grandparents had in 1947).

Purchasing power per-working-person is listed in Table 2. In 1947, American workers had $6,172 worth of purchasing power (in terms of what you could buy in 1972). In 1979, they had $9,719 (just over 50% more than their grandparents had in 1947). By 1983, workers still had $8,859 (just under 50% more than their grandparents had).

It'd be interesting to carry the numbers from 1983 up until today. The method would be the same and it's just up to someone to do the relevant calculations. My guess is that you would find that real wealth per-working-person increased up to about 2002 or so, and then started decreasing after we got the effects of electing a leftist NeoCon (GW Bush) into office. Of course, we got the really-heavy effects of this in the voters' response -- which was to elect a transparent socialist rather than a closeted one.

Ed

Post 13

Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 7:52am

It's been a few years since I listened to that Dr. Laura D'Andrea Tyson talk. I have the original VHS tape at home, that I ordered from CSpan, but it is also on line for free now(see link above.)

It still stands up as one of the most remarkable economic talks ever.

The first half hour is interesting in terms of her disclosure of process, but her disclosures from about 37:00 onward are just ... staggering.

She talks about the impact of tax rates on revenues.

She talks about growing income inequality(and is questioned about it in the Q&A by one of the Berkloids.)

She talks about the failure of the Clinton Administration to pass its version of a 'Stimulus Plan' back then.

This is a revealing and important talk, especially when you consider who she is and was in the Clinton Administration.

I can't recommend this talk highly enough. It is so incredibly relevant today.

The Q&A between about 1:01:00 and 1:03:00 is where the Berkloid poses the "8 or 9 to 1" quintile question...and to her credit, she pretty much shoots it down as having no economic signficiance; she argues that solutions based on constraining the upper quintile simply to control disparity have no economic basis, and that instead, the focus should be on 'what is our standard for what is acceptable at the low end' in terms of basic health and living conditions. She argues that the way you address that is through 'education' and increasing opportunities.

This is the way that the non-insane Left in America used to argue these issues, as recently as 15 years ago.

I -love- this dry bit of CSpan from 15 years ago.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 12/17, 8:04am)

Post 14

Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 12:44pm

Thank you for the link, Fred!

And, Ed, if I understood the calculation correctly it does not even count that now people can afford much more for a fixed amount of labor than any time in the past due to developing technology and increased productivity.

My point is that people need to know that when the economic crisis gets worse they will still be doing better than any time in history. I am afraid though that the panic will hit and result in much more socialist system that will kill us off for sure.

Post 15

Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 2:22pm

Sam,

Good point. If you want to look into this some more, I suggest Bjorn Lomborg's book: The Skeptical Environmentalist as a starting point. Regarding measuring human welfare, it is one of the most heavily referenced books in existence. Wait, that didn't sound right. What I meant to say is that the book's reference section is one of the largest and broadest around (almost 3000 external references).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/17, 2:24pm)

Post 16

Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 10:38am

I used the word 'flappergas' to describe the response of a non-existing sense organ to a non-existing economic entity(the ratio of quintile distributions of anything.)

I did not define the word 'flappergas.' It is alarmingly clost to 'flappergast,' but that is not important in the least. So it is necessary to imagine, from context, what the word 'flappergas' might mean.

My position is, it is far easier to imagine the meaning of a non-existing word from that context than it is to imagine the economic actions of the non-existing entity 'quintile,' and so, is totally appropriate to a discussion of the importance of the quintile distributions of ... anything.

Do not look behind the Incus(an actual bone in the middle ear)because there are no sense organs located there that sense the ratio of quintile income.

We don't need such sensory organs because such entities do not actual exist as economic actors in our economies.

They exist as economic actors in the same place that also made-up unicorns exist; the areas of our fertile imaginations reserved for fantasy.

We can define a unicorn; it is a horse with a big old horn in the middle of its forehead, and it can fly. We cannot, however, point to an actual unicorn as an entity in the world, as an actor, nor would we survive for long referring to unicorns in our political/economic arguments.

We can define a quintile as a mathematical concept. We cannot, however, point to an actual quintile as an entity in the world, as an economic actor, and yet, half of the tribe has made a living referring to quintiles as actual economic actors in our political/economic arguments.

Based on...? What?

If you actually ever get a Shorty Reich or Stuttering Barney Frank or similar to issue forth on 'quintile distributions,' be sure to tie yourself down to something securely fastened to the earth, because the hand waving will be intense.

regards,
Fred

Post 17

Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 11:52am

Fred,

I was cracking up the whole time I was reading your post. Did you see both Reich and Frank on ABC this morning? He stood up and jokingly asked if he looked like the big government to people. Everybody laughed.

I was disgusted by this reaction from the audience. We are on the brink of a huge crisis and they laugh at the 3rd grade jokes.

Rand and Peikoff pointed out that the American society has the bad epistemology problem. Without having the correct epistemology it is impossible to prove or agree on anything. People rather be entertained by idiotic jokes than figure out what the truth is.

Even among my intelligent friends no one knows why some concepts are false or arbitrary and so is every conclusion based on those. I was there 6 months ago before I came across the Objectivism. And, even Rand made the epistemology really easy to understand, how do we get people to actually start thinking about it? I think her answer was to just start speaking out. Once there is enough people the subject will be harder and harder to avoid. I guess this is what this website is for.
(Edited by Sam West on 12/18, 12:02pm)

Post 18

Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 7:22pm

Sam:

Yes, I watched that with disbelief because...

Shorty Reich looks exactly like Big Government to me.

Shorty Reich was head of the Dept Of Labor in the mid-90s when an IRS field agent showed up at my office a few days before X-Mas to audit my profit and pension sharing plans, to make sure I wasn't screwing over my non-existing employees, I assumed. But that wasn't why she was there.

In response to Al Gore's 'Reinventing Government' initiative, every cabinet department had to come up with a 'metric' to prove what a great job they were doing for America taxpayers.

As head of the DoL, Shorty Reich and his fellow ratcake scum came up with the following metric: the total dollar value of all small business pension plans that were disallowed over Mickey Mouse 5500 'information only' return irregularities(like missed filing dates due to deliberately convoluted instructions.)

I am and was then a sole employee self-employed "S" Corp contractor(in fact, since I was 26--over 30 years.) I established two plans back in the early 90's to plan for my own retirement. I paid a CPA to dot the i's and cross the t's and file the 5500's every year. I have the statutory notices to my non-existing employees hanging in my office.

So, the IRS Agent spends some time going over my records, then tells me that I am technically in violation. She said I first filed a year later than I was supposed to file, and that first 'information only' return was now five years late. I showed her the written instructions for 5500, that clearly say 'do not need to file information only 5500 returns until plan assets exceed $X.' And, my plan assets did not exceed $X until the year that I first filed.

And she says, "Yes, but yours is a 'Top Heavy' Plan, which has separate rules," and sure enough, she shows me on P183 or whatever "...unless yours is a Top Heavy Plan, in which case, you must file no matter what the amount in your plan is."

Now, a 'Top Heavy' Plan is one in which more than 50% of plan assets are held by the corp officers/management or whatever, and I tell her, "50%? There is only one officer who is also the only employee and that is me, and as the sole employee of the Corp I hold 100% of the plan assets."

And she says, "Yes, but the IRS regards folks like you as running 'Top Heavy' Plans." (??? And not adequately sharing our own pension assets with ...ourselves?)

So I ask, what are the consequences? And she says, 'Well, what we are supposed to do is charge you a daily fee for every day you file the 'information only' return late, and you are five years late on thise first returns(I had two plans, a profit sharing and a money purchase plan.) Plus, your plans are supposed to be ruled non-conforming, and you must refile 5 years of Corporate and Personal returns with those plan assets reclassified as normal income. You owe back taxes and penalties and interest.

The amount would have been far in excess of the current value of the plans. In fact, the amount would have been far in excess of my net worth. I'd have been ruined by this.

And she says, "And you and I both know this is total nonsense, but this is exactly what IRS management has been instructing us field agents to go out and do, to round up all the small businesses that have tripped over this very issue and shut you down. But we IRS agents are largely refusing to carry out these orders, because none of us want to look another human being in the eyes and tell them they are ruined over Mickey Mouse nonsense like this. It is being called 'The IRS Street Revolt,' and management is pissed, because the orders are coming down from on high but few field agents want any part of it.'

She told me not to worry about it, she wasn't reporting anything. I was clean.

And -that- is who I see when I see Shorty Riech and his little ratcake fangs. That was Dec 1995, and the Erah of Big Guvmint wasn't going down easy. If it wasn't for the decency of IRS field agents, a lot of folks like me would have been futily driving airplanes into IRS government buildings.

The IRS Street Revolt didn't get a lot of press. But these radical Marxists learned their lesson, I suspect, and the next time they pull this crap, they will make sure that the IRS field agents sent out to carry out policy are staffed by folks not so unwilling to be like those once Nazi guards just following orders.

This is America, believe it or not.

regards,
Fred

PS: What does DoL have to do with Treasury/IRS? They jointly share regulation of pension plans, with the IRS doing the close-in wetwork.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 12/18, 7:28pm)

Post 19

Monday, December 19, 2011 - 7:34am