What is Greed and How Does it Affect Society?

[Jordan Joab]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

Just read an article about yet another sports athlete and a potential $50mill/year contract. Almost immediately the "He's greedy" comments began coming up.

So, what exactly is greed? Does greed apply/not apply depending on profession? Some people say greed is getting stuff you don't need to live, so if I buy a 50'' HDTV or go to college am I being greedy?

Perhaps there is no greed, just reverse-envy. I just don't get why some people are disgusted by someone rightfully commanding a large salary. To me, it makes no difference whether "Person X" earns $1 or $1mill if said person is not depriving me of what I need.

 

[porums]

read and learn that link by heart, you might have your own definition of greed

 

[JasonRox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed
So, what exactly is greed? Does greed apply/not apply depending on profession? Some people say greed is getting stuff you don't need to live, so if I buy a 50'' HDTV or go to college am I being greedy?

I have two TVs in my room. One 51 inch plasma for watching sports and movies and a 27 inch LCD to watch before bed because the 51 inch is too bright for night time TV.

 

[WarPhalange]

Does your 51" leave a negative shadow if you watch it too long?

 

[GCT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

Just read an article about yet another sports athlete and a potential $50mill/year contract. Almost immediately the "He's greedy" comments began coming up.

So, what exactly is greed? Does greed apply/not apply depending on profession? Some people say greed is getting stuff you don't need to live, so if I buy a 50'' HDTV or go to college am I being greedy?

Perhaps there is no greed, just reverse-envy. I just don't get why some people are disgusted by someone rightfully commanding a large salary. To me, it makes no difference whether "Person X" earns $1 or $1mill if said person is not depriving me of what I need.

People in the professional sports should demand more simply because of what they are worth ; their bosses are earning magnitudes more than them all because of the work their center attractions or their " irreplaceable piece of equipment " . Players aren't dumb as cows they know that they are all there is to this sports business ; 250 million dollars is short change compared to what the bosses behind the scenes are generating .

It's not greed rather a sense of equality .

 

[aquaregia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed
Just read an article about yet another sports athlete and a potential $50mill/year contract. Almost immediately the "He's greedy" comments began coming up.

Yeah, people are stupid. First of all it makes no sense to say "hes greedy", in this situation, since he is simply accepting an offer. He is apparently good, so the team offered him the money. So, do these people actually think that someone would refuse money for no apparent reason? Do they expect him to say "No, $50M is too much, just pay me $20M"? And why would he do that, its not like its going to go to charity otherwise, its going to go to marketing and stuff.

Secondly, greed is just a word. A word that is used to describe certain behaviors. A word which is apparently misused by those people who seem to associate money to greed even though it does not necessarily follow. There is no generally accepted definition of the word just like with almost any word. There is no definition that says: if the person does this for $X then they are greedy otherwise they are not, and for it to be a good definition, it would be necessary to draw the line at some exact point in terms of exactly how many dollars and in what exact situations it was considered greed and in which ones it was not.

 

[stickythighs]

I remember that baseball players with multi-million dollar incomes went on strike in 1994 because they weren't getting paid enough. Well, boo hoo hoo. Someone else can get out the violen, but I won't be playing it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I have two TVs in my room. One 51 inch plasma for watching sports and movies and a 27 inch LCD to watch before bed because the 51 inch is too bright for night time TV.

Greed is a terrible thing. We started out with a single 25" cathode-ray TV in the den. This was used by my wife for watching the Mom Channel except when my kids wanted to watch "The Lion King" for the 500th time so we slipped the tape in. I felt this was unfair, so I insisted we get another TV for me to watch the Dad Channel. I would have been satisfied with 25", but my wife said that as ruler of the house, I should have a bigger screen, so we got a 31". This didn't work out as I had hoped because as my kids got older, they wanted to watch the Daughter Channel and the Son Channel. So I got two more TV's for the kids, a 35" for her and 51" for him. Then "Monk" became popular. Everyone was divided on whether to watch their favorite channel, or Monk. So we bought a 102" tv for the living room. This almost worked, but for the fact that when walking from the den to the living room, there was a blind spot where we couldn't see any TV at all. That's when I got a flat panel TV for every wall in the house. This seemed to satisfy all needs except for my daughter's boyfriend. When he came over, none of the TV's was set to the Boyfriend Channel, so I got a few more TVs for him. Some of these are on the ceiling or on cabinet shelves. I got some TVs for the basement, attic, closets, garage and just to be safe, one more for the den. I got a few more still in boxes in case company comes over. Do you think I'm too greedy?

 

[rootX]

Greed is a terrible thing. We started out with a single 25" cathode-ray TV in the den. This was used by my wife for watching the Mom Channel except when my kids wanted to watch "The Lion King" for the 500th time so we slipped the tape in. I felt this was unfair, so I insisted we get another TV for me to watch the Dad Channel. I would have been satisfied with 25", but my wife said that as ruler of the house, I should have a bigger screen, so we got a 31". This didn't work out as I had hoped because as my kids got older, they wanted to watch the Daughter Channel and the Son Channel. So I got two more TV's for the kids, a 35" for her and 51" for him. Then "Monk" became popular. Everyone was divided on whether to watch their favorite channel, or Monk. So we bought a 102" tv for the living room. This almost worked, but for the fact that when walking from the den to the living room, there was a blind spot where we couldn't see any TV at all. That's when I got a flat panel TV for every wall in the house. This seemed to satisfy all needs except for my daughter's boyfriend. When he came over, none of the TV's was set to the Boyfriend Channel, so I got a few more TVs for him. Some of these are on the ceiling or on cabinet shelves. I got some TVs for the basement, attic, closets, garage and just to be safe, one more for the den. I got a few more still in boxes in case company comes over. Do you think I'm too greedy?

I think you are a liar (it is hard believe everything that's in bold) which is another terrible thing. And how's the boyfriend channel is different from the son channel?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think you are a liar (it is hard believe everything that's in bold)

Oh yeah? Well what about the Lion King 500 times thing?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Dont' be jealous of someone who makes $50 million, be jealous of the one who pays it out. Better yet, be jealous of Bill Gates and be done with it.

 

[rootX]

Oh yeah? Well what about the Lion King 500 times thing?

If a kid start watching Lion King at age of 0-0.5 and keep on watching it to 4-5...500 seems pretty reasonable estimate.

I was hoping to see something real and reasonable :shy: there when I started reading.. and so it looked pretty crazy when I reached the bold part!

 

[rootX]

So, what exactly is greed? Does greed apply/not apply depending on profession? Some people say greed is getting stuff you don't need to live, so if I buy a 50'' HDTV or go to college am I being greedy?

Perhaps there is no greed, just reverse-envy. I just don't get why some people are disgusted by someone rightfully commanding a large salary. To me, it makes no difference whether "Person X" earns $1 or $1mill if said person is not depriving me of what I need.

This is greed ...
http://ghostoftj.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/20060924-new-4-greed.jpg

 

[WarPhalange]

That's not greed. I'm sure he's letting them eat cake.

 

[JasonRox]

Greed is a terrible thing. We started out with a single 25" cathode-ray TV in the den. This was used by my wife for watching the Mom Channel except when my kids wanted to watch "The Lion King" for the 500th time so we slipped the tape in. I felt this was unfair, so I insisted we get another TV for me to watch the Dad Channel. I would have been satisfied with 25", but my wife said that as ruler of the house, I should have a bigger screen, so we got a 31". This didn't work out as I had hoped because as my kids got older, they wanted to watch the Daughter Channel and the Son Channel. So I got two more TV's for the kids, a 35" for her and 51" for him. Then "Monk" became popular. Everyone was divided on whether to watch their favorite channel, or Monk. So we bought a 102" tv for the living room. This almost worked, but for the fact that when walking from the den to the living room, there was a blind spot where we couldn't see any TV at all. That's when I got a flat panel TV for every wall in the house. This seemed to satisfy all needs except for my daughter's boyfriend. When he came over, none of the TV's was set to the Boyfriend Channel, so I got a few more TVs for him. Some of these are on the ceiling or on cabinet shelves. I got some TVs for the basement, attic, closets, garage and just to be safe, one more for the den. I got a few more still in boxes in case company comes over. Do you think I'm too greedy?

What about the Girlfriend Channel you *******!?

 

[lisab]

If a kid start watching Lion King at age of 0-0.5 and keep on watching it to 4-5...500 seems pretty reasonable estimate.

I was hoping to see something real and reasonable :shy: there when I started reading.. and so it looked pretty crazy when I reached the bold part!

That's what makes jimmysnyder's posts so hillarious...he can smoothly transition from real and reasonable to whacky and you don't realize you're in whacky until the end .

 

[JasonRox]

That's what makes jimmysnyder's posts so hillarious...he can smoothly transition from real and reasonable to whacky and you don't realize you're in whacky until the end .

Those kinds of posts happen all the time in other forums. Lots of the them make me laugh!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That's what makes jimmysnyder's posts so hillarious...he can smoothly transition from real and reasonable to whacky and you don't realize you're in whacky until the end.

Flattery will get you everywhere. Here is one who really knows what he is doing:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=TwaPoli.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1"

 

[neu]

To me, it makes no difference whether "Person X" earns $1 or $1mill if said person is not depriving me of what I need.

There's only so much wealth in the world. If person X earns $1,000,000 a year then what they earn over the average income has to be compensated by other poeple's income.

No-one needs $1,000,000 per year, it is surplus to requirement. The lifestyle it breeds is surplus to requirement. It is greed. If you think it isn't greedy to earn $1,000,000 a year then you need to reassess what you think a person's needs actually are.

I read an article by Poly Toynbee on the delusions of the high earners w.r.t the average income and lifestyle. It's incredible the ignorance that such sucessful people can posses to try and justify their exuberant lifestyle.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/aug/04/workandcareers.executivesalaries

In britain we have a situation where the top 10% of earners are taxed less than the bottom 10%. You can argue that is situation has arisen to try and lure big business to this country to benefit the economy. But then you have to ask, why do fat cats demand to pay less tax than the cleaners they employ?

To think I felt flashy buying a smoothie that wasn't in the reduced section of the supermarket the other day.

 

[mheslep]

...No-one needs $1,000,000 per year, it is surplus to requirement. The lifestyle it breeds is surplus to requirement. It is greed. If you think it isn't greedy to earn $1,000,000 a year then you need to reassess what you think a person's needs actually are.

Jimmy Snyder's TV budget is closing in on $1M. Absent these devices he risks marital and family disaster. Frankly, I think we need some ear marks in the federal budget to support him for the good of us all, as he's now too big to fail.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

To think I felt flashy buying a smoothie that wasn't in the reduced section of the supermarket the other day.

Isn't that surplus to requirement?

 

[Crosson]

It's incredible the ignorance that such sucessful people can posses to try and justify their exuberant lifestyle.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/aug/04/workandcareers.executivesalaries

Thank you for sharing that well written and informative article. I think that ignorant, rich, greedy people are the worse problem with the world today. The unexamined life is not worth living, and the unexamined greedy life is a liability for society that should be immediately terminated.

I like to live simply, and the computer/internet is my biggest 'optional' expense. When my (cheap) computer breaks and I can't do computational research or read journal articles, this is the main time when I curse the greedy people in society who buy a laptop for each of their kids, not so that they can learn, but so that the kid will keep busy posting text-speak to some myspace page. In a society that did not have it's head up it's arse, anyone who can pass an exam on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Computer_Programming" should always have at least minimally functional hardware long before the myspace kids have any!

I go shopping for non-food only a few times a year, but I know that many of my fellow Americans go shopping as an activity. They get cheap thrills from selecting merchandise at walmart, then they bring it home and put it in the closet 15 minutes later because it's just crap that they didn't need.

The problem is that entrepreneurs make too much crap that people don't need, and then use a portion of the profits to employer marketers to convince the consumers that they need the crap. I will try to illustrate this 'cycle of crap' in the economy by the following diagram, which is a heirarchy according to the cost of production:

********

Luxury Goods that are actually worth making e.g.
automobiles, electronics, etc

********Crap that no one needs
if the TV didn't tell them
to have it********

Base goods, food, clothing, etc********My contention is that the greedy capitalists are destroying society by putting to many resources into crap, because all they care about is making a profit. I think that advertising should be illegal, since this is the reason that people by crap they don't need. If there were no advertising, then entrepreneurs would have to resort to making things that people want intrinsically, which shockingly might be 'nothing' for certain people at certain times.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Thank you for sharing that well written and informative article. I think that ignorant, rich, greedy people are the worse problem with the world today. The unexamined life is not worth living, and the unexamined greedy life is a liability for society that should be immediately terminated.

I like to live simply, and the computer/internet is my biggest 'optional' expense. When my (cheap) computer breaks and I can't do computational research or read journal articles, this is the main time when I curse the greedy people in society who buy a laptop for each of their kids, not so that they can learn, but so that the kid will keep busy posting text-speak to some myspace page. In a society that did not have it's head up it's arse, anyone who can pass an exam on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Computer_Programming" should always have at least minimally functional hardware long before the myspace kids have any!

I go shopping for non-food only a few times a year, but I know that many of my fellow Americans go shopping as an activity. They get cheap thrills from selecting merchandise at walmart, then they bring it home and put it in the closet 15 minutes later because it's just crap that they didn't need.

The problem is that entrepreneurs make too much crap that people don't need, and then use a portion of the profits to employer marketers to convince the consumers that they need the crap. I will try to illustrate this 'cycle of crap' in the economy by the following diagram, which is a heirarchy according to the cost of production:

********

Luxury Goods that are actually worth making e.g.
automobiles, electronics, etc

********


Crap that no one needs
if the TV didn't tell them
to have it


********

Base goods, food, clothing, etc


********


My contention is that the greedy capitalists are destroying society by putting to many resources into crap, because all they care about is making a profit. I think that advertising should be illegal, since this is the reason that people by crap they don't need. If there were no advertising, then entrepreneurs would have to resort to making things that people want intrinsically, which shockingly might be 'nothing' for certain people at certain times.

Self-control.

 

[Crosson]

Self-control.

Too brief.

 

[neu]

Isn't that surplus to requirement?

That's why I felt flashy.

When using the phase "surplus to requirement" I mean surplus to what is necessary for comfortable living. A rich person will think that they need an income of above £100k to sustain a comfortable living, they are deluded.

Thank you for sharing that well written and informative article. I think that ignorant, rich, greedy people are the worse problem with the world today. The unexamined life is not worth living, and the unexamined greedy life is a liability for society that should be immediately terminated.

your welcome Crosson.

I agree that people buy a lot of stuff they don't need, but these industries employ people and supposedly pay tax, so in this respect a capitalist society is perhaps most capable of sustaining comfortable living for the most while also allowing for maximal greed.

This actually reminds me of another piece of journalism on advertising by Adam Curtis (The guy who did "the power of nightmares" and "the trap". He's kind of an earlier and better british version of micheal moore). It's called the century of the self it's a documentary about how the Freud family basically discovered the power of the subconscious in advertising.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151

 

[rootX]

When using the phase "surplus to requirement" I mean surplus to what is necessary for comfortable living. A rich person will think that they need an income of above £100k to sustain a comfortable living, they are deluded.

They are taking risks when investing their money, so they do deserve large profits.

We would still be in caves if we had no wants/were satisfied.

@Crosson:
You seem to be envious of young kids
Wouldn't you have done same things with your laptop if you were a kid now?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That's why I felt flashy.

When using the phase "surplus to requirement" I mean surplus to what is necessary for comfortable living. A rich person will think that they need an income of above £100k to sustain a comfortable living, they are deluded.

Why don't you feel flashy now? It sounds like you used to think that expensive smoothies were surplus to requirement but after you read this article about how ignorant rich people are, you have changed your mind.

Where would you draw the line? Somewhere between yachts and smoothies, or somewhere between smoothies and safe drinking water?

 

[rewebster]

those darn 'inventors' are the problem!

if one of them didn't 'invent' the idea that they could create their own fire, we'd all be better off...after that everyone wanted their 'own' fire...

 

[neu]

Why don't you feel flashy now? It sounds like you used to think that expensive smoothies were surplus to requirement but after you read this article about how ignorant rich people are, you have changed your mind.

For a start the smoothie statement was a joke. You thought wrong.

Where would you draw the line? Somewhere between yachts and smoothies, or somewhere between smoothies and safe drinking water?

I don't propose that a line should be drawn such that the purchase of one product is excessive, and the purchase of another reasonable. The whole picture is important. I simply disagree with persistent spending without consideration.

They are taking risks when investing their money, so they do deserve large profits.

Not necessarily true. For example typically hedge funders charge "2 and 20" to their clients, i.e. 2% on the investment amount up front and 20% on profit. So if they advise a client who invests 1 million and makes a loss, the hedge funders make 20K.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't propose that a line should be drawn such that the purchase of one product is excessive, and the purchase of another reasonable. The whole picture is important. I simply disagree with persistent spending without consideration.

So if I buy a single yacht, that's ok, but if I buy a hundred TVs I'm greedy.

 

[neu]

So if I buy a single yacht, that's ok, but if I buy a hundred TVs I'm greedy.

if you're a pirate buy a yacht, if you're Dixons buy 100 TVs.

You think that buying a hundred TVs isn't excessive? What is your point? It seems as though your only concern is to try to find holes in everything I say regardless of content. Do you have an opinion?

 

[rewebster]

Oprah bought about 350 cars not too long ago

(well, she may not have paid full price for them though)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It seems as though your only concern is to try to find holes in everything I say regardless of content. Do you have an opinion?

This one. Don't be jealous of someone who makes $50 million, be jealous of the one who pays it out. Better yet, be jealous of Bill Gates and be done with it.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Too brief.

Because I'm not greedy.

 

[mheslep]

This one. Don't be jealous of someone who makes $50 million, be jealous of the one who pays it out. ...

Or the tort lawyer who swoops into take it all away from the payer.

 

[Chi Meson]

Pardon me if someone already touched on this point. It seemed obvious to me but I didn't see it stated yet:

Greed involves taking things that you do not need in a manner that denies the access to things that others do need. The gross accumulation of TVs by Mr. Snyder, now approaching the net worth of Bulgaria, excessive as it is does not deny the acquisition of a telly to anyone else. Nor does it deny food or other necessities to others. In fact. Jimmy's television disorder is an actual economic stimulus increasing the profits and paychecks of store managers and sales clerks.

Ditto for Oprah: if she buys a lot of cars (I do not know the truth to this, but IF she does) then her wealth is turned back into the community and nation. Sometimes purchasing products will do more good than giving money to charity. In large-scale economics, greed is hard to pin down. Some corporate CEOs are greedy, I'm sure of it. But I can not say for sure which ones.

Greed is much more obvious in small-scale examples: the people who ran the 10k "fun run" at the Hyannis Marathon last spring, and took all the food (all the chowder, all the drinks, all the coffee, all the chips, and most of the bananas and bagels, eating a bunch, then taking multiple extras and packing them into their bags) before 3/4 of the marathoners even finished, thereby leaving my exhausted wife without any of the expected post-marathon goodies...

Those were some greedy b******s.