It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Greed inherintly bad, good, or both

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

but again, the unions were much stronger back then, and the minimum wage really hasn't come close to meeting the inflation rate and for many americans their wages have actually gone down. I kind of get the impression that if left alone, the business sector would be more than happy to transform our country to the point where our waterways were as polluted as india and we'd all be wearing respirators when we went outside. our workers would be making a dollar a day and we'd be hearing about buildings collasping on them on a monthly basis.

The town I grew up in had a wonderful large apple orchard. My husband was driving truck and made a delivery to the company that used to buy alot of the apples that this orchard produced. The delivery was apple juice concentrate from some asian company. He asked the guy who was taking the shipment why on earth they were having it shipped half way around the world when there were plenty of apples in the area. Well, come to find out, the gov't was giving them a nice tax break for having at least a part of their product imported, those trade deals work so great!! Much of the land that that orchard was on was sold, and much of what is left is left unattended. Many of the workers were migrant, or us kids in the summer. We didn't make that much, we weren't unionized, and it wasn't any pro-labor laws that killed those jobs....
it was gov't trade deals, done on the behalf of their business buddies that killed them!!! It was greed on both ends of the deal. You can blame unions all you want, but then, you are missing a pretty big part of the picture and you can wipe out the unions and the pro-labor laws entirely and all you will end up with is a country that resembles china and india with it's pollution, it's low near slave labor, and it's poverty. You can gripe about the socialist programs that are there to help prop up the poor (many of whom are working, just not getting paid enough to live), but then you are turning a blind eye to those companies that are hiding their profits in offshore accounts while you and the rest of the taxpayers are footing much of the bill for their workforce! And neither of these strategies will address the main problem which is that the gov't and big business are walking hand in hand, each benefiting tremendously from their alliance while we the taxpayers treated as the hosts of their parasitic nature.
we've lost our capitalistic economy a long time ago, and we are not socialistic. we are closer to being facist with business and gov't merged into one working for their own benefits.
and, all those socialist programs you keep griping about, well, they weren't all that needed until the robber barons and their banker friends managed to suck all the wealth out of the nation and well, left us in pretty much the same position we are in now. our economy will die if the next generation cannot get out of mom and dad's home and begin building their own lives.




posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Economically speaking, I don't blame unions for organizing and I don't defend corporations for accepting subsidies.

These are simply observations, economics is not concerned with morality and can make no value judgements.

It simply is what it is.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Its not good, but it not bad ether.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I find nothing wrong with being financially successful or viable just like being poor doesn't mean you are somehow more noble then someone with money.

Rich and poor, greedy and non-greedy are capable of both wonderful and terrible acts so I think it is hard to say that greed is either good or bad..it is just different based on the person.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Edumakated

I have to ask this. If it's unions that are bad for business and remove the lack the motive for profit and good service, then why is it that we had better service, a better economy, and healthier businesses when the unions were strong?

now days we have companies who's main business is to buy out smaller companies, loot them into bankruptcy and they enjoy an abundance of profits... Their greed often results in the loss of jobs, and less competition in the markets. They are very profit driven, very innovative as to how to get that profit, but well, they have the moral integrity that probably makes lucifer envious.
when steve jobs created apple, his main motivation was not greed, it was something much more. he had a dream, that he wanted bring into reality. He created, he didn't destroy. His goal wasn't to destroy microsoft and other competition, he was busy creating his dream to worry much about them.






Unions are monopolistic behavior by employees. They seek to crush competition for employment. Unions artificially increase wages beyond their worth in the free market. Historically, unions have been just as corrupt as the corporations. This is not to say that unions are entirely bad, but much of what unions do is protect the weak employees from being replaced by stronger employees.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Edumakated

I have to ask this. If it's unions that are bad for business and remove the lack the motive for profit and good service, then why is it that we had better service, a better economy, and healthier businesses when the unions were strong?

now days we have companies who's main business is to buy out smaller companies, loot them into bankruptcy and they enjoy an abundance of profits... Their greed often results in the loss of jobs, and less competition in the markets. They are very profit driven, very innovative as to how to get that profit, but well, they have the moral integrity that probably makes lucifer envious.
when steve jobs created apple, his main motivation was not greed, it was something much more. he had a dream, that he wanted bring into reality. He created, he didn't destroy. His goal wasn't to destroy microsoft and other competition, he was busy creating his dream to worry much about them.


Unions are monopolistic behavior by employees. They seek to crush competition for employment. Unions artificially increase wages beyond their worth in the free market. Historically, unions have been just as corrupt as the corporations. This is not to say that unions are entirely bad, but much of what unions do is protect the weak employees from being replaced by stronger employees.


This is one that I was surprised about myself.

I can easily accept that a monopoly position does not necessarily result in monopoly prices but, according to Mises, restriction of labor competition and monopoly prices are not the same.



It is customary to characterize labor-union policies as monopolistic schemes aiming at the substitution of monopoly wage rates for competitive wage rates. However, as a rule labor unions do not aim at monopoly wage rates. A union is intent upon restricting competition on its own sector of the labor market in order to raise its wage rates. But restriction of competition and monopoly price must not be confused. The characteristic feature of monopoly prices is the fact that the sale of only a part p of the total supply P available nets higher proceeds than the sale of P. The monopolist earns a monopoly gain by withholding P - p from the market. It is not the height of this gain that marks the monopoly price situation as such, but the purposive action of the monopolists in bringing it about. The monopolist is concerned with the employment of the whole stock available. He is equally interested in every fraction of this stock. If a part of it remains unsold, it is his loss. Nonetheless he chooses to have a part unused because under the prevailing configuration of demand it is more advantageous for him to proceed in this way. It is the peculiar state of the market that motivates his decision. The monopoly which is one of the two indispensable conditions of the emergence of monopoly prices may be--and is as a rule--the product of an institutional interference with the market data. But these external forces do not directly result in monopoly prices. Only if a second requirement is fulfilled is the opportunity for monopolistic action set.


I am still digesting these various aspects of interventionism.




posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Edumakated

I have to ask this. If it's unions that are bad for business and remove the lack the motive for profit and good service, then why is it that we had better service, a better economy, and healthier businesses when the unions were strong?

now days we have companies who's main business is to buy out smaller companies, loot them into bankruptcy and they enjoy an abundance of profits... Their greed often results in the loss of jobs, and less competition in the markets. They are very profit driven, very innovative as to how to get that profit, but well, they have the moral integrity that probably makes lucifer envious.
when steve jobs created apple, his main motivation was not greed, it was something much more. he had a dream, that he wanted bring into reality. He created, he didn't destroy. His goal wasn't to destroy microsoft and other competition, he was busy creating his dream to worry much about them.


Unions are monopolistic behavior by employees. They seek to crush competition for employment. Unions artificially increase wages beyond their worth in the free market. Historically, unions have been just as corrupt as the corporations. This is not to say that unions are entirely bad, but much of what unions do is protect the weak employees from being replaced by stronger employees.


This is one that I was surprised about myself.

I can easily accept that a monopoly position does not necessarily result in monopoly prices but, according to Mises, restriction of labor competition and monopoly prices are not the same.



It is customary to characterize labor-union policies as monopolistic schemes aiming at the substitution of monopoly wage rates for competitive wage rates. However, as a rule labor unions do not aim at monopoly wage rates. A union is intent upon restricting competition on its own sector of the labor market in order to raise its wage rates. But restriction of competition and monopoly price must not be confused. The characteristic feature of monopoly prices is the fact that the sale of only a part p of the total supply P available nets higher proceeds than the sale of P. The monopolist earns a monopoly gain by withholding P - p from the market. It is not the height of this gain that marks the monopoly price situation as such, but the purposive action of the monopolists in bringing it about. The monopolist is concerned with the employment of the whole stock available. He is equally interested in every fraction of this stock. If a part of it remains unsold, it is his loss. Nonetheless he chooses to have a part unused because under the prevailing configuration of demand it is more advantageous for him to proceed in this way. It is the peculiar state of the market that motivates his decision. The monopoly which is one of the two indispensable conditions of the emergence of monopoly prices may be--and is as a rule--the product of an institutional interference with the market data. But these external forces do not directly result in monopoly prices. Only if a second requirement is fulfilled is the opportunity for monopolistic action set.


I am still digesting these various aspects of interventionism.



A monopoly will always result in higher prices whether it is a corporation seeking monopolistic rents or unions seeking to artificially constrain the labor supply.

What is ironic in these debates is that prices are often high because of regulations. Corporations quickly learn that lobbying corrupt politicians is an effective business strategy tool to ward off competition. They create burdensome licensing and other regulations under the guise of protecting consumers, but the real goal is to prevent competition. Progressives often don't see how their continual call for more regulations really just helps larger companies which have the benefit of scale to deal with the compliance while hurting the smaller mom & pop businesses.

This is why you see many industries consolidating. Small banks can't compete with the too big too fail banks due to the regulatory burden. Health insurance companies are consolidating to deal with increased government regulation. It goes on and on...



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

In order for pro-labor policies to raise wages beyond the economically viable levels dictated by the market it is necessary to generate the additional money from somewhere. Generally, that subsidy is funded by monopoly prices in commodities and services which requires the establishment of monopolies in those industries. Otherwise, competition would drive those prices down.

Without exception, all countries have established state owned or state-supported (or municipal) monopolies such the postal service, communications, energy, etc.

The universal attitude among interventionists is that there is no such thing as economic law. Despite all evidence to the contrary, such attitudes prevail.

Democrats and Republicans share this fault equally in their desire to defy these laws in order to achieve autarkic systems through tariffs thus avoiding competition from extranational sources.

Of course, none of them seem to care about the mass unemployment that such schemes always result in.
edit on 28-12-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I'm not sure I'd equate the profit motive with greed. Is it "greedy" to not want to be taken advantage of? (which is what would be happening if you agreed to do something in business for no profit to yourself), so...no. I'm not sure I'm on the page that "greed" and the desire to get SOMETHING in return for running your business are the same thing.

Likewise, I'm not at all sure that we can say (even if we hypothetically accept that greed and profit motive are synonymous), that in their absence, there would be no point in striving or competing.

Did greed prompt Van Gogh to paint?
Does greed drive a little league team?

We compete and strive for the joy it brings.

Anything to excess...even good things, can turn bad when taken to the extreme.

-=Vel=-



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Imagine a world where everyone is greedy.

Now imagine a world where everyone else is altruistic.

Case closed.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
It depends, in my view, on what one is greedy for.

If it's money and power then that person is, in my view, disgusting. Whilst one persons' financial greed may lead to jobs for others, for example, the benefits are almost always superficial. It would be a fairly detailed thesis (and long) to explain my thoughts relating to that point, so I will summarise by saying that a financially greedy person who builds a huge company and gives employment to a few thousand actually also contributes to the poverty of millions because it fosters a huge imbalance in the distribution of wealth, whilst at the same time making simple life far more expensive for all.

The type of greed that is not disgusting are for things like knowledge, or at risk of sounding cheesy, love.
edit on 29/12/2015 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/12/2015 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

True love is altruistic in nature, greed + love is an oxymoron. Your greed in love would be all the unhealthy things associated with it, it would be the controlling lover, the suspicious lover, the lover who cheats and thinks it's ok as long as they don't get caught. The player who sleeps around or juggles lovers without them knowing.

There is no such thing as being positively greedy with love.

True love is when two people care about each other in healthy positive ways. They are both together because they want to be, give and take equally, and are quick to put the other person before themselves.

The worst kind of relationship is when a true altruistic lover ends up with a greedy one. As it turns into a long term abusive relationship.

A greedy lover is a user an abuser, and puts themselves as the most important person in the relationship.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: UKTruth

True love is altruistic in nature, greed + love is an oxymoron. Your greed in love would be all the unhealthy things associated with it, it would be the controlling lover, the suspicious lover, the lover who cheats and thinks it's ok as long as they don't get caught. The player who sleeps around or juggles lovers without them knowing.

There is no such thing as being positively greedy with love.

True love is when two people care about each other in healthy positive ways. They are both together because they want to be, give and take equally, and are quick to put the other person before themselves.

The worst kind of relationship is when a true altruistic lover ends up with a greedy one. As it turns into a long term abusive relationship.

A greedy lover is a user an abuser, and puts themselves as the most important person in the relationship.


Wow - thats a lot of definition for something so undefinable. Maybe you should write the love rule book
Don't think I would buy it though



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You're being dishonest.

Name a type of love that when considered in it's most benevolent healthy state would be considered greedy.
edit on 12/29/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: UKTruth

You're being dishonest.

Name a type of love that when considered in it's most benevolent healthy state would be considered greedy.


You would have to define what you mean by benevolent and healthy.

I bet we'd disagree on that too.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You're being contrary to be contrary.

A stalker for example is greedy. Why? Because their "love" is oriented at themselves, greed is by definition selfish. If a stalker truly loved the person, they'd both care about and understand the fear they are creating in the person they "care" about. They, however, do not, as they refuse to accept that the other person does not "love" them back. Instead they persist beyond reason because their love is a greedy love.

Greed is once again selfish by definition. Greed is the opposite of sharing. Put your money where your mouth is, give an example of "greedy" love and defend it.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: UKTruth

You're being contrary to be contrary.

A stalker for example is greedy. Why? Because their "love" is oriented at themselves, greed is by definition selfish. If a stalker truly loved the person, they'd both care about and understand the fear they are creating in the person they "care" about. They, however, do not, as they refuse to accept that the other person does not "love" them back. Instead they persist beyond reason because their love is a greedy love.

Greed is once again selfish by definition. Greed is the opposite of sharing. Put your money where your mouth is, give an example of "greedy" love and defend it.


No, not contrary,. I just dont think generalisations can be used the way you have used them in a debate.
I dont accept your definition of love, for example, so we cant even debate the follow on points.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I at least attempt to explain my side, with various examples, etc. You simply choose to give a broad cop out.

You can't give one example of love based on greed, providing with it your definition of how it is love, and defining how you think it's both good and healthy.

I'm not asking you to use mine, I'm asking you to provide yours and defend it. I can sit here and go through hundreds of different kinds of loves, define which ones are healthy, why I think so, and defend them. I can also do the reverse, go through hundreds of kinds of "love" and define why I believe they are unhealthy and ultimately self serving in nature.

You cannot, using any definition provide a single example. You refuse to, because you know you can't.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: UKTruth

I at least attempt to explain my side, with various examples, etc. You simply choose to give a broad cop out.

You can't give one example of love based on greed, providing with it your definition of how it is love, and defining how you think it's both good and healthy.

I'm not asking you to use mine, I'm asking you to provide yours and defend it. I can sit here and go through hundreds of different kinds of loves, define which ones are healthy, why I think so, and defend them. I can also do the reverse, go through hundreds of kinds of "love" and define why I believe they are unhealthy and ultimately self serving in nature.

You cannot, using any definition provide a single example. You refuse to, because you know you can't.


Are you stalking me now? /kidding

Look, I don't think I can define love so easily, but having reviewed your definition, I reject it. It doesn't work for me or fit with my own experience. For me 'love' has meant many different things through my life.

As a youngster it was all about the expresison of love in the form of sex. Now I am older it is more about shared experience and I am still of the mind I want more and more of those shared experiences with the person I love. I would certainly say I am greedy in that respect, but not at all selfish because its all about sharing. Have you ever heard the expression 'drunk on love'...some people like, thrive and need the excess and I don't think that is unhealthy in any way.

I bet you that if you asked 100 people what love was you would get a wide range of answers. Your answer I would agree leaves no room for the word greed, but you don't speak for everyone and I dont think anyoine has yet laid claim to the one definition.

As an example the Oxford Dictionary defines love as:
"A strong feeling of affection and sexual attraction for someone"

I can tell you for certain that some young guys who have a strong feeling of affection and sexual attraction for someone can be greedy litte gits and I would not call that person unhealthy. In fact in many cases 'sewing your wild oats' can be healthy (British saying I think so not sure it works?). I also would also say that said young guys are in a way being benevolent as one definition of that word is 'obliging'. They are certainly that!

Regardless - my original use of the word love was rather flippant and not really intended to create a big debate about love - probably another pretty good thread.
edit on 29/12/2015 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Expression of love in the form of sex... I'd say that's just lust. Unless it goes further than just just sex. The oxford definition is an AND thing. And for something to be properly affection I'd say some form of caring about the person is necessary.

Two people mutually choosing to rut on equal terms for mutual pleasure where both understand the expectations is perfectly healthy so long as proper precautions are taken.

Two people mutually choosing to rut on what one thinks is equal terms for reasons which are ultimately lies for the purpose of one person using them for sexual pleasure taking advantage of what the other thinks is an emotional meaningful connection. Is, however, not.

There's a difference between someone having lots of sex for selfish pleasure and are willing to lie and mislead to get it, and a person who has lots of sex for sexual pleasure with willing partners who fully understand what one is getting into and wants the same. One who's goal is to please their partner as well as themselves.

One is selfish, harmful and greedy, the other is simply sharing.

Wanting to rut with a person without caring about their feelings or desire is not affection.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join