Difference between greed and legitimate self interest

I have a way of looking at it. If your getting rich as the expense of others, then your greedy. But if your creating wealth or making the world a better place through your investment, then its not greedy, its generous and you are being rewarded for it.
 
Hello,

I agree with most people in that this person is probably suffering from envy.

Nonetheless, if I may play devils advocate for a second, is it possible AL that you are becoming too preoccupied with your investments and so forth to the detriment of your relationships with those around you? Whilst everyone here at Somersoft has told you what you want to hear, perhaps this person who has hurt you is telling you what you need to hear.

/end of devils advocacy.

Food for thought.
 
Point 1
your greedy............so what....its a free society.
Point 2
For effort creativity, risk and self sacrifice people have desrevedly become rich.
I also understand that a lot of wealthy have had lots of difficulties / failures along the way. That doesnt fall under the simplistic dictionary defintion
of greed
ie getting more than one deserves.
Who is to know how well or poorly future plans will turn out.

How many on the forum have had no problems whilst investing in property.
Dont just feed on the bottom $ line . There has been a long process involved to achieve wealth.

Point 3
ALways learning
you are fat ugly and you smell!

if its not true dont fret.,............get my point :)
if the person close to you doesnt understand then explain if its warranted. Have you been in Japan too long . Are you worrying about what other people think? I definitley have been in Japan too long........I have stared trying to eat Natto :eek:
Point 4
great thread topic
 
willair said:
Once there was a man riding a mule. When he noticed that
there was a man in front of him riding a horse, he began to
feel inadequate and jealous.Then he looked behind him and
saw a man dragging a cart by his own labour.
When he noticed how hard the man behind him was working
and how much he was sweating,he began to feel better about
himself and his mule..
good luck..
willair.

So what's the moral of the story ? There's always someone worse off than you ? :)
 
astroboy said:
There is only one OS that has thru the years been able to demonstrate a consistently high security rating and you ain’t going to find it on your average desktop, well you might, but that’s my domain and it ain’t for the masses and you could do stuff all with it anyway, unless you were in my game which is unlikely and it isn’t going to give you any typical desktops apps that you would find useful.
Let me guess : OS/2 ? Solaris ? BeOS ? Am I getting warm ? ;)

On the topic of greed, I'd like to quote my father in saying :
"God helps those who help themselves" :)

T.
 
astroboy said:
Thommo,

Sorry but your pressumtions speak volumes in this regard, comments follow;



Bill Gates, I’m sure you are referring to Microsoft, hires some of the best and brightest on the planet as far as programmers go. Ok, there may be other programmers out there who may be brighter or ‘better’ in their respective fields. However be aware, in a world where Microsoft dominates the desktop these others, numbers wise, are the minority, believe me I’m one of them.
Security issues are something else again, Microsoft has any number of flaws, and they are exploited simply due to the popularity and widespread exposure of the OS. Are other desktop OS less vulnerable or are they simply less popular and thus represent a minority, which as itself represents no more or less security, how many people realistically run Linux? And in all honestly it is only a matter of time, Run an Apple, well ok maybe you want to do some graphics stuff and today that edge is already losing ground.
There is only one OS that has thru the years been able to demonstrate a consistently high security rating and you ain’t going to find it on your average desktop, well you might, but that’s my domain and it ain’t for the masses and you could do stuff all with it anyway, unless you were in my game which is unlikely and it isn’t going to give you any typical desktops apps that you would find useful.
I agree that a Corp the size of Micro$oft can afford to hire good legal bodies, so do IBM, Sun, HP, etc etc. I don’t understand the point you were making with that comment.



Dick Smith, on the other hand can hardly be compared to a Corp like Microsoft, or any of the others I mentioned. Although he maybe well intentioned, his ventures of late have been rather less than successful, sorry but true, I agree his heart may be in the right place, however that does not necessarily equate to a successful business.



I have no idea what you are talking about in the last paragraph, the rest of the above sounds like assasination by magazine article, and ill informed articles at that.

astro

This is a really fascinating and interesting thread on greed. Lets not turn it into a geekfest on software flaws or whatever. Thanks.
 
Tandella said:
Let me guess : OS/2 ? Solaris ? BeOS ? Am I getting warm ? ;)

On the topic of greed, I'd like to quote my father in saying :
"God helps those who help themselves" :)

T.

Tandella and astroboy

"Theo de Raadt"

????????
quoll
 
To me greed is separate from desire, ambition and success.

It is good to have ambition and desires, to work hard at them and succeed.

It is bad to attain your success by false means, deception, theft etc. It is also bad to hoarde it up for selfish reasons, neglecting family, friends, the poor and disadvantaged.

Greed is a word more aligned to the morals and character of an individual than their success or otherwise. I want a lot of things in my life, but not to the exclusion or detrement of others, therefore I consider myself ambitious, not greedy.

Cheers

TheBacon
 
AL, it does sound as if you are perhaps a bit sensitive to this particular person's comments. I am assuming it is a spouse or close family member? It is the people we love who have the greatest capacity to hurt us. I think the question is, do you think you are greedy? Chances are you don't and maybe this person is really saying you are too obsessed with investment and maybe wants a little more of your attention spent on other things... them for example.

I would agree with a previous definition of greed - does your having 10, 100 or 1 million investment properties (or whatever) in any way stop the other person from also achieving the same thing? If yes, then you are greedy, but if no, then you are not greedy.

It really does sound to me like you should maybe spend more time and attention on this person who is close to you, and maybe not spend so much time and attention on investing, or at least let them believe you aren't.

Of course I could have it all wrong in which case just tell them to pull their head in!

Nat :)
 
always_learning said:
Someone close to me said I was greedy which honestly hurt me a little, I think that I am trying to better myself and my families life thru legitmate and reasonable steps. When Packer or Buffert buys a company nobody few call them greedy for doing so even if they are already loaded.

What does the forum think when does legitmate reasonble steps to improving your personal circumstances cross the line and become greedy?
****************************************************
Dear Always_Learning,

1. The line between greed and desire is a very thin line. Only you yourself will know the truth when your good desire actually crosses the line to become "greed", by examining your own true intentions towards creating and accumulating more wealth.

2. Thus, legitimate needs and greed are relative points of the same human desire continuum, coloured/defined by one's human values system and judgement call.

3. To equate "human desire" as "greed" involves a judgement of one's human desires, as being "excessive" over one's needs. Your needs can only be defined by yourself, not by others unless you are not sure about yourself and your own needs.

4. On the other hand, if your close friend makes that unfavourable judgement call, if I were in your position, I will want to find out from him/her the basis for he/she saying that... Have I neglected him/her or/and his/her needs to a certain extent? Or is he/she "frightened" by my "insatisable" needs levels that he/she start to say that I am "greedy"... Or is that something or certain aspects of my own wealth creation work which he/she is beginning to disagree now, unlike in the past, and if so what is it and why... so that I may learn more about myself and take stock of myself where neccessary. I will consider my close friends'comments diligently as feedback and use them as a "mirror" to examine my own life where neccessary.

5. If the comments is made by someone not sufficiently close to me, I will proabably not allow myself to be bothered by it as that person does not really know me nor is important to me enough to pay attention to all his/her comments.

6. As for myself, I consider my present wealth creation journey through property investing as a personal spiritiual path towards good stewardship and living out my own Christian faith in real life, of creating wealth to look after my own family needs as a husband and father and to serve others as well as to help make this place a better place for all to live. In this respect, I am also planning to set up my own charity foundation in the immediate future so that I may give continually in honour of His Name and blessings in my own life and God's abundant grace may flow throughout this world. To God be the Glory!

7. Thank you.

regards,
Kenneth KOH
 
Last edited:
TheBacon said:
To me greed is separate from desire, ambition and success.

It is good to have ambition and desires, to work hard at them and succeed.

It is bad to attain your success by false means, deception, theft etc. It is also bad to hoarde it up for selfish reasons, neglecting family, friends, the poor and disadvantaged.

Greed is a word more aligned to the morals and character of an individual than their success or otherwise. I want a lot of things in my life, but not to the exclusion or detrement of others, therefore I consider myself ambitious, not greedy.

Cheers

TheBacon

Well said TheBacon.

Greedy has nothing to do with wealth.

It seems mostly used to put down successful people, perhaps out of envy or attempt to bring others down to the same level. :(

Best to ignore such comments. It says more about the person making the comment than the person targeted. :D

Cheers,
 
Hi all. I think it depends on everyones definition of greed. I like to ask, more or less, that is, would you like more money to be able to do the things you like (and that could be helping charities) or less. If someone answers less, I don't know if I'd believe them. If they want less, I will do them the favour of taking any surplus they may have. It's true money does not buy love, but try looking into the eyes of a starving child and telling them you dont have the money to feed them. Of course I'm referring to a third world country situation and it is a very extreme example but the fact remains that whether we like it or not, money does make the world go round. Who are you NOT to strive for financial freedom. Be all you can be.

Regards
Marty
 
Wow, what next!?

I think this thread are summed up 'best' in Pitt's first post, and Seech's post. Both are succinct and exquisite!

To paraphrase Pitt... Tellem to get stuffed.

Where's Gordon Gecko when we need him...

asy :D
 
Hi Thommo

Sorry
Didn't intend to bring computer world into the thread, and I don't really know much at all about Bill Gates (or how he came by all his wealth), but I must emphasise 2 things;
There are not that many people in this world I classify as 'heroes', that I look up to, but I can assure you he is not on my list. :eek: But I am impressed with what he has done with a lot of his wealth, in the funds he has generated for the well-being of thousands of people for many years to come.
(Sort of was possibly greedy, now better :confused: ) :D
The heroes I look up to are along the lines of Gandi and similar who have absolutely no problem with the word greed, because they don't consider money or possesions as being important. Faith on the other hand apparently can move mountains. Me, I have problems moving my backside into gear on many occassions, so I need some financial support. (Maybe in another 20 or so lifetimes, I might be able to get by with less income and possesions.) :(

On the subject of greed, I have read that there is an assumption that if one person has more than another, then that second person must have less, due to supply and demand. This of course assumes that there is a limited supply of everything in the world. Could get a bit off track here, but I don't go along with the limited supply theory, so it puts the 'greedy' subject into a clear area for me - the attitude behind the action.

Jahn
 
Bollocks

How can there be a limited supply, definately not on certain things, say if everyrone wanted to own there own aeroplane, and they said sorry we can only have 10,000 planes flying around the world maxmimum at one time. Bollocks !!!!.

I think you you got to assess your own morals, and say i am genuinly not hurting anyone through my property investments, if anything i'm probably helping the government in easing the housing situation. Why did they introduce negative gearing, why are they now selling off public housing? I have had my losses along the way with runners and trashers. But i still have have faith in every tennant to do the right thing, and give them shelter for a fair and resonable, at the moment mostly below average rent.

Travel the world and you'll see whats fair and reasonable. We still got it pretty blood good here in Oz.

Beauty Nuke. Oi!
:D
 
Good greed and bad greed http://www.libertarianthought.com/main/greed.html

Greed is perhaps the most maligned human impulse. It is attributed the failure and fall of civilisation, the sum of all evils, and the modern dissapearance of spirituality. It is perhaps that which is said should be eliminated first, but seems to thrive the most.

Usually, the people who declare this have little understanding of the dynamics of greed, apart from simpleton insults of "money-grubbing". Therefore, we should examine these dynamics, and see whenever greed is good or bad, and in which situations. Then we can declare that we have an informed opinion on the subject, instead of being idle babblers.

Lines of motivation

What, therefore, is greed ? It is defined as an excessive or eager desire, especially for material wealth.

This is already a problem, since we have no standard for excessiveness. We can say that someone is very wealthy, or very poor, because we compare them to averages. But desire for wealth can be excessive related to what ? What standard represents "normal" desire and "abnormal" desire ? Apart from psychological pathologies, we have no such standard.

We can put this issue aside and concentrate on eagerness. Why does one seek to acquire wealth ? There can be many reasons. Perhaps to improve one's situation or status in life. To acquire what he desires. To impress other people. By compulsion or passion. The motivations are numerous, but we are not interested in the motivations, but in the consequences. If greed is evil, then the motivations are irrelevant because it should be fought regardless : if greed is good, then the motivations are likewise irrelevant because it should be promoted regardless..

There is nothing inherently wrong with someone pursuing material wealth eagerly, any more than there is for any other pursuit. Accordingly, what anti-greed advocates propose as the source of evil is that this pursuit destroys other people's lives. What we must establish, then, is whenever greed does destroy people's lives.

We are now forced to distinguish between general political alternatives. Because politics regulates the economy, and has a distinct effect on economical behaviour, we must separate our analysis in two parts : capitalism, and statism. Their nature and benefits are beyond the scope of this article : for a detailed analysis, please read Capitalism vs Statism.

In a statist system, the government wields political power. This power is manifested by the capacity to effect a number of attacks against property rights, including taxation, regulation, eminent domain seizures, and so on (labeled 2 on the graph).

How does this affect the perceived self-interest of the economical actors ? The greater the political power, the less advantageous voluntary means become. We can express this by a simple equation :

This equation regulates the disbalance between individual trade and political pressure (labeled 3 on the graph). The extreme situation would be communism, where trade is outlawed (T1 is still non-zero because of demand, which creates black markets, but T2 is extremely high) and the state regulates all production. In this kind of state, all action is necessarily political.

The more state power exists (P1), and the most favourable the political system is to pressure groups, electory bribes and media influence (P2), the more beneficial to the individual or corporate owner is political pressure. Thus we get monopoly trials incited by outdated rival corporations in order to topple a productive giant, we get subsidies and protectionism, we get social laws that censor a group of people in favour of another while mollifying individual responsability.

Instead of resolving situations to the interest of all parties, we defer to the immoral use of force by the state. In this sense, greed motivated by political power is evil, but exists because of the power structure inherent to corporatism (favouring corporate owners), syndicalism (favouring the workers) or socialism (favouring the state).

The counterpart to political action is individual action, which necessarily suffers (weaker lines labeled 1 on the graph). Private policing and trade organisations are relatively few in number and power.


Greed in a statist environment is necessarily channeled towards political action, and subsequently the use of state force. Greed in a capitalist environment is necessarily channeled towards voluntary trade - in clear, serving the customer.



Unfettered voluntary action

Examine now the reverse situation. If the state has no political power, and is only devoted to protecting individual rights, we have a situation of capitalism. In such a situation, P1 theoretically equals zero. I say theoretically because while it would be the ultimate goal of a liberterian system, this seems difficult to accomplish in practice. We may assume here that P1 is very small, without qualitative loss.

But if P1 is very small by definition, then the perceived self-interest of the economical actor will go towards trade. Thus we should observe a strenghtening of individual action (labeled 1 on the graph). The impulse of greed will necessarily be channeled towards voluntary trade with other people.

Since voluntary trade is necessarily to the perceived interest of all participants, such a situation is optimal. At best the government can only mimic such trade patterns : at worst, disrupt them completely. See the graph to the right.

The sole role of government is to protect individual rights from the use of force or fraud. This is accomplished internally by the actions of the police, the judiciary, and various regulatory institutions (weaker lines labeled 2 on the graph). These actions have as consequence to maintain T2 as low as possible, thru the well-accepted practice of prosecuting theft, fraud, and other such crimes.


It seems, therefore, that we have two different outcomes. Greed in a statist environment is necessarily channeled towards political action, and subsequently the use of state force. Greed in a capitalist environment is necessarily channeled towards voluntary trade - in clear, serving the customer. Therefore we may appropriately say that there is good greed and bad greed.

An instance of this is the difference between corporate culture and government culture : for a corporation, the customer is always right, but for the government, the customer is always wrong. This is due to the source of their revenue. A corporation, in a capitalist system, is dependent on profits, which are dependent on customer choice. A government, in a statist system, is dependent on the fulfillment of political pressure for its revenues, not customer choice. This phenomenon also gives rise to an important principle in economics, the Tragedy of the Commons (the principle by which government property is necessarily guided by political motivation instead of private needs, and therefore is less apt to fulfill important functions such as the protection of the environment).


A number of objections can be raised to the underlying mechanism of free trade claimed to justify this analysis. Here I will examine the most important ones.

1. Your analysis of the optimal trade pattern being based solely on individual self-interest is wrong. There are such things as common goods, that affect everyone but that no one desires to support, such as the environment.
The premise of "common good" is, pardon the pun, common, but false. There is no such thing as common good. If something is worth being supported, then it will be supported - the state has no business forcing people to think otherwise, unless the use of force or fraud is involved.

2. People don't know what's good for them.
In a sense, this is true. In issues which do not affect people directly, people do tend not to be sufficiently informed and sufficiently aware to make good decisions, which is why democratic systems work so badly. However, we tend to be most close to our personal situations, and therefore we do know better about what's good for us in private issues than anyone else.

3. Society requires organisation to survive.
This is absolutely true. But it is also not an argument against free trade, as opposed to statism. Government force is obviously not required for corporations or social organisations to exist.

4. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
In a system where trade is voluntary and predominently between private individuals, this is literally impossible. For example, selling a product implies that a customer benefits, and a number of workers benefit. The benefits are aways there, whenever a person is rich or poor. Statistics show that this is true quantitatively (for more information, see "La pauvreté érigée en système").

5. Capitalism seeks the profit of corporations, not equal rights.
No, that is corporatism. Capitalism is not corporatism.
 
> Difference between greed and legitimate self interest

AntC said:
How can there be a limited supply, definately not on certain things, say if everyrone wanted to own there own aeroplane, and they said sorry we can only have 10,000 planes flying around the world maxmimum at one time. Bollocks !!!!.

Beauty Nuke. Oi!
:D

**************************************************
Dear Beauty_Nuke,

1. One of the basic fundamental premises used in Economy Theory is " Human desires/want are unlimited, but the supply of the good and services is limited. Therefore, through the price mechanism and market forces, an equilibrium is reached between the supply and demand for the existing goods and services".

2. I am wondering if you are challenging this basic premise used by economists?

3. Thank you

regards,
Kenneth KOH
 
Back
Top