The point that I was trying to make is, what is the purpose of accumulating wealth? If it’s to have more options, what does having those options serve? Accumulating wealth for it’s own sake or “to have more options” (as if there isn’t a limit to the number of options a person can have without suffering from cognitive overload) strikes me as being anti-social, and in any event, is just greedy. The wealthy don’t live in a void - what they do (or don’t do) affects other people, probably more so than whatever mundane choices your average Joe makes on a daily basis. If there’s no sense that as prominent members of our interdependent society, they have an obligation to serve others, then how can we make demands on any other person to behave in ways that aren’t entirely selfish? If everyone is just pursuing their own desires without any consideration of how their choices impact others, then how can we expect to maintain social cohesion?
Meeting the basic needs of at least most of the population doesn’t mean that there still isn’t going to be a certain amount (or even decent amount) of inequality - given the diversity of abilities, interests & inclinations that’s to be found in any population (not to mention whatever other advantages some people might have from their family or even social/kin group) and the choices that people make, there’s really no way of getting around the reality of wealth inequality (unless of course some sort of totalitarian regime is imposed). But trying to reduce inequality doesn’t have to involve imposing the sort of equity regime that some people are pushing these days. And of course *how* we go about making sure basic needs are met is obviously something that people are going to have disagreements on. But the goal of making sure that basic needs are met is one that I think any functional society needs to have to avoid breakdown and ensure its survival.
So much to unpack here. Meeting basic needs is why we have a welfare system. Don't know where you are, but in my state all the welfare benefits add up to approx. $40k. with very little skin in the game. Which with inflation is not a lot, but the person making $41k can barely make make it. "Greed is good!" when it incentivizes ingenuity and entrepreneurship. Most (not all) of the wealthy employ others and give much to charity. I don't want to reduce inequality, I want everyone to have the opportunity, depending on their abilities and "greed" to be on the other side of the divide.
I probably should have elaborated on what I meant by “basic needs” (which I think is different from what the Bernie crowd has in mind). While there is a material component whose provision can involve the state, there’s also a psycho/social/spiritual component that the state can’t directly provide but can only foster via the promotion of a culture that respects and encourages the establishment of intermediary institutions (family, religious establishments, voluntary associations, etc) that act as conduits for the transmission of culture and direct the education and character formation of individuals (as well as serving as checks on both the power of the state and of the individual).
The welfare recipient who lives off the state and whose dependency nurtures a sense of entitlement is the low-status corollary of the ultra-wealthy citizen who amasses a fortune with few, if any, limits and without any sense of obligation to the greater good. Neither is bound by strictures that compel pro-social behaviors (taking responsibility for oneself and/or others and not living merely for one’s own self-gratification) or attitudes that accord with dignified living (gratitude, generosity). Greed, being a vice, can never be good. While a desire for fortune often does play a role in spurring innovation and entrepreneurship, there are usually other motivations as well, and in any event, there is no reason to think that greed does spur those things, as it’s very often the case that greedy individuals will just sit on their money and find the easiest ways to make it grow (hence the increasingly distorting economic effects of the rentier class). The reason you should be concerned about inequality is because passed a certain point, society will become so unstable that the have-nots (and this is particularly the case if a significant portion of those people are young males) may lash out. As in, a way that is not peaceful.
While I can agree totally with everything up to "Greed". I believe a certain amount to greed necessary to encourage work, innovation, etc. and to encourage the desire to hold on to & protect what has been attained. Miserliness is what I call your definition of greed. Tomato/tomato. I wonder if much of this angst over "inequality" or "inequity" is reinforced and heightened by those who espouse identity/victimhood ideologies in the Press or on social media, but are never actually affected by their "solutions". Today the emphasis seems to be decrying what the "have-nots" don't have and not how to get what they don't have.
It's definitely reinforced & heightened by people with those ideologies. But I'm not sure the proper response is to continue reinforcing the alternative (i.e. work to conform oneself to a system that holds that obtaining material wealth and/or status is the measure of well-being), especially when those things may not actually be achievable for a great many people. I think we need to put a greater emphasis on embracing values whose benefits can't easily be calculated (at least in material terms).
There is a reason greed is one of the cardinal sins. And practically everyone will agree greed is bad. But do people have the right to be greedy or selfish?
I don't see how people could have a right to be greedy or selfish, just like I don't think people have a right to be careless or lazy or any other negative tendency. Just because we can't (and, generally speaking, shouldn't) use the state to police or punish all the various negative tendencies that people have, it doesn't mean that we can't nurture a culture that discourages people to not act on those tendencies or have policies that disincentivize (and in some cases make illegal) behaviors that are motivated by them (e.g. monopolies).
The point that I was trying to make is, what is the purpose of accumulating wealth? If it’s to have more options, what does having those options serve? Accumulating wealth for it’s own sake or “to have more options” (as if there isn’t a limit to the number of options a person can have without suffering from cognitive overload) strikes me as being anti-social, and in any event, is just greedy. The wealthy don’t live in a void - what they do (or don’t do) affects other people, probably more so than whatever mundane choices your average Joe makes on a daily basis. If there’s no sense that as prominent members of our interdependent society, they have an obligation to serve others, then how can we make demands on any other person to behave in ways that aren’t entirely selfish? If everyone is just pursuing their own desires without any consideration of how their choices impact others, then how can we expect to maintain social cohesion?
Meeting the basic needs of at least most of the population doesn’t mean that there still isn’t going to be a certain amount (or even decent amount) of inequality - given the diversity of abilities, interests & inclinations that’s to be found in any population (not to mention whatever other advantages some people might have from their family or even social/kin group) and the choices that people make, there’s really no way of getting around the reality of wealth inequality (unless of course some sort of totalitarian regime is imposed). But trying to reduce inequality doesn’t have to involve imposing the sort of equity regime that some people are pushing these days. And of course *how* we go about making sure basic needs are met is obviously something that people are going to have disagreements on. But the goal of making sure that basic needs are met is one that I think any functional society needs to have to avoid breakdown and ensure its survival.
So much to unpack here. Meeting basic needs is why we have a welfare system. Don't know where you are, but in my state all the welfare benefits add up to approx. $40k. with very little skin in the game. Which with inflation is not a lot, but the person making $41k can barely make make it. "Greed is good!" when it incentivizes ingenuity and entrepreneurship. Most (not all) of the wealthy employ others and give much to charity. I don't want to reduce inequality, I want everyone to have the opportunity, depending on their abilities and "greed" to be on the other side of the divide.
I probably should have elaborated on what I meant by “basic needs” (which I think is different from what the Bernie crowd has in mind). While there is a material component whose provision can involve the state, there’s also a psycho/social/spiritual component that the state can’t directly provide but can only foster via the promotion of a culture that respects and encourages the establishment of intermediary institutions (family, religious establishments, voluntary associations, etc) that act as conduits for the transmission of culture and direct the education and character formation of individuals (as well as serving as checks on both the power of the state and of the individual).
The welfare recipient who lives off the state and whose dependency nurtures a sense of entitlement is the low-status corollary of the ultra-wealthy citizen who amasses a fortune with few, if any, limits and without any sense of obligation to the greater good. Neither is bound by strictures that compel pro-social behaviors (taking responsibility for oneself and/or others and not living merely for one’s own self-gratification) or attitudes that accord with dignified living (gratitude, generosity). Greed, being a vice, can never be good. While a desire for fortune often does play a role in spurring innovation and entrepreneurship, there are usually other motivations as well, and in any event, there is no reason to think that greed does spur those things, as it’s very often the case that greedy individuals will just sit on their money and find the easiest ways to make it grow (hence the increasingly distorting economic effects of the rentier class). The reason you should be concerned about inequality is because passed a certain point, society will become so unstable that the have-nots (and this is particularly the case if a significant portion of those people are young males) may lash out. As in, a way that is not peaceful.
While I can agree totally with everything up to "Greed". I believe a certain amount to greed necessary to encourage work, innovation, etc. and to encourage the desire to hold on to & protect what has been attained. Miserliness is what I call your definition of greed. Tomato/tomato. I wonder if much of this angst over "inequality" or "inequity" is reinforced and heightened by those who espouse identity/victimhood ideologies in the Press or on social media, but are never actually affected by their "solutions". Today the emphasis seems to be decrying what the "have-nots" don't have and not how to get what they don't have.
It's definitely reinforced & heightened by people with those ideologies. But I'm not sure the proper response is to continue reinforcing the alternative (i.e. work to conform oneself to a system that holds that obtaining material wealth and/or status is the measure of well-being), especially when those things may not actually be achievable for a great many people. I think we need to put a greater emphasis on embracing values whose benefits can't easily be calculated (at least in material terms).
Thank you for your responses.
LG, is your problem with greed the selfishness?
There is a reason greed is one of the cardinal sins. And practically everyone will agree greed is bad. But do people have the right to be greedy or selfish?
I don't see how people could have a right to be greedy or selfish, just like I don't think people have a right to be careless or lazy or any other negative tendency. Just because we can't (and, generally speaking, shouldn't) use the state to police or punish all the various negative tendencies that people have, it doesn't mean that we can't nurture a culture that discourages people to not act on those tendencies or have policies that disincentivize (and in some cases make illegal) behaviors that are motivated by them (e.g. monopolies).