Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA One-Word Explanation? Try 'Greed'
The secret to capitalism's success is its ability to take one of mankind's most powerful emotions - greed - and harness that emotion to drive economic progress. By greedily pursuing our own individual self-interests, the theory goes, each of us contributes almost accidentally to greater prosperity for everybody.
And for the most part, that's how it has worked. The innovation and risk-taking encouraged by capitalism have given billions of people a quality of life and security that would otherwise be unimaginable. If there is a better, more productive system for meeting the physical needs of human life, we haven't found it yet.
But then comes a year like 2008, a year in which capitalism has faltered and the security of millions of Americans is threatened. Trillions of dollars of wealth has disappeared in a remarkably short time, along with millions of jobs. Fear rather than optimism dominates the landscape, and everyone from economists to hairdressers to members of Congress is wondering just what went wrong and how to fix it.
There are technical explanations, political explanations and folk-wisdom explanations. There are explanations that attempt to get down into the nitty-gritty details and those that offer a big-picture analysis.
My own one-sentence assessment? Capitalism works by getting the best out of greed; it fails when we let greed get the best of us.
And that is a constant, never-ending problem. We have always known that greed is dangerous. Going back into time as far as the written word can take us, every major religion, every major culture has warned against the dangers of greed.
In a capitalist system, the knowledge of greed's dual nature - its power when harnessed, its danger when it is not - sets up a permanent, enduring tension. The trick is to give greed enough play to reap its benefits while minimizing greed's danger. In that sense, a greed-powered economy is like a nuclear-powered submarine. Both are driven by a potentially boundless but destructive source of energy that must be kept within bounds to operate safely.
But greed by its nature is seductive. Greed always seeks more, a little more, just a bit more, please. And greed can cause us to rationalize things that cannot and should not be rationalized.
(As one measure of its power, for example, greed has helped to transform a religious celebration of the birth of a poor, humble baby in a manger into a festival of consumerism and consumption. But I digress.)
As the economic crisis continues to play out, a lot of attention is being focused on the failure of legal and regulatory controls on greed. How can a $50 billion Ponzi scheme go undetected for years? How can rating agencies give their most-secure rating to high-risk bonds? How can Wall Street financiers collect hundred-million-dollar bonuses on profits that weren't really profits in the first place?
The short answer is that people who know better begin to not know better. They convince themselves - or allow themselves to be convinced by others - that a little lighter touch on the reins will produce even more riches, that previous controls on greed are really unnecessary or counterproductive.
And in the end, legal and regulatory controls on greed will always be subject to manipulation. That's because laws and rules are merely formalized expressions of the underlying and unwritten cultural, moral and ethical attitudes toward greed.
And it is those attitudes that have changed so profoundly in the past generation or so.
Left unchecked, greed overwhelms any sense of proportion, fairness or morality. We as a culture and as individuals came to believe that if greed is the engine that drives progress, any attempt to curtail greed thus curtails progress. We thought that since greed is good, unrestrained greed must be an unrestrained good.
What we've discovered - yet again - is that when properly harnessed, greed makes an effective, productive servant.
But it makes a terrible master.
113 Comments so far
Show AllI don't know what drug Jay Bookman is on, because his article is chock full of cutesy phrases and assertions for which there is no evidence or worse, for which there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. This is pure lightweight fare: low on tangible facts and analysis. For instance, the passage "By greedily pursuing our own individual self-interests, the theory goes, each of us contributes almost accidentally to greater prosperity for everybody.
And for the most part, that's how it has worked. The innovation and risk-taking encouraged by capitalism have given billions of people a quality of life and security that would otherwise be unimaginable. If there is a better, more productive system for meeting the physical needs of human life, we haven't found it yet." is just nonsense.
For starters, his claim that the theory claims that greed leads to the betterment of all betrays a level of naiveté that boggles the mind: it is an ideological justifier for ruthlessness that has very little evidence to support it and plenty of contradictory evidence. Some people may have actually drank their own kool-aid, but I also think that anyone who has bothered to think this one through would see that greed could only be beneficial when individual self-interest and the public interest coincide, and would be detrimental whenever they do not coincide. In a finite system, greed simply means accruing more of the system for myself, which means less for others. This inequality, creates a situation where there is an ever greater disconnect between what is in the interest of the public at large and the well-off.
Secondly, I don't know on what planet he's living to claim that capitalism has given billions of people a quality of life and security that would otherwise be unimaginable: capitalism works by rewarding the few at the expense of the many, just like feudalism worked by rewarding the lords at the expense of the serfs. Apparently, his equation doesn't include sweat shop workers who toil their life away making products for misery wages that don't even allow them to be able to afford three square meals a day. This guy really needs to visit the slums and shantytowns of this world to see the real world effect of greed. Is a safe and unpolluted environment not apart of quality of life and security? What mr Bookman is doing is known as counting the hits and forgetting the misses. I have a distinct feeling that he doesn't want to rock the boat too much, lest his own comfort be affected. Capitalism is good at producing things, but most of the things it produces seek to answer created wants rather than fulfilling basic human needs. Further, the ideal of eternal growth is by definition unsustainable. The system has sustained itself through expansion (often forced on others, but we wouldn't want to be bothered with such facts would we?) for new resources and labour.
Last but not least, the author's comment that if there is a better system out there, we haven't found it yet is beyond belief. Has the possibility occurred to him that capitalism simply will not tolerate another way of life to compete? The struggle is not only physical, as occurs when the military intervenes, but it's primarily a battle for the minds of people, and the only way to do that is to indoctrinate people with the capitalist story so that whatever they do, they can't escape doctrinal constraints. Mr Bookman's article is a perfect example of this: he bemoans the effects of greed and capitalism but ultimately cannot break free from them.
Nice rebuttal! You're absolutely right: the "greed is good in moderation" argument is bogus. As for a better system out there? I, for one, wouldn't mind trying democratic socialism.
I would agree that Capitalism is good in that it provides a self motivating means by which if one works harder, or smarter they are then rewarded. Socialism is where everyone gets what they have because the collective body does the work.
In other words people are rewarded by taking advantage of what is considered taboo, legal, moral, or just in a Capitalistic Society. Because of this, new ideas, improved methods, expansion on already good ideas grow and prosper. The disadvantage is when the taboo, legal, moral, and just is changed to something that the collective body does not agree with and then harm is done. Therefore capitalism requires a careful balance of rules and regulations that allow for the freedom, but also limits the un-fairness.
Greed is where someone decides that the rules should be changed so that they can get more than what is collectively considered fair. Greed and Capitalism are in a sense arch enemies of each other.
Our society is changing in that those that have more are not happy with what they have, so they want more. More than what the collective body feels is fair. So these people work to put themselves in positions where they can either influence or change themselves the rules so they can get gain.
I agree with the writer of the article in that our society has become increasingly greedy. Looking back in time, people used to trust each other much more, used to share much more, work together more, and ultimately agreed on what was fair and un-fair.
This has changed, and so we are beginning to see some of the consequences that so many say do not exist.
Greed isn't the only motivating force of capitalism. Worker insecurity and the inherant failure of capitalism to distribute wealth fairly are a motivating forces. Hungry, frightened people don't ask too many questions.
Capitalism only works when government acts to provide a social safety net and redistributes wealth through taxation. Where government is weak and corrupt, capitalism becomes predatory, including the US.
A better one-word explanation for the unfolding economic calamity--not to mention problems such as nightmarish environmental destruction, incessant wars, and the abject poverty of billions of people that Bookman appears oblivious to--is "capitalism." Economic crises have always been part and parcel of capitalism, and the development of capitalism over the last couple of centuries that has on one hand created enormous wealth and technological progress has also created the potential for economic crises to become worse than ever. Only when our economic system STOPS being centered around greed--only when capitalism is overthrown and replaced by a just and democratic economic system in which greed plays no part whatsoever--can economic crises and other problems associated with capitalism be adequately addressed.
I think it's a twin-horned beast: capitalism AND religion. The unbridled greed of capitalism combines in a sick synergy with the intolerance of religion, creating a monster unmatched in its ability to exploit faith, trample goodness, and ruin both lives and life itself. In other words, "a just and democratic economic system" must curtail both the greed of capitalism and the intolerance of religion. It must be secular. There is no legitimate or viable role for religion in government.
Here is a thought-experiment, simplified and exaggerated for clarity of the point: how about giving everyone an Interest-only mortgage at the 0% interest rate available at the Fed window now (currently only for banks). The payments would then be a readily-affordable Nothing per month. Would then houses be worth NOTHING? Would then the banks?
And then raise the interest microscopically to 00.001% (one-one thousanths of one percent). If you paid an Interest-only mortgage payment of $1,000 per month at that rate, your Debt-Load is now $1.2 Billion! For your trailer home! And would your trailer home be declared 'Worth' that by the appraising banksters? So they can encumber you with $1.2 Billion in Debts? Which they then claim as Their 'real' money, backed by You, their Newly-Indentured Slave?
And if it was all you could do to pay that $1,000, then when the interest rate was ratcheted by the banksters up to 5%, and your payments thus ratcheted up to 5% of your Continued indebtedness of $1.2 Billion dollars... or $60 Million per year, from your current payments of $12,000 per year... then you would obviously be foreclosed on. Especially after you are laid off your job 'because of economic conditions' so you couldn't even pay the original amount(of oourse, since after missing a payment date, you have been ratcheted up to 30% credit-card-style interest, or $360 million per year... $1 million dollars per day.)
But now the bank can't find a sucker to take the foreclosure for $60 million a year... and it falls to the $6,000 it should be, given peoples' real incomes. And the bank is now worth ten thousand times less than the banksters said it was worth. It is in fact, bankrupt. And needs trillions from the Fed and the government to stay afloat at all!
Now, this same leverage scenario was used everywhere in the financial world in vastly bigger ways in their different, respective enterprises/rackets by the Hedge Fund Operators, Financiers, Brokerages, all the forms of Derivatives, Futures, Options, Margins, and bizarre financial creations extant, and the Republican Bushite government.
These bastards, still in all the seats of Power, have themselves created the Toxic Waste Dump that the American financial world has become, and they have been enormously compensated to do so, to boot. In reality, it's ALL ENRON NOW! The books have been cooked until they are charred beyond belief.
This happened because the banksters and financiers were exceedingly greedy in the first place (greed meaning letting the desire for money or power override ethics, morality, laws, justice, equality, patriotism, community, fairness, empathy... trashing them all to grab a little more money or power) and they 'Leveraged' a way to make money appear out of false appraisals, fraud, lies, deceipt, connivance, corruption, lawbreaking, bribery, extortion, deviousness. You know, like Madoff, and Greenspan, and Bernanke, and Paulson, and Rubin, and Friedman, et al.)
Economics is an artifice and money is a social contract. It is not a 'science'. Witness Zimbabwe, where an egg now costs $100 Billions, no kidding. Would you be counting your pennies in Zimbabwe? Could Warren Buffet all by himself be worth $50 Sextillion dollars ($50 Thousand Quintillion dollars, or $50 Million Quadrillion dollars, or $50 Billion Trillion dollars)? YES HE IS... in Zimbabwe dollars. So what does that say about us, when we have a multi-million-quadrillionaire in our midst? Next stop, zillionaire? And then raise the greed winning-bar to googley-zillionaire?
Money is politics, politics is money. Money does no work, it does not 'work' for you, despite the promos. Money is a parasitic claim on other people's labor, usually in trade for something. It is supposed to be regulated by a benign objective agency, to facilitate this virtual meta-barter system. But since money is virtual, those who control its creation, distribution and definition can become completely corrupted by the metaphoric power money holds, and the command the controllers have over this metaphysical entity.
Like Gollum in 'The Lord of the Rings', they will follow the Gold Ring of Power even above every shred of humanity and decency and true life, even basely depraving themselves for it, even following it unto their own doom. And even if it means dragging us all with them.
Let us No Longer Admire, Respect or Follow such depraved, greedy beings anymore in America. Let us try to follow those who see through the illusion, and wish to truly try to build a better world for all.
I dont believe capitalism created the public roads and plumbing system, or the educational system(at least the working ones).
Also the foundations of art were not laid by capitalism. Was every painting, sculpture or novel created because someone was fulfilling a contract? Of course not. Many lived off donations(where else did the starving artist idea come from?).
It is only in the last century or so that we hear about the wealthy artist. Picasso became a multi millionaire but did he really enrich the art world? Hardly.
Michaelangelo was constantly griping about being underpaid.
I believe it was John Calvin who started the "rich will be rewarded on earth" mantra.
I knew some christians who never gave to charity except to to preach to indian tribes.
I did not read all of the comments in this thread, but decided to add my 1 cents worth.
Capitalism works when there are rules in place that enforce an even playing field. As these rules are removed from the system, those that can take advantage of this then do.
Typically, it is those that want to take advantage of these changes, that facilitate the changes.
What we have over the years is a change in these rules, which when "relaxed" led to the situation we have.
In order to change things back, you need two things: The first is a change in confidence, the second is the change in the rules.
In order to facilitate the first, "change in confidence" you need to identify what rules were relaxed, and then fix any current issues at hand. In the case of the financial market, identify the bad debts (if they actually exist), and then fix that one way or another. Once the "slate is clean", the confidence can be restored by the next step.
The next step is to create rules that prevent what happened from happening again. If rules were relaxed then they would need to be firmed up.
Since our leaders were apart of the change that got us here, it is extremely unlikely that they will admit they were wrong to allow the changing of the rules, and change them back.
ForRealChange wrote:
Capitalism works when there are rules in place
COMMENT:
The rules are made by those who have capital. Capitalism works for those who have capital: those who have capital live off the those who work.
So labor Unions, Limits on banks leveraging their assets, rules to prohibit predatory lending are created by those who have Capital? I think not.
Mergers used to be more difficult, now they are easier. Bankruptcy used to provide an avenue to start with a clean slate, debt free. All of these things have changed since Bush has been in office as well.
Wow, what an astounding example of clinging to the suicidal tendencies of neoliberal free market insanity. As long as we're content to cling to the "usefulness" of greed, we don't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Either the author is living on another planet, exceptionally stupid, or stunningly in denial, which he's tidily summed up in the closing line:
"What we've discovered - yet again - is that when properly harnessed, greed makes an effective, productive servant.
But it makes a terrible master."
What is the point of all that "properly harnessed","effective","productive" greed, if it has also condemned future life on this planet to hellish realms of climate catastrophe, acidic oceans and impoverishment of life in all its forms? What of the greed that has and will surely transform our garden of Eden into a living hell?
Make Way For the Money Ball
Make way for the money ball
it’s a juggernaut of greed
it’s a runaway picking up speed
Make way for the money wrecking ball
selling short on the profit of the fall
the money ball overwhelms us all
The money ball is our treadmill
our treadmill for the man
the corporate puppeteers for Uncle Sam
with more poppy fields blooming in Afghanistan
to maximize the profit
or.......
forget the pain
Make way for the money ball
it’s awesome shock indeed
bomb rebuild and feed
bomb rebuild and feed
The snowballing money ball free fall
is cheered on by the neo liberal republican dons
and media cons who feed on wars
called spreading freedom
Since there is no other way
make way for the money ball
help TINA!.... full spectrum stupidity...
it’s total dominance on the way
Make way for the money ball
it’s a juggernaut of greed
it’s a runaway picking up speed
Don’t jig or jog just ‘duck and cover’
the money ball juggernaut just flattened the clover
and it ain’t going to stop for the ‘cliffs of Dover’
It feeds for nukes and neo con pukes
tumbling trump towers and freedom spooks
as it rolls on yellow ribbons
it’s a runaway....
Make way for the money ball
while it builds another wall
and squeezes those with least
for their ‘duck and cover’ is our bread and butter
Make way for the money ball
as it inflates as if turned on by yeast
don’t spurn the beast with
the ‘least of these’
Parsimony won’t deter the money ball
Us & the marks get inflated with the fall
might as well eat drink and be merry
and build another wall
If you don’t see the glow of dawn
you may miss the money ball
for....
it’s a runaway
Greed equals Republican party.
The Republicans have had the white house 28 years of the last 40 since Nixon 1969.
They managed to get the white by vote fixing and voter manipulation until this year, where everyone kept a close eye on Republican activities at the polls.
But , they still tried to steal another election, and we were going to get some real inside info until Mike Conell, IT administrator for Bush/Cheney, accidental plane crash last week.You can run Karl Rove , but you can't hide, your day is coming.
My deepest condolences for Mrs. Connell and her 4 children.
Decrease in worker benefits, wages , union power, health care accessibility and so on is what Republicans imperial capitalistic rule has done to America.
But it took 9/11, two illegal wars, de-regulation of Wall street and Banking oversight which led to the collapse of our financial markets which hurt Republican investors as well as Democrats alike to wake us up to endless imperial greed.
This greed is fueled big Big Oil and the military Industrial complex keeping us in total fear using terrorism and Patriotic propaganda to steal our civil liberties and powers to expose this treason.
They can spy on us at will and disrupt any efforts to catch them in their criminal activity's.
Distraction is what they do best, using the Main Stream Media and fear to shut down the American intellectual community from asking real questions that would confront this fake Administration of National security Patriots.
And Greed is what helped the US Securities and Exchange Commission go blind regarding the activity's of Wall Street and the Elite Bankers.
What other excuse can there be for our financial collapse other than organized Financial Terrorism from home grown elite Americans.
The FBI and NSA have been spying on the wrong class of Americans.
Its the rich and elected officials stupid , that need to be watched.
What the hell is the DHS waiting for, these eclected clowns have given you warrant less surviellance a tool, nail these Financial Terrorists to the wall.
How fast would the un-Patriot Acts be repealed if the elected fools that passed this unconstitutional legislation became victims of warrant less surveillance.
Jail all the traitors.
BornFreeMen
They have been spending a fortune watching me 24/7 for two
years while real elite criminals have robbed the country, that's how stupid the Republican cronies have become.
"...Greed equals Republican party..."
- Your post makes the fundamental error of blaming "Republicans" for all these things. The Democrats are no better, & in some ways are even worse, because they're more deceitful & two-faced. The Republicans are at least criminals with the decency to be straightforward with the public about how they're going to be screwed, while the Democrats don't even have that one saving grace. Virtually every single Republican crime is enabled by Democrats, either passively or actively.
You're also wrong that anything major would have come of the Mike Connell thing, or that Rove's "day is coming." The Democrats will protect Rove the same way Pelosi protected Bush & Cheney.
You're also wrong that the Wall St corruption was exclusively the Republicans' fault. Actually, Democrats like the Clintons, Chuck Schumer & Robert Rubin were every bit as much to blame as the Republicans. Note as well that the Democrats supported the PATRIOT Act, the creation of the DHS, all the wars & occupation funding, etc etc.
Forget about blaming "Republicans." It's not intellectually tenable. These problems arise because there are only 2 officially-permitted parties, and BOTH are servile pawns of Big Money.
"...Greed equals Republican party..."
COMMENT:
I've always thought of the party called the GOP as the party of and for Greedy Old People. And the other party, the DP, as the party of and for Dumb People.
As for the American people that vote, not for the parties but, for the people they put into the parties, as either greedy slimeballs or dumber than a bag of poop - you can at least use poop for compost and it can yield more of value than the politicians who keep getting elected by the greedheads and poop-brains.
"Actually, Democrats like the Clintons, Chuck Schumer & Robert Rubin were every bit as much to blame as the Republicans."
Exactly. Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall which went a long way toward enabling the financial sector actions that resulted in the current "crisis", in quotation marks because the entire economic system was going to fail and the stock market was going to plunge 6000 points in the next ten minutes if 700 billion borrowed dollars to be repaid with interest by the taxpayers wasn't instantly given to the banks. The 700 bil was supposed to free up credit, thus preventing said disaster, but oddly, credit remains frozen. Why no crash? Why no stock plunge?
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
"The innovation and risk-taking encouraged by capitalism have given billions of people a quality of life and security that would otherwise be unimaginable. If there is a better, more productive system for meeting the physical needs of human life, we haven't found it yet."
Missing from Bookman's argument is any concession that where Capitalism has provided that "quality of life", it has been moderated by socialism. This does seem to be a case where we keep figuring a way to live with a disease rather than try to find a cure. Greed can only be seen as antisocial behavior yet too often, we encourage it by holding it up as "Blue Ribbon" behavior.
"Greed" is a loaded term. It is completely subjective. It is never used to refer to one's self, reserved only for others. Judging what is "greed" as opposed to a reasonable level of self interest is only a matter of personal opinion.
Wrong as per usual Jake. Greed is taking more resources than you need to live your individual life and practice your livelihood while you know others are suffering. Your "freedom" to be a self centered ASSHOLE does not impress me.
Oh and welcome back to CD, smirk.
"Greed is taking more resources than you need to live your individual life and practice your livelihood while you know others are suffering."
You just made up this definition.
"Your "freedom" to be a self centered ASSHOLE"
Classy.
*Everyone* is self centered, you too. Sorry to have to tell you that.
Every definition is made up. If we discuss a subject we have to agree what that definition is. "Greed" denotes a quality. Does the above definition fit the quality we are discussing? Of course it does.
"Every definition is made up."
Nonsense, definitions of words conform, more or less, to a convention.
"If we discuss a subject we have to agree what that definition is."
Agreed. Let's go to a dictionary for a start. Here's an example entry:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greed
"Does the above definition fit the quality we are discussing?"
It certainly does not. There is no requirement that one "knows others suffer", which is dumb anyway for on a planet of billions there is *always* someone who suffers.
I also am quite certain that when hootowl audits herself she does not conclude that she is greedy.
The definition I posted has to do with "excessive" desire beyond what one "needs or deserves". Only and individual can make the *value* judgement as to what "excessive", "needs" or "deserves" means. This was my original point, that the idea is subjective, and that it never refers to one's self, and is therefore a loaded term best avoided. We now get back to the unmanageable area of those who would be so arrogant as to set themselves the arbiter as to what "greed" is compared to reasonable self interest.
Yes JAKE, "there is *always* someone who suffers" -- whenever you post.
"Himself" greedball. Defensive over your greed much?
P.S. as is typical with heartless right wingers who lack the fundamental human quality of empathy, Jake resorts to semantic hair splitting while real people suffer from the sociopathic greed of people like him and his ilk.
"Defensive over your greed much?"
I'm sorry, did you mean to somehow make an actual *case* that I am greedy? Didn't think so.
How much "investment income" including rental properties did you make last year Jake? Labor free investment income is always a good barometer of greed IMO?
"How much "investment income" including rental properties did you make last year Jake?"
That's pretty deperate. lol. I have *never* owned an investment property, so for my lifetime the answer is zero. I was unemployed for five months earlier this year, and my income has been below the mean level for the US over the last five years at least.
"Labor free investment income is always a good barometer of greed IMO?"
No. Investments involve risk taking, as current real estate conditions should make crystal clear. Just because there is no labor for each dollar of income in question doesn't mean the income is undeserved. That I believe the above is true and you may not demonstrates that it's a matter of *opinion*, which is my central point.
"Just because there is no labor for each dollar of income in question doesn't mean the income is undeserved."
Something tells me that position magically SUDDENLY reverses when it comes to people receiving welfare or food stamps eh Jake?
Of course you aren't a blatant hypocrite on behalf of the "bum on the plush" as the old IWW guys put it, how could I ever think that?
"Something tells me that position magically SUDDENLY reverses when it comes to people receiving welfare or food stamps eh Jake?"
The above is a big stinky Red Herring. You should avoid that. Philosophy major you say?
"Of course you aren't a blatant hypocrite"
Ad hominem. You should avoid that. Philosophy major you say? It's none of my business, but if you are going to engage in discussions like this you should concentrate on what your opponent actually writes, and stop with the logical fallacies.
So labor free income is OK for the rich who don't need it but verboten for the poor who need to survive, wow, just wow, I am stunned anyone would admit to being so hard heartily cruel on a public forum. Jon Stewart said of Dick Cheney that his family got him a puppy chipper for Christmas, did your family get you one too cruel dochebag?
"So labor free income is OK for the rich who don't need it but verboten for the poor who need to survive,"
I said no such thing. I simply pointed out to you, Philosophy Major, that logical fallacies are a bad way for you to argue. Doing so speaks nothing to labor free income one way or the other. What *you* did, is you took an argument that I did *not* make (some labor free income is OK, some is not) and beat on that, all the while still ignoring the central issue about the subjectively of greed. Now, Philosophy Major, what is that called when you beat up on an argument that your opponent never made while ignoring the ones that they do make?
You are completely losing your focus. Are you sure you are a Philosophy Major?
The reason I was a philosophy major 20 years ago was a deep interest in developing ethics something you obviously lack in total with your self centered all is permitted nihilistic all ethics are subjective attitude. Your dirty secret Jake Newton is you are a person utterly lacking empathy which makes you an actual literal sociopath. Seek psychology help immediately Jake Newton before you hurt someone for nihilistic sociopathy is known to be a dangerous psychological disorder.
"Your dirty secret Jake Newton is you are a person utterly lacking empathy"
You are entitled to think what you want, even though I in fact demonstrated empathy for the landowner in the story Keith related. I didn't have to do that though, demonstrate empathy for anyone that is, since it is not relevant to the issue under discussion, namely whether greed is subjective. I could give you all kinds of examples of where I think I have empathy for worthy folks but it doesn't address the issue, and therefore you should not require it from me.
Wow, thanks, Jake. I always suspected old Socrates was pulling our legs when he spent so much time trying to determine what we were really talking about.
So, you're saying that our discussion of a term should be bound by what you found in a dictionary? Are you of the opinion that "value" judgments are entirely subjective? That's really quite radical and nihilistic and appears in your case to be an excuse to limit the discussion. Shall we try to determine what is "excessive"? It's very important, you know, and is at the heart of the discussion which you, for whatever reason, would rather not have take place.
"So, you're saying that our discussion of a term should be bound by what you found in a dictionary?"
No, but words do mean things, and you can't just change definitions on your own whim.
"Are you of the opinion that "value" judgments are entirely subjective?"
Absolutely, and I would be very interested in any argument you have to the contrary.
"That's really quite radical and nihilistic and appears in your case to be an excuse to limit the discussion. "
See above.
"Shall we try to determine what is "excessive"?"
We could, but you have to show your work.
"It's very important, you know, and is at the heart of the discussion which you, for whatever reason, would rather not have take place."
I would say that the discussion you allude to is completely subjective. If you want to try and have that discussion go right ahead. Like I said above, show your work.
So if I break into your home and kill you with a 12 gauge pump shotgun and steal all your stuff it is a subjective value judgement that is bad Jake? Do you really want to go that way? I am an atheist but I also acknowledge certain fundamental ethical principles that seemed to be cross culturally genetically wired into sane people like though shall not kill, and thall shall not steal. And no I don't consider Bush, or Olmert, or someone who holds more than they can use "just because they can" to be sane people but rather people suffering severe sociopathy disorders. The old saying the scum rises to the top could be rewritten in modern lingo as the sociopaths rise to the top.
"So if I break into your home and kill you with a 12 gauge pump shotgun and steal all your stuff it is a subjective value judgement that is bad Jake? Do you really want to go that way?"
No I don't want toi go that way. I would much rather try to understand why you somehow thought I had income from investnet real estate and if I did, why it would make me "greedy".
Anything to avoid what we were just discussion the implications of the nihilistic assumption that values are subjective right Jake?
"Anything to avoid what we were just discussion the implications of the nihilistic assumption that values are subjective right Jake?"
LOL! Your example was utterly stupid. There are plenty of people who commit murder and theft *despite* the fact that they themselves judge it to be wrong. But our discussion was about greed. Try providing your *very best* example of a situation where greed can be judged as such objectively and I will be happy to respond.
Jake I was responding to YOUR comment above:
""Are you of the opinion that "value" judgments are entirely subjective?"
Absolutely, and I would be very interested in any argument you have to the contrary."
And I reductio ad absurdum proved that is untenable basis for personal ethics, don't weasel out of it now.
Next!
"And I reductio ad absurdum proved that is untenable basis for personal ethics, don't weasel out of it now."
You did no such thing. You changed the subject. The weasel is the one ignoring that the subject under discussion is "greed" and not "murder". And besides there are all sorts of ways that people *subjectively* justify the act of killing. You can still try again, but if you refuse to discuss the subject, "greed", *you* are being a weasel.
"Next!"
LOL!
Let's take one thing at a time. You say value judgments are entirely subjective. I don't think you really know what you are saying.
Let's postulate a situation by taking "excess" to the limit. Say, by some mechanism, Bill Gates developed a system to funnel all the world's wealth to himself. *All* of it is now controlled by Bill Gates. Would you consider his share of the world's wealth as excessive? Based on objective reality? (The primary reality of his complete control of wealth and the secondary facts consequent to and based in his control?) If so, you would be making a value judgment. At what point down the scale of "excessiveness" would you then say value judgments are entirely subjective? On what would you base your argument?
I have a feeling, the point on the scale would be someplace, strangely, just about where we are now, the best of all possible (conveniently nihilistic) worlds. But, of course, there would be no real logic involved.
"Let's postulate a situation by taking "excess" to the limit."
That's pretty useless. I'm not interested at what we might both agree to be excessive. The real interest involving *opinions* of what greed is lie not at this extereme, but at the margins. And that is where we find people drawing the line so as to be sure they are on the side they think is correct. We are never greedy ourselves, only others are greedy. Where is the logic in that?
I take it you find my point of logic unanswerable? Do you now admit that "values" are within the realm of the objective and not simply in the subjective?
In which case, I agree, we are ready to examine "greed".
Unfortunately, your post here doesn't bode well for a rigorous discussion. How could you possibly know what line I would draw without discussing the subject? And how could we get anywhere discussing the nature and attributes of a concept with your "a priori" defensive baggage?
"I take it you find my point of logic unanswerable?"
LOL! Yes, precisely. If Bill Gates had all the wealth, then everyone would be dead, and it would have been impossible for me to consider whether that was excessive or not, because I would be dead.
"Do you now admit that "values" are within the realm of the objective and not simply in the subjective?"
No I don't. I assume that silly story was an attempt to demonstrate that greed can be judged on objective criteria, but it fell far short of that showing that. I am however willing to hear another example that might prove your assertion.
"How could you possibly know what line I would draw without discussing the subject?"
I wouldn't know, but I would bet 9 times out of 10 you include yourself on the "not greedy" side of the line, but I could be wrong.
Jake -- You're dodging the issue. You won't discuss the logic of the situation which is: Why would values be objective on one part of the scale of excessiveness but not somewhere else on the scale? You apparently *do* find it unanswerable as you don't answer it. It is the question I'm asking you and the reason there is no point in giving another "example" until you answer it.
We could even assume that Bill Gates allows you to live as a serf while he controls all the wealth. It wouldn't make any difference in the argument. Would you still consider the question of the "excessiveness" of his wealth - and his control over your life - to be subjective? Of course you wouldn't. You would come to an objective conclusion. Why, on some other level on the scale of excessiveness would values suddenly become only subjective?
It makes no sense. Do you see some sense in it? So, you see, it's not a silly story at all. It goes the the heart of the subjective/objective issue and of your logical error.
If we had the time to really debate this subject, I would be willing to argue that greed is a bad thing like a cancer and there is no *line* of how much is acceptable.
LOL yourself, Dummy. Thanks for your time.
"Jake -- We're not communicating, I'm afraid."
Agreed.
"You won't discuss the logic of the situation which is: Why would values be objective on one part of the scale of excessiveness but not somewhere else on the scale?"
I deny that your scenario depicted a case where greed could be objectively diagnosed. That is why I didn't respond to it. I'm sorry if that was not clear to you.
"You apparently *do* find it unanwerable as you don't answer it. It is the question I'm asking you and the reason there is no point in giving another "example" until you answer it."
Even if we both agreed that Mr. Gates was greedy in your scenario, that does not show that it was for objective reasons. There could also be other conditions that explain the situation to the exclusion of greed that neither of us has considered. Is this clear? If you think there are objective reasons to call Gates greedy in your hypothetical than *you* should identify those reasons and demonstrate that they are applicable.
"We could even assume that Bill Gates allows you to live as a serf while he controls all the wealth. It wouldn't make any difference in the argument. Would you still consider the question of the "excessiveness" of his wealth - and his control over your life - to be subjective? Of course you wouldn't. You would come to an objective conclusion."
Again, you need to identify those objective reasons and demonstrate them to be relevant to your hypothetical case.
"So, you see, it's not a silly story at all."
It is unworkable. We knew nothing of the conditions that led up to your scenario that could have been helpful in coming up with the *real* conditions concerning our friend Bill.
"It goes the the heart of the subjective/objective issue."
If successful, I agree it would have.
"If we had the time to really debate this subject, I would be willing to argue that greed is a bad thing like a cancer and there is no *line* of how much is acceptable."
And I in turn would counter that it's a matter of subjective judgment as to when reasonable self interest becomes greed.
"LOL yourself, Dummy. Thanks for your time."
You are most welcome.
Clap, clap, clap, good reductio ad absurdum, it's cool when my philosophy major comes in handy. :)
Arry wrote:
So, you're saying that our discussion of a term should be bound by what you found in a dictionary?
COMMENT:
wtf - Uh, yeah.
Dictionaries aren't composed of someone's arbitrary made-up definitions: dictionaries present word meanings as used by educated writers and speakers. The more complete dictionaries such as the 20 volume OED and the M Webster's Internationals, often quote words as used in sentences by literate people.
If you aren't "bound by what you found in a dictionary" you aren't communicating in the same language as others, you're simply talking gibberish like GWB, or those folks trying to build the tower of Babel.
Unable to edit my post, so I'll repost it edited.
Wrong, advocate. I'm talking about a discussion. I'm not saying dictionaries are useless. I'm saying that the whole point of a discussion is to "take it from there". If a dictionary definition defines the boundaries of a discussion, said discussion will be flat and innocuous and really of little point. (If you take a look at almost any philosophical treatise, you will often see half or more of the space taken with definitions and explanations of how terms are used. And with good reason. They do not say, "Just look it up.") The key word, the import of which you missed, is "bound" as in "boundaries".
I admit to being unclear when I said, "Every definition is made up." I didn't mean that definitions are arbitrary. (As an ex-head of a large public library reference division as well as a free lance book editor, believe me, I am intimately acquainted with the OED and just about every other dictionary.) But definitions, ultimately *are* made up...historically. We are part of the process and the "authority" argument rubs me the wrong way when it is used to restrict an argument. It should be used properly as a seed as every thinker worth his or her salt knows.
Wrong, advocate. I'm talking about a discussion. I'm not saying dictionaries are useless. I'm saying that the whole point of a discussion is to "take it from there". If a dictionary definition defines the boundaries of a discussion, said discussion will be flat and innocuous and really of little point. (If you take a look at almost any philosophical treatise, you will often see half or more of the space taken with definitions and explanations of how terms are used. And for a good reason. They do not say, "Just look it up.") The key word, the import of which you missed, is "bound" as in "boundaries".
Yeah I have to come down on the side of the language evolves school here, for example I think greed probably meant something different to medieval catholics than to 21st century Americans and what's more the medieval definition was probably more poetic and deeper in meaning, where as a 21st century American dictionary probably has to protect the interest of the capitalist class that publishes it, moving the language defintion closer to Orwell's New Speak every year. Fortunately the old meanings of words ARE passed down on the oral culture and in the connotations words have beyond their explicit dictionary meanings. That does NOT mean language is infinitely malleable but it does mean words often have more poetic resonant meaning that is often NOT stated fully in a dictionary definition some of which you can sometimes pick up in a Thesaurus. Thus I would argue that given an old word like greed's hidden connotations that my definition is just as good if not better than one found in a modern dictionary.
Ex poet and philosophy major here so yes I DO have an axe to grind.
Language evolves -- dinosaurs die out !
And we're the evolvers!
I'm sorry, are you trying to make a case for some *specific* definition of the term "greed" that you think should apply here? If so, just post it so in a plain manner. Please.
I already did, the ball is in your court to defend WHY it would be ethical for people to wastefully have more than they can use when other people are suffering and even dying from want of basic needs.
"I already did,"
You offered a definition with a useless clause involving knowledge that others suffer. That point you made up for your own purposes.
"the ball is in your court to defend WHY it would be ethical for people to wastefully have more than they can use when other people are suffering and even dying from want of basic needs."
No, the ball remains in your court as to how we could possibly agree on a case by case basis as to what is "more than they can use", or excessive, etc. I think your computer is more than you need and since you insist on keeping it rather than donating it to the poor you are greedy. I also think you should be limited to one pair of shoes, one change of clothes, and a home half as large as the one you are currently in. I will audit your pantry from time to time to be sure there are no foodstuffs that I consider to be luxuries. In addition, you must get off the CD comments area right now, and donate all of your liesure time to a cause that I find worthy and acceptable. If you don't like this assesment, then maybe you should now realize the difficulty in being so presumptuous as to audit others lives as to what you see to be their needs and wants.
Swedish people live just fine with a 50% tax rate and it alleviates a tremendous amount of unnecessary suffering compared to what we see in the U.S. So yes the inclusion of suffering caused by sociopathic greed was deliberate for what makes greed evil IMO is the suffering it causes. But your dirty secret jake is you don't care if people suffer as long as you've got yours which is almost a text book definition of sociopathy:
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
You really ought to see a psychiatrist IMO and DO something about your lack of empathy which not only causes others to suffer due to clutching greed as opposed to sharing more but I suspect makes you unhappy as well because you don't see your fellow people as brothers and sisters but mere competitors for resources that could be yours. We are all in this together whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. Your mine, mine, mine attitude makes you look like an asshole to MANY people regardless of whether they are as blunt as expressing it as I am.
"So yes the inclusion of suffering caused by sociopathic greed was deliberate for what makes greed evil IMO is the suffering it causes."
So it was deliberate on your part to include the suffering clause in your *made up* definition. Fine, just don't expect for people to understand the words you use when you just make up what you want for them to mean for you. That gets in the way of effective communication.
"But your dirty secret jake is you don't care if people suffer as long as you've got yours"
Ad hominem. You should avoid that. Philosophy major you say? You fantasized that I had rental properties. What else do you dare fantasize about my material worth so as to arrogantly say "as long as you've got yours"?
"which is almost a text book definition of sociopathy:"
Assuming that it's true that I don't care if people suffer, perhaps so, but you of course have no possible way of knowing that.
"You really ought to see a psychiatrist IMO and DO something about your lack of empathy"
Please demonstrate that I lack empathy.
"which not only causes others to suffer due to clutching greed as opposed to sharing more but I suspect makes you unhappy as well because you don't see your fellow people as brothers and sisters but mere competitors for resources that could be yours. We are all in this together whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. Your mine, mine, mine attitude makes you look like an asshole to MANY people regardless of whether they are as blunt as expressing it as I am."
We were discussing my thesis that greed is only manifested in the minds of those who judge it to be so. What have I said that could possibly lead you to the above conclusions about me? The answer of course is not a single thing. There is for example nothing that I have said that demonstrates that I "lack empathy" as you charged. As a philosophy major, you should know better than to be projecting your defective preconceived notions of who you think a person might be and instead concentrate on exactly what they have said and respond directly to that.
And you may also notice that unlike you, I have not said a thing about who or what I think you are in our discussion because I know that to be a fallacy of logic. And I'm not even a philosophy major.
The primary benefit of capitalism to the public good is supposed to occur as a result of competition between producers of similar goods. Supposedly competition motivates people to find more efficient ways of producing good and services, and this benefits us all. But, open and free competition has a tendency to bring prices ever closer to costs which reduces profits. Because of the political economy in the US the greedy are able to amass fortunes so large that they can use some of that fortune to modify the rules of the game to further improve their chances of amassing even larger fortunes (who can blame them). One of the primary objectives of such efforts to modify the rules of the game is to reduce or avoid competition which is the best way to produce larger profits, which, of course, eventually eliminates any benefit to the public good. It seems to me that this is an inevitable perversion of the high-minded capitalism described by Adam Smith.
"What we've discovered - yet again - is that when properly harnessed, greed makes an effective, productive servant."
Is Bookman channeling Gordon Gekko now?
I don't think greed ever makes a productive anything. It is a base corruption and once harnessed, will always win out. Always.
Self-interest can be harnessed, not greed.
Bad choice of words, Bookman.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
by saying: "properly harnessed, greed makes an effective , productive servant",
the author might as well say:
"murder , war, torture, untrustworthiness, exploitation, slavery, bombs, warplanes, well-trained patriotic soldiers, most advanced death deatling machines, spying on people, state terror, terrorism, cheap labor, polluting the planet, profiteering, etc.etc.etc. - PROPERLY HARNESSED can make for a useful, productive SERVANT"........
of greed.
how's THAT for tautology? hehe
Who is going to grease the excluded middle?
Because of the unbounded complexity involved, there are innumerable models one could reasonably create of past and present economic systems, and the model chosen drives the diagnoses of faults and shortcomings in the past and present economic systems. Bookman's model appears to be based on the myth of the value of greed, which is longstanding as it served as the earliest justification for capitalist systems. But it seems going further back may provide the basis for richer and more useful models.
For tens of thousands of years homo sapiens survived in small communal groups which engaged heavily in sharing. The development of agriculture contributed to the evolution of more specialized economic activities and to the creation of larger groups, which must have contributed to the creation and popularity of social rules regarding private property. Private property allowed those who worked their land the hardest to save the most for the winter and the coming year (rewarding productive behavior and creating positive feedback loops with utilitarian value) and discouraged free riders, those who would live off the labor of others, a form of behavior likely to become prevalent in larger groups with many anonymous members whose parasitic activity could go unnoticed. On the down side, the existence of private property encouraged bullies to threaten and manipulate others to accumulate great amounts of property, usually with the help of accomplices and sycophants. The bullies accumulated more and more power as they either joined with or defeated competing bullies to the point they became kings and emperors. But this then led to the creation of a new class of parasitic free riders -- those with hereditary wealth or with wealth derived from intimidation and force.
Though after certain intellectual and cultural developments in Western Europe most in the population came to doubt the legitimacy of royalty and hereditary wealth and began to reject that form of bullying, a new class of more sophisticated bullies arose comprised of members who could use their connections, privileged education, and assertiveness, often accompanied by dishonesty and ruthlessness, to accumulate capital that could be used to form enterprises that would exploit the labor and property of the less fortunate, such enterprises to serve in accumulating ever greater amounts of capital. And the actions of this new class of bullies created a new class of parasitic free riders, including those who would benefit from hereditary wealth as well as those well-connected to these capitalists who could easily accumulate their own capital. And all these capitalists could join together to control governments in their efforts to ensure the availability of resources and cheap labor to exploit.
Cheap simplistic justifications, such as that of the article, flow from primitive models of human motivation and productive activity. Certainly any number of sophisticated models of motivation and behavior can be developed and analyzed and argued over incessantly. But that would not be consistent with the interests of the "masters of the universe" I guess, and I do not expect to find such analyses and arguments in any mainstream publications.
Thank you for your wonderful essay!
Good post kivals! Best mini history of western hierarchy and capitalism I''ve seen on here.
What a crock!
Greed is the undoing of all cultures.
And what is good about a free market that yields power and expensive toys for a few people?
This article makes me sick. It's just another example of how we, as a society, have completely lost the sense of community, family and respsonsibility to the common good of the people.
Is this the same Jay Bookman who wrote the wonderful column several years ago, and brought us warnings,as the future war on Iraq was being promoted, about the neocons and their writing, The Project of The New American Century? He listed them all, with brief bios.
Yes, but hard to figure. This concept is so simplistic:greed can be harnessed for good. And unreal. Did I read it wrong?
NYCartist -- Seems to me there is a lot involved here. I don't remember the article, but Bookman may believe the neocons and free traders "harnessed greed for the bad". On the assumption that capitalism has created the wonderful world we live in and is the best system ever devised, one may have great antipathy toward those who would divert its wonders.
Unfortunately, the great age of capitalist greed has been the most violent and destructive (not to mention hypocritical) age in history and is clearly taking us over the edge. A few bad unregulated apples? All the wisdom tradition of the world starts at the assumption that the only way to live is to begin at the beginning. There are certain human attributes that must be kept in check from the beginning or they vitiate all that follows. Greed is one of those elements.
Is this the best of all worlds...minus the neocons and "free traders"? What a benighted and attenuated viewpoint.
this thinly hidden paean to greed has a number of problems, chief of which is that its central assumption is a lie. people do their best work when they do it because they like to work. the idea that greed is good is propaganda used by the takers to justify their robbing of the makers, something which the makers tolerate as long as they're allowed to do productive work without the distraction of financial worries. takers, you are now in deep sh*t.
Paul Siemering
Greed huh? yeah right. some human frailty run amok is that the problem? It is true that greed drives capitalism. but it's capitalism itself that is the problem.
Global capitalism is methodically making the hungry billions in the Global South still hungrier, and poorer.
It is also consuming every last piece of our planet for its nefarious ends. What North Americans like to call our "needs".
We are just crawling out of capital's biggest holiday the Feast of Consumption, when we all honor capital as if it were the one true god. Which in fact it is until we can finally overthrow it and try to discover our humanity again.
Another world really is possible. When it comes it will necessarily include another economic systam
"Global capitalism is methodically making the hungry billions in the Global South still hungrier, and poorer."
"It is also consuming every last piece of our planet for its nefarious ends. What North Americans like to call our "needs"."
Precisely. How in the world can Bookman claim that capitalism has given "billions of people a quality of life and security that would otherwise be unimaginable."
What planet does this Bookman live on?
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
Universal Law No. 1 :
You can be greedy until you have $1,000,000.00 in your kick; then you have to stop it and start doing something helpful.
Such as:
Teaching art to kids
Writing poetry
Cleaning up beaches
Housing for the helpless
Stuff like that. But, no more greedy stuff.
Not enough, how about $2 mil. after taxes? ;) snark snark
"innovation and risk-taking encouraged by capitalism have given billions of people a quality of life and security that would otherwise be unimaginable. If there is a better, more productive system for meeting the physical needs of human life, we haven't found it yet."
What the fuck, Bookman? Maybe millions have been given a quality of life that would otherwise be unimaginable. But billions? Again, I ask, what the fuck? BILLIONS live in grinding poverty so that a few million can live in luxury. Pull your head out of the sand, man, and take a look around. Half of the US lives in luxury, the other half in near or abject poverty. Most of Europe is fairly well off. The rest of the world PAYS for this in terms of hunger and thirst and pollution. Keep on kidding yourself in order so that you can enjoy your cushy lifestyle. Don't try to kid the rest of us.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
"If there is a better, more productive system for meeting the physical needs of human life, we haven't found it yet."
-----
What an outright shameful lie! There WAS a better way that existed for thousands of years, but capitalism ran roughshod over it, destroyed all it's remnants, and continues to destroy it wherever it still manages to exist. (ie, Amazon rainforest right now)
The real joke is that they try to knock something together in capitalism that worked nearly as well. Then, they go on and say "THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE."
Something better was waiting for us before capitalism and civilisation and something better is still waiting for us. It's still there. We just have to realise there IS an alternative. And it's a good one.
Yeah, that's an odd statement, considering human civilization has existed (and in quite a few cases flourished) for a hell of a long time before capitalism came to be.
"What we've discovered - yet again - is that when properly harnessed, greed makes an effective, productive servant."
ARE YOU KIDDING???
Working for the COMMON GOOD is the only productive action we can ever take. The sooner we discard this ridiculous notion that it's okay to try to grab everything for yourself, the better. Jay Bookman has been viewing the film "Wall Street" too many times. You are nothing without your connection to other human beings. What you give to them, you receive yourself. What harms them harms you.
WAKE UP before it's too late to save this world and every creature in it. You only have to look back at far as last month, where a Walmart employee was trampled to death because a crowd of people cared more about big-screen TVs than about human life. And the economic mess the USA is in right now is due to greed. Greed isn't just about money, by the way; it's also a lust for power which is causing the deaths of innocent people around the world.
It disgusts me whenever anyone calls greed the most powerful emotion people can have. Love is more powerful by far, but some people are so brainwashed that they don't know it.
"Working for the COMMON GOOD is the only productive action we can ever take."
Defining what "common good" means is a matter of personal opinion. Unfortunately only those with political power can act on what is ostensibly the common good.
Not true. You can work toward the "common good" with every action you engage in, especially when interacting with another person.
*sigh* We may disagree on what is "common good". It's a value judgement made by individuals. There is no common good save for the aggregate of what individuals think it is.
Anybody who lived one month in cooperation and for the common good would never go back to this I'll-get-mine-no-matter-what-mentality.
Greed has turned Appalachia into a toxic third world wasted dump with third world health care. http://www.wisecountyissues.com
I have seen the photos shown on your (I assume) blog and find them appaling. It is simply amazing to see what people will do so they can stick an extra buck in their pocket. I know Appalachia is a very economically poor area to begin with. To subject those who live there with this enviornmental rape is absolutely inexcusable. To make matters worse, Bu$h, in one of his final midnight law changes is relaxing what rules do exist on mountaintop coal mining. He is changing Clinton's regulations (which realy don't amount to anything remarkable in themselves) into what amounts to zero regulation. I simply cannot fathom how our government can allow this kind of rape and destruction of what used to be a beautiful part of the nation. It's simply unbelieveable what people can justify in the name of making money, especially when you consider that the ultimate end purpose of money is to allow one to live in more comfort and luxury...to have a cushy, easy life for THEMSELF. If our own "representatives" in government weren't filthy rich themselves, perhaps eventually a law could be imposed that limits the things people can do in the name of greed (in other words selfishness)...an example being that for whoever the CEO's of the coal mining companys that ravaged the mountains in Appalachia in order to make a easier life for themselves and the few wealthy executive below them at the expense of the people who live in that area (ie. a few people benefitting far beyond their needs at the expense of many people who are exceptionally poor and were probably there long before the coal companys even laid eyes on the area) the ones who became wealthy by destroying the lives of the residents of the area should be forced to live there themselves, and their enormous profits reasonably garnished (not confiscated, they did do SOME work some go ahead and compensate them for what their actual work is worth yet still guarantee adequate compenstion to be used for the damage caused to the region, if that is even possible) and divided among those who now suffer so as to provide them at least a bit of compensation for their losses. If you or any of your loved ones live in this area, I am so very sorry that you have to endure this blight on your home region. I used to work as a surveyor for a coal company that was a subsidiary of a major oil company and we did very high order accuracy geodetic survey work along with locating everything that existed, including hills, valleys, etc. via remote sensing and aerial survey work in oder to comply with federal reclaimation laws that apply to strip mining. I still disliked the idea of strip mining to began with, but great care was taken to make sure the terrain was returned to its original state after mining. To futher reassure anyone concerned, the coal company portion of this oil company was closed down becuase the price of oil dropped to $18/per barrel. No mining ever actually ever took place.
If Bu$h and his criminal cabal are ever investigated, tried, and convicted of the endless crimes they have committed (and I intend to do everything that I can legally and humanly do to see that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as it is literally impossible for me to describe my rage and disgust at this administration's blatent disregard for the rule of law and the principles upon which allow this as well as other CIVILIZED nations to even exist), if they are imprisoned rather than the alternative punishment prescribed for treason, murder, and war crimes, it would be more than fitting for their drinking water to be piped in, unfiltered, from the streams that remain in this area and the prison that they are confined to be located next to a coal burning power plant (an old nuke plant would be a reasonable second choice.)
and without an apology or even a second thought.
greed will eat the soul of it's host.
It already has in Jake Newton's case.
… perhaps it only swallowed it whole ?
It's that slow digestive dissolution, and acid wash out that we experience so joyfully with the Jakster.
Namaste
"Namaste"
Great to see you again, glad to see they let you back in!