Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]
Discussion
popeyewhite said:
singlecoil said:
Worth bearing in mind that just because somebody tested negative doesn't mean they actually were negative. New drugs need new tests, and the drugs are always in the lead as the testers try to catch up.
True.popeyewhite said:
They are perfectly legitimate goals in themselves. Why shouldn't they be? But greed as you want it defined is a personal construct. If you can easily afford an M5 then it's not greedy. If you have to mortgage your house to own three...
I'm trying to distinguish between the following 2 scenarios.A) Fred decides his life is not complete without an M5, he works hard, provides his customers with good service and accumulates the money while still providing for his family.
B) Tom also decides his life is not complete without an M5. But he rips off his customers and neglects his responsibilities in order to accumulate the money.
Tom is being greedy and selfish. Fred is neither selfish nor particularly selfless. But many people will describe Fred's determination to get rich as greed, even though the connotations of selfishness are not justified. It isn't a continuum of greed it's two different situations.
Dr Jekyll said:
I'm trying to distinguish between the following 2 scenarios.
A) Fred decides his life is not complete without an M5, he works hard, provides his customers with good service and accumulates the money while still providing for his family.
B) Tom also decides his life is not complete without an M5. But he rips off his customers and neglects his responsibilities in order to accumulate the money.
Tom is being greedy and selfish. Fred is neither selfish nor particularly selfless. But many people will describe Fred's determination to get rich as greed, even though the connotations of selfishness are not justified. It isn't a continuum of greed it's two different situations.
You're over thinking it Dr. Fred has aspirations plain and simple, it's not greed. Your ability to post on this thread is a result of you working hard enough to afford broadband and a PC. Greed can't simply be described as desiring anything that isn't absolutely necessary to basic survival or all bets are off.A) Fred decides his life is not complete without an M5, he works hard, provides his customers with good service and accumulates the money while still providing for his family.
B) Tom also decides his life is not complete without an M5. But he rips off his customers and neglects his responsibilities in order to accumulate the money.
Tom is being greedy and selfish. Fred is neither selfish nor particularly selfless. But many people will describe Fred's determination to get rich as greed, even though the connotations of selfishness are not justified. It isn't a continuum of greed it's two different situations.
In all commerce somebody wins and somebody loses but that's still an awful lot nicer than the titanic struggle for life and death that occurs naturally a thousand times a minute in every square foot of lush meadow we serenely survey.
All furtherance is a struggle against something but as long as you don't deliberately set out to hurt others I can't see self improvement as necessarily evil.
Dr Jekyll said:
br d said:
In all commerce somebody wins and somebody loses..,
Not necessarily.But yes, I take your point and I may be on shaky ground there.
Dr Jekyll said:
br d said:
In all commerce somebody wins and somebody loses..,
Not necessarily.If you want bread and I want milk, it works best if you make the bread, and I milk the cow. Then if we both want bread AND milk, we dont both have to do both jobs, basically halving the time, effort and resource needed.
It works even better if you make 1000 loaves and I milk loads of cows. The surplus can be sold, and the revenue spent on supporting the efforts of other specialists, in return for the fruits of their labours, to the benefit of everyone.
Dr Jekyll said:
popeyewhite said:
They are perfectly legitimate goals in themselves. Why shouldn't they be? But greed as you want it defined is a personal construct. If you can easily afford an M5 then it's not greedy. If you have to mortgage your house to own three...
I'm trying to distinguish between the following 2 scenarios.A) Fred decides his life is not complete without an M5, he works hard, provides his customers with good service and accumulates the money while still providing for his family.
B) Tom also decides his life is not complete without an M5. But he rips off his customers and neglects his responsibilities in order to accumulate the money.
Tom is being greedy and selfish. Fred is neither selfish nor particularly selfless. But many people will describe Fred's determination to get rich as greed, even though the connotations of selfishness are not justified. It isn't a continuum of greed it's two different situations.
Or will you covet it, cosset it and spend more time with it than your kids?
popeyewhite said:
It's whatever you make it, because it's totally subjective - a matter of personal opinion. I don't think either are being particularly greedy as neither already own an M5. Gecko was greedy because he had lots of money and wanted more - to make this palatable and repeatable to co-workers he created the justification 'greed is good'. Perhaps the justification for purchase is something you should look at? Will you use the car? Thrash it to within an inch of its life? Track it?
Or will you covet it, cosset it and spend more time with it than your kids?
But if someone already had 743 M5s and still wants another, is that wrong? Or will you covet it, cosset it and spend more time with it than your kids?
And getting to the whole point of the discussion, why would Gordon Gecko need a justification for wanting to make more money? What's unpalatable about it?
The point is that he didn't say 'Greed is good', he was referring to 'what for want of a better word (his emphasis) I shall call greed'.
He was saying that wanting more money didn't need to be justified to anyone because there was nothing wrong with it. He was distinguishing between wanting more, of anything, and being greedy. If you don't make this distinction, if you believe in zero sum economics where every transaction has a loser then you won't see the problem and won't need another word, you just say 'greed'. But if you take the view that acquisition of more wealth and surplus M5s is not inherently wrong then like Gordon Gecko you need another word, which the Wall Street scriptwriters didn't have.
br d said:
Hmm, well not necessarily in terms of personal loss but there has to be a negative element to any transaction even if it's just in resource terms (which will eventually impact on a community or a financial entity somewhere).
But yes, I take your point and I may be on shaky ground there.
Very much so. Honest trade is a voluntary thing. Two parties exchanging something they have for something they want more. Both are happier after. This is the real wealth that is created, any money is just a representation of it.But yes, I take your point and I may be on shaky ground there.
Of course you can have win:lose - involuntary transactions, e.g. theft or taxation are examples.
Dr Jekyll said:
popeyewhite said:
It's whatever you make it, because it's totally subjective - a matter of personal opinion. I don't think either are being particularly greedy as neither already own an M5. Gecko was greedy because he had lots of money and wanted more - to make this palatable and repeatable to co-workers he created the justification 'greed is good'. Perhaps the justification for purchase is something you should look at? Will you use the car? Thrash it to within an inch of its life? Track it?
Or will you covet it, cosset it and spend more time with it than your kids?
But if someone already had 743 M5s and still wants another, is that wrong? Or will you covet it, cosset it and spend more time with it than your kids?
No, it would be odd in my opinion.
Dr Jekyll said:
And getting to the whole point of the discussion, why would Gordon Gecko need a justification for wanting to make more money?
He had plenty of money and wanted more. He was prepared to be unscrupulous about getting more. You've seen the movie - yes?Dr Jekyll said:
What's unpalatable about it?
Relentless pursuit of money, the acquisition of money through sharp practice, dishonesty etc etc. Generally these things are frowned on and some may label a person who displays such behaviour as greedy. Social norms and contemporary culture dictate what is considered acceptable. To these people, which may include some of Gecko's co-workers, his behaviour might have been seen as bending the rules/risky. T sell them his economic vision he coined 'greed is good'. In reality it's not for want of a better phrase because Gecko was, actually, bloody greedy. Dr Jekyll said:
The point is that he didn't say 'Greed is good', he was referring to 'what for want of a better word (his emphasis) I shall call greed'.
He was saying that wanting more money didn't need to be justified to anyone because there was nothing wrong with it. He was distinguishing between wanting more, of anything, and being greedy.
He was saying that wanting more money didn't need to be justified to anyone because there was nothing wrong with it. He was distinguishing between wanting more, of anything, and being greedy.
Yes. But the lines between the two became blurred didn't they.
Nothing wrong with being successful and wanting more money at all. At all. Within reason and with good judgement. What's your point though? Gecko was greedy and it was his downfall. Was lack of self-discipline/self-concept to blame? Perhaps he was slightly delusional.
popeyewhite said:
Dr Jekyll said:
And getting to the whole point of the discussion, why would Gordon Gecko need a justification for wanting to make more money?
He had plenty of money and wanted more. He was prepared to be unscrupulous about getting more. You've seen the movie - yes?"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good."
Secondly, Gekko is in the middle of a classic restructuring bid for Teldar, which is perfectly legal.
Gekko is bemoaning the fact that the current management of Teldar Paper have no "skin in the game"; specifically they own very little of the stock.
In fact, they own so little of the stock their incentives (driven by greed, of course) are not aligned with shareholders.
He suggests that the management want to keep running corporate jets and paying themselves huge salaries, rather than maximising the value of the stock (by selling the jets, reducing salaries and returning those savings to shareholders in the form of improved margins and greater earnings).
Gekko's tender offer for Teldar is actually perfectly legit and legal and no doubt would have created significant value for the shareholders and himself both as the largest shareholder and as future 100% owner.
The people who would have lost out would have been the over-paid execs (so in that sense it is a zero-sum game in this particular transaction).
Really all he means here by "greed" is "incentives".
He takes for granted that "profit maximisation" is an inherent good, or at least something everyone voting for the tender offer would want.
Hugo a Gogo said:
of course the OP is asking for a word for a type of greed (ie wanting more stuff) without the pejorative connotations, but it doesn't exist
"Self-interest" (or as I like to call it: "human nature").As Gekko points out "greed" is an unjustly maligned word.
You can have "greedy" transactions that are win:win, just as you can have two self-interested parties reaching an agreement to their mutual benefit.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff