In our flawed, evil, competitive world, it's ironic that greed can create more good than can "kindness".
If pursuing profit is greed, economist Walter Williams told me, then greed is good, because it drives us to do many good things. "Those areas where people are motivated the most by greed are the areas that we're the most satisfied with: supermarkets, computers, FedEx." By contrast, areas "where people say we're motivated by 'caring'" -- public education, public housing etc. -- "are the areas of disaster in our country. . . . How much would get done," Williams wondered, "if it all depended on human love and kindness?"Greed gets people to cooperate. If you want to benefit from other greedy people, you have to make sure they benefit from you.
In this context it's important to note that "greed" does not imply a willingness to cheat or break the rules, simply a desire to maximize your own benefit by trading with others who are each also want to do the best they can for themselves.
No one person made my dinner possible. It took thousands of people to get me the food. And none of them did it for me. As economist Adam Smith put it, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
It's a strange system that's far less than ideal, but it's apparently the best system possible considering our innate human failings.
(Earlier Greed Is Good post).
Why would you or Walter Williams set greed and optimal trading on the same footing?
One man receives a $1000 paycheck and his blood boils with anger over the small amount. He invests as much as he can in small-cap technology stocks. He treats his rich uncle like a king. But, his grandmother lives in the cheapest nursing home he could find for her.
Another man does the same job for the same wage. He has his $1000 paycheck direct-deposited to his bank account, but remembers to thank God for it every week. He regularly invites his poor neighbors over for dinner. His parents died without leaving an inheritance, but he plans to leave a substantial part of his wealth to his children.
The difference between these two men is greed.
Choosing to trade bread for butter is one thing. Greed is something else.
It must be wacko season.
Mark: Yeah, that guy was crazy. I only deleted his second comment by accident though, oh well.
David: I agree, the word "greed" needs to be considered in context. It should be obvious that a free market system isn't the best organization for, e.g., a family.
You mentioned the food markets, but these are often broken, paying 3rd world producers a pittance for crops which use resources they should be using to support themselves.
Fair trade organisations improve on the pure greed impulse of international capitalism.
Aww, I missed a flaming wacko? I guess it's hard to choose what is appropriate, but I hope you factor in the entertainment value when considering what to delete. :-)
Greed has a negative denotation. Self-interest is a better word--free of any moral baggage.
In some ideal world, everyone would look our for the interests of others as much as themselves. But societies built on the principle of concern for others have a notorious track record of failure: Soviet Union; Red China; Nazi Germany. (If you think I am wrong about Nazi Germany: the 1932 election slogan that helped propel the Nazis to power was "Gemeinnuetz vor Einnuetz" or "Common needs before individual needs." It worked very well at getting the newly enfranchised and idealistic 18 year olds to vote Nazi.)
The desire to help others is a laudable goal. But for most people, there's a limit to the amount of sacrifice that they are willing to make for others, especially people that they don't even know. This becomes even more problematic is the sacrifice is severe.
If you have to construct a social system around self-sacrifice or self-interest, which is more likely to be successful? It should be obvious. It may be that the laws will require some incentives to prevent self-interest from becoming exploitive, but self-interest is a reliable motivator in a way that self-sacrifice is not.
Trickle-down theory.. exit stage left.