• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who's greedy again?

Who is more greedy?

  • The 99% who work hard for their money

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • The 1% who earn from the labor of their emplyees

    Votes: 7 21.2%

  • This poll is preposterous

    Votes: 18 54.5%

  • No Opinion

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Everyone

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
whysoserious said:
Exactly, an excessive amount. You believe that $75k is an excessive amount? And of course, if 5 billion pink ponies existed, most people wouldn't have one because of greed, so no, we wouldn't all be riding them around while farting rainbows.
Click to expand...

Who decides what's excessive?
You, me, democratically?

I can promise you one thing, no one will give us a fair definition to excessive, because it's subjective.
For me, $75k is excessive.
If you account what I earn, in benefits and wages, I'm making $30-35k a year, $75k sounds quite excessive to me.

whysoserious said:
The ideas behind capitalism may have existed for ages, but it certainly hasn't been practiced that long. For instance, it wasn't but a few centuries ago that private property was even acceptable for the great masses of people in Europe.
Click to expand...

It's been practiced since man made the first trade.
Private property predates Europe, ancient burials show that people, even commoners where buried with personal possessions, for the after life.
They thought they could take it with them.

whysoserious said:
Yes, "necessity is the mother of invention"... not "greed is the mother of invention". I don't recall ever hearing that.
Click to expand...

Greed is a natural response for humans.
We wanted to secure our lot and we did, quite successfully.
We still do, to this day.
 
I take that back, we already agreed to what was excessively greedy, long ago.
Don't kill and don't steal, follow those rules and you can own as much as you want.

I guess we're trying to change the rules again, mid game.
 
I think all those idiots fighting over tv's and xboxs yesterday are pretty greedy
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Who decides what's excessive?
You, me, democratically?

I can promise you one thing, no one will give us a fair definition to excessive, because it's subjective.
For me, $75k is excessive.
If you account what I earn, in benefits and wages, I'm making $30-35k a year, $75k sounds quite excessive to me.
Click to expand...

To me, $75k is just enough to afford a decent house, pay for four new tires when you need them, put in a new water heater when it goes out, etc. It may be more than you make, but it is clearly not excessive. There is no one making $75k that is flashing money around. Again, you think greed is subjective, but I don't. I already defined it:

Excess at the expense of others. That's greed.


Harry Guerrilla said:
It's been practiced since man made the first trade.
Private property predates Europe, ancient burials show that people, even commoners where buried with personal possessions, for the after life.
They thought they could take it with them.
Click to expand...

Private property and capitalism are not the same thing. And, again, in Europe, very few people had the privilege of ownership for most of history. Though I do not see the relevance of this argument anyway.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Greed is a natural response for humans.
We wanted to secure our lot and we did, quite successfully.
We still do, to this day.
Click to expand...

Says who? You? Is gluttony a natural response as well? I don't see greed as a natural response anywhere, nor do I think that capitalism has existed for eons, or that greed has ever been a good thing - no matter how you define it or try to phrase it. Now I do agree that capitalism is the best economic/political system we have found so far, that does not mean it does not have its faults and it does not mean there is not a better system yet undiscovered.

Personally, I don't think a system based on the negative human attribute of greed is a good system. We should be trying our best to find a better one.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I take that back, we already agreed to what was excessively greedy, long ago.
Don't kill and don't steal, follow those rules and you can own as much as you want.

I guess we're trying to change the rules again, mid game.
Click to expand...

Really? What a cop out. Yes any discussion of the system or it's downsides is "changing the rules". Can you go ahead and change your tag to conservative, please? ;)
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
To me, $75k is just enough to afford a decent house, pay for four new tires when you need them, put in a new water heater when it goes out, etc. It may be more than you make, but it is clearly not excessive. There is no one making $75k that is flashing money around. Again, you think greed is subjective, but I don't.
Click to expand...

They probably think $75k/year is a little excessive

starvation1.jpg
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
To me, $75k is just enough to afford a decent house, pay for four new tires when you need them, put in a new water heater when it goes out, etc. It may be more than you make, but it is clearly not excessive. There is no one making $75k that is flashing money around. Again, you think greed is subjective, but I don't. I already defined it:
Click to expand...

I can afford those things at my salary, clearly you're being greedy.
I just bought a house, new tires and could afford a water heater, if I needed one.

See how loose we can get with these terms and accusations.


whysoserious said:
Excess at the expense of others. That's greed.
Click to expand...

Unless we both define "at the expense of others" as the same thing.
Your definition is entirely subjective.


whysoserious said:
Private property and capitalism are not the same thing. And, again, in Europe, very few people had the privilege of ownership for most of history. Though I do not see the relevance of this argument anyway.
Click to expand...

Sometimes and in certain situations, but even then everyone owned some form of private property.
This is a historical fact, that predates Europe.


whysoserious said:
Says who? You? Is gluttony a natural response as well? I don't see greed as a natural response anywhere, nor do I think that capitalism has existed for eons, or that greed has ever been a good thing - no matter how you define it or try to phrase it. Now I do agree that capitalism is the best economic/political system we have found so far, that does not mean it does not have its faults and it does not mean there is not a better system yet undiscovered.

Personally, I don't think a system based on the negative human attribute of greed is a good system. We should be trying our best to find a better one.
Click to expand...

Says nature and evolutionary psychology.
"Greed" being, having more than you need, has been with humans for quite a lot longer than the founding of the USA, Europe or almost anywhere else.

There isn't a better system because you haven't eliminated scarcity.

P.S. Gluttony is a natural response, fat is the storage of excess energy, for times of food shortages.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
Really? What a cop out. Yes any discussion of the system or it's downsides is "changing the rules". Can you go ahead and change your tag to conservative, please? ;)
Click to expand...

It's not a cop out, but an observation.
Calling a person greedy, but being loose with the use of the terminology, makes it difficult to peg just what is greedy.

See, very few would agree with an income definition, so we went with one that makes the most sense.

Don't kill and don't steal, then you can have as much as you want.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I can afford those things at my salary, clearly you're being greedy.
I just bought a house, new tires and could afford a water heater, if I needed one.

See how loose we can get with these terms and accusations.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can, and that is fine for you (and quite impressive really), but everyone's situation is different. $30,000 in The belly of Leviathan is not the same as $30,000 in NYC.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Unless we both define "at the expense of others" as the same thing.
Your definition is entirely subjective.
Click to expand...

I think if you were to look at it based off of each property type(income, gold, food, etc) and at a case by case example - it wouldn't be that difficult. It reminds me of the phrase coined a few years back that says you cannot define something in a broad scope, but "you know it when you see it" (originally in reference to hard-core porn I believe lol). I may not be able to define who is greedy based off of a short, concise post, but I can point it out if when I see it.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Sometimes and in certain situations, but even then everyone owned some form of private property.
This is a historical fact, that predates Europe.
Click to expand...

True, but those were hard days. They weren't called the Dark Ages because they were fun. If you really wanted to apply the term greed to any specific groups of people, it wouldn't be the great masses of property (land or otherwise), but the monarchs, earls, and other royalty. And I think that same definition holds up today, though I do feel that capitalism, while a noble idea, really pits one against another and uses a negative human attribute as a driving force (which reminds me of another thread on here: "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions").

Harry Guerrilla said:
Says nature and evolutionary psychology.
"Greed" being, having more than you need, has been with humans for quite a lot longer than the founding of the USA, Europe or almost anywhere else.

There isn't a better system because you haven't eliminated scarcity.

P.S. Gluttony is a natural response, fat is the storage of excess energy, for times of food shortages.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider it gluttonous or greedy when storing up for the potential for loss (ie saving up for the winter or hedging an asset with a derivative). Protecting oneself is not synonymous with greed - at least in my book.

Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not a cop out, but an observation.
Calling a person greedy, but being loose with the use of the terminology, makes it difficult to peg just what is greedy.

See, very few would agree with an income definition, so we went with one that makes the most sense.

Don't kill and don't steal, then you can have as much as you want.
Click to expand...

Right, I get that and I am not arguing it. But I am saying I have a hard time believe that there is no better system.
 
Just to be clear, I'm debating what you wrote here,

whysoserious said:
We live in a society that praises greed - we are all greedy. Until our economic system is not "greed" driven, what else can we expect but for the little guy to get screwed more often than not and for injustices to continue?
Click to expand...

There has really never been a time in human history were, our economic system wasn't driven by some form of greed.
No one really praises greed, they simply instinctively understand, that having more of something can be good.
 
whysoserious said:
Perhaps you can, and that is fine for you (and quite impressive really), but everyone's situation is different. $30,000 in The belly of Leviathan is not the same as $30,000 in NYC.
Click to expand...

I suggest the person leave NYC.

whysoserious said:
I think if you were to look at it based off of each property type(income, gold, food, etc) and at a case by case example - it wouldn't be that difficult. It reminds me of the phrase coined a few years back that says you cannot define something in a broad scope, but "you know it when you see it" (originally in reference to hard-core porn I believe lol). I may not be able to define who is greedy based off of a short, concise post, but I can point it out if when I see it.
Click to expand...

Yea but not everyone who has a lot is greedy.
It may totally be an issue of circumstance.

I know a guy who worked nearly morning to night, 6 days a week and besides paying his regular bills, he let the money accumulate.
Was his large bank account an instance of greed or was it just what happened?

Being broad with the accusation of greed is dangerous and faulty.


whysoserious said:
True, but those were hard days. They weren't called the Dark Ages because they were fun. If you really wanted to apply the term greed to any specific groups of people, it wouldn't be the great masses of property (land or otherwise), but the monarchs, earls, and other royalty. And I think that same definition holds up today, though I do feel that capitalism, while a noble idea, really pits one against another and uses a negative human attribute as a driving force (which reminds me of another thread on here: "The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions").
Click to expand...

From our eyes, any time in the past would be the dark ages.
Kinda like the chronological snobbery.


whysoserious said:
I wouldn't consider it gluttonous or greedy when storing up for the potential for loss (ie saving up for the winter or hedging an asset with a derivative). Protecting oneself is not synonymous with greed - at least in my book.
Click to expand...

Some people, perceived as greedy, are doing just that.
Banks being one of the popular targets.

What if they are "hoarding" cash for self preservation?
Being "greedy" has two benefits, loss aversion and boosting your progeny.

whysoserious said:
Right, I get that and I am not arguing it. But I am saying I have a hard time believe that there is no better system.
Click to expand...

There really isn't.
As humans we think we can control so much, very egoist species we are.
The fact is we can't control other human wants or desires, very well at all.

That is the failure of planned economic systems.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There really isn't.
As humans we think we can control so much, very egoist species we are.
The fact is we can't control other human wants or desires, very well at all.
Click to expand...

I think we are probably both reasonable individuals who agree on most things, and that's probably one of the few issues we disagree on (which then makes it seem like we disagree on more and then we argue over little things for 10-15 posts). Again, I have to prephrase this by saying that I do agree that capitalism is the best economic/political system known to date. However, I do not believe it is the best system and I think one day it will go the way of the monarchy, and people will look back and wonder why we put up with it for so long.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Just to be clear, I'm debating what you wrote here,

There has really never been a time in human history were, our economic system wasn't driven by some form of greed.
No one really praises greed, they simply instinctively understand, that having more of something can be good.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clearing that up. One trip to the bar to watch a college football game and a few beers later, that discussion tends to get cloudy quickly.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
I think we are probably both reasonable individuals who agree on most things, and that's probably one of the few issues we disagree on (which then makes it seem like we disagree on more and then we argue over little things for 10-15 posts). Again, I have to prephrase this by saying that I do agree that capitalism is the best economic/political system known to date. However, I do not believe it is the best system and I think one day it will go the way of the monarchy, and people will look back and wonder why we put up with it for so long.
Click to expand...

Monarchy was the end stage of tribalism.
The royalty were the last stage of that type of human existence.

We put up with it because it was the best thing at the time, but it quickly faded when paying wages was seen as a better means of compensating people.

Capitalism will fade when we invent replicators.
At the time, the only thing we can "replicate" in any fashion is information.

whysoserious said:
Thank you for clearing that up. One trip to the bar to watch a college football game and a few beers later, that discussion tends to get cloudy quickly.
Click to expand...

Understood. ;)
 
geewrd said:
They probably think $75k/year is a little excessive

View attachment 67118800
Click to expand...

Do you think that actually donating money to such organizations is going to certainly get to them and save their lives?

I do donate but I don't think it's doing anything for them - maybe 1/4 is or something.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Do you think that actually donating money to such organizations is going to certainly get to them and save their lives?

I do donate but I don't think it's doing anything for them - maybe 1/4 is or something.
Click to expand...

Kiva - Loans that change lives

People don't respect free stuff, like they do earned stuff.
Giving them something to do is better.
 
whysoserious said:
Excess at the expense of others. That's greed.
Click to expand...

So would having an Xbox 360 and buying modern warfare 3 the week it comes out instead of donating that money to a local food bank an excess at another's expense?

Is going to see a movie on opening weekend instead of waiting till redbox or even network tv so you could donate that money to cancer research an excess at anothers expense?

Is choosing to buy 4 shirts at Walmart rather than 1 at a local home grown retailer because you get more shirts for your money by taking advantage of walmarts deals with providers who use low cost outsourced labor an excess at another expense?

Is spending the evening running up a $200 bar tab or going to an NFL game and spending a few hundred rather than donating it to a homeless shelter an excess at the expense of another?

Is buying a new car, rather than a used one and using the left over money to help buy a person who can't afford it a years worth of public transportation tickets, an excess at another's expense?

Is having a house big enough to give you an extra room for a "luxury" room like a weight room or a "man cave" instead of donating to habitat for humanity enjoying a "luxury" at another's expense?

Is accepting a raise at work when that money could instead be used to give two employees that are paid less than your raises getting an excess at someone else's expense?
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
So would having an Xbox 360 and buying modern warfare 3 the week it comes out instead of donating that money to a local food bank an excess at another's expense?

Is going to see a movie on opening weekend instead of waiting till redbox or even network tv so you could donate that money to cancer research an excess at anothers expense?

Is choosing to buy 4 shirts at Walmart rather than 1 at a local home grown retailer because you get more shirts for your money by taking advantage of walmarts deals with providers who use low cost outsourced labor an excess at another expense?

Is spending the evening running up a $200 bar tab or going to an NFL game and spending a few hundred rather than donating it to a homeless shelter an excess at the expense of another?

Is buying a new car, rather than a used one and using the left over money to help buy a person who can't afford it a years worth of public transportation tickets, an excess at another's expense?

Is having a house big enough to give you an extra room for a "luxury" room like a weight room or a "man cave" instead of donating to habitat for humanity enjoying a "luxury" at another's expense?

Is accepting a raise at work when that money could instead be used to give two employees that are paid less than your raises getting an excess at someone else's expense?
Click to expand...

You know, I actually have seen that argument from a modern philosopher before, but I cannot remember his name. His thing is this:

If you are walking down the road in a pair of $200 shoes and you see someone drowning, do you stop and take off the shoes, risking their death or jump in and save their life? Everyone says, "I jump in and save their life", except for a few crazies (of course :) ). But then he goes further to ask, what's the difference between buying those shoes instead of donating that money to someone who needs it.

I am torn on the issue, I must admit, Zyphlin, and so I can honestly say I do not have an answer for you. That's an internal battle that I am still dealing with and I do not have a moral decision yet. I do love the question, though. It really gets me thinking.
 
Last edited:
Like so many things, a cartoon actually does a nice job poking at the issue. The short lived Dilbert Cartoon had an episode where one of the characters becomes a bit nerodic because her attempts at charity are belittled a bit by pointing out her 200 pairs of shoes and other such things.

Its part of why I actually do agree, at their core, EVERY human is greedy to some extent. There's not a singular solitary individual I know who would forgo everything outside of actual NECESSITIES of life in order to give their money to those who can not afford those things. And frankly, our society hinges on that fact. People ENJOY having luxuries even if its as simple as having a nice $25 dollar steak at a restaurant rather than buying low grade thin skirt steak and cooking it at home, or going out to a happy hour an enjoying a couple of drinks, or enjoying a movie night out with their girl, or watching their local sports team on their 40" HD TV, or reading the latest novel that their favorite author put out....or hell, spending an hour browsing and arguing on a web forum while using their high speed FIOS internet.

And to a point, I don't find anything wrong with that. I disagree that in and of itself greed is inherently evil or wrong. Indeed, GREED itself can be an engine for good and beneficial things in our society. Greed spurs development of new inventions and services. Greed helped spur the electronic revolution of the 1990's that gives us this technological world we live in. Greed provides us with things that bring enjoyment to hundreds of thousands of people in this country with our professional sports teams. Greed helps make items become more accessible to other people as those with money spent obscene amounts on first generation products allowing them to grow and thrive and lower in price, like Blu-Ray or HD TV's have.

Greed CAN be bad, absolutely. Greed can manifest itself in ugly ways. But people I think are kidding themselves if they don't believe everyone is greedy to an extent, and that somehow greed is inherently evil and yet everyone isn't then somewhat evil. And I think its wholely self serving...and to an extent a bit greedy in the desire to vindicate ones self at the expense of demonizing others...when individuals attempt to justify some mystical fully opinion based standard being some kind of dividing line between what is greedy in terms of spending on luxuries and what is reasonable.
 
Zyphlin said:
Like so many things, a cartoon actually does a nice job poking at the issue. The short lived Dilbert Cartoon had an episode where one of the characters becomes a bit nerodic because her attempts at charity are belittled a bit by pointing out her 200 pairs of shoes and other such things.

Its part of why I actually do agree, at their core, EVERY human is greedy to some extent. There's not a singular solitary individual I know who would forgo everything outside of actual NECESSITIES of life in order to give their money to those who can not afford those things. And frankly, our society hinges on that fact. People ENJOY having luxuries even if its as simple as having a nice $25 dollar steak at a restaurant rather than buying low grade thin skirt steak and cooking it at home, or going out to a happy hour an enjoying a couple of drinks, or enjoying a movie night out with their girl, or watching their local sports team on their 40" HD TV, or reading the latest novel that their favorite author put out....or hell, spending an hour browsing and arguing on a web forum while using their high speed FIOS internet.

And to a point, I don't find anything wrong with that. I disagree that in and of itself greed is inherently evil or wrong. Indeed, GREED itself can be an engine for good and beneficial things in our society. Greed spurs development of new inventions and services. Greed helped spur the electronic revolution of the 1990's that gives us this technological world we live in. Greed provides us with things that bring enjoyment to hundreds of thousands of people in this country with our professional sports teams. Greed helps make items become more accessible to other people as those with money spent obscene amounts on first generation products allowing them to grow and thrive and lower in price, like Blu-Ray or HD TV's have.

Greed CAN be bad, absolutely. Greed can manifest itself in ugly ways. But people I think are kidding themselves if they don't believe everyone is greedy to an extent, and that somehow greed is inherently evil and yet everyone isn't then somewhat evil. And I think its wholely self serving...and to an extent a bit greedy in the desire to vindicate ones self at the expense of demonizing others...when individuals attempt to justify some mystical fully opinion based standard being some kind of dividing line between what is greedy in terms of spending on luxuries and what is reasonable.
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly fine with my level of "greed."
The living room in my house, like most other 1st worlders, is larger than the house of most 3rd worlders.
I'm not ashamed in the least.

On the other hand, I don't want to ever deny them the opportunity to have what I have.
In fact, I want them to have as much as they want.

To boil it down, wanting better for yourself and your family, even if it's more than you need, is not inherently bad.
 
Look, I love both of your examples and this type of discussion can do nothing but improve our understanding of each other. However, as I said Zyphlin, I am torn on that example of "greed" or whatever you want to call it, and I think where I get stuck is that I don't quite agree that having a $200 pair of shoes (or any luxury) is necessarily greed. There is a number of dollars that you could spend on a pair of shoes or a number of those $200 shoes you could buy that I would agree makes an individual greedy, but I can't define that level - I know it when I see it. As I pointed out, in that example of the $200 pair of shoes, most people say they will jump in the water regardless of the shoes - which I think goes to argue against the case of greed. If we were truly greedy, we would remove the shoes first and have no shame in admitting it (such as those who are free to admit that they paid $20,000 for a pair of shoes).

So I think that's where I disagree with you and HG. We have different definitions of greed.
 
whysoserious said:
I know you are just baiting me, but that's hardly relevant. Someone earning $75k a year in the US has little they can do for an entire country of starving children.

I was baiting you to an extent, but it is important to maintain some amount of perspective in this whole discussion, no?
Click to expand...
 
geewrd said:
I was baiting you to an extent, but it is important to maintain some amount of perspective in this whole discussion, no?
Click to expand...

Sure. It's a perfectly reasonable argument, and I see where you are going with it. What's the book with the guy who knows a talking guerrilla who has some controversial ideas about what we should do with starving children in other countries? Anyone remember?
 
Teh Internets said:
Even more greedy than those who make millions by doing nothing other than playing the stock market and profiting off the work of their employees? I also recall they were more than to take the 700 billion dollars of welfare from the government. They are also very quick to blame government regulation on their failure. Strange...
Click to expand...

Everyone's greedy. That's not a problem.

What is a problem is when greedy people choose to take stuff from other people for themselves. That is totally uncool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom