This may not be popular with the Dems....

[Teazer]

The invasion of Iraq was geopolitical strategy for money, oil, power, and logistics and nothing to do with 9-11,WMD's, or Al Qeda. How can you even still talk about these things?

Perhaps there is a little confusion here. I thought the discussion here is on what justification the US administration used to go to war, and at what time frame, not on whether anyone on this forum actually believed or still believes any of what they said.

edit: wrt Hussein and the weapons inspectors, if I recall correctly there was an argument that he kept yanking their chain because he was trying to leave his neighboring countries and the more rebellious factions in his population uncertain as to whether he still had them or not as a way to maintain control. A bad plan, in retrospect, but I suppose on one side he could see the US would probably attack anyway, and the UN wouldn't attack anyway, so what did he have to lose!?

[Royal Dragon]

Actually,I think he thought the US would never actually invade (remember, we were seen as weak back then). If he thought we would, I don't think he would have tried to give the impression he had more arms than he did.

[Michael]

The invasion of Iraq was geopolitical strategy for money, oil, power, and logistics and nothing to do with 9-11,WMD's, or Al Qeda. How can you even still talk about these things?

Perhaps there is a little confusion here. I thought the discussion here is on what justification the US administration used to go to war, and at what time frame, not on whether anyone on this forum actually believed or still believes any of what they said.

Yeah, I think you're right, but I guess it's really both. I think it's bizarre how the lies just continue to be repeated because of people's nostalgia about being lied to.

[Michael]

Actually,I think he thought the US would never actually invade (remember, we were seen as weak back then). If he thought we would, I don't think he would have tried to give the impression he had more arms than he did.

We knew exactly what he had because we gave it to him. We already invaded Iraq once and had never stopped bombing him during all those years between 1991 and 2003, so why would he think we were bluffing?

[Walter Joyce]

We need regulation because people are by nature both greedy and trusting, and not often are both qualities in the same person.

The greedy bit is both a good and bad thing.

My understanding of greed is this: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.

How is your understanding of greed different and how do you see greed as something that can be a good thing. In historical context it is seen as one of the 7 deadly sins, and until Gordon Gecko declared greed is good in the movie Wall Street I can't recall an argument being mad that greed is, or can be good.

I don't see economic theory as something that can be constructed in the abstract, to paraphrase a famous quote about the law, the life of economics should not be about pure logic, but experience.

Hasn't experience taught us that greed is bad?

[Royal Dragon]

My experience has taught me that Greed is good. It's "Excessive" Greed that is bad.

[Walter Joyce]

My experience has taught me that Greed is good. It's "Excessive" Greed that is bad.

So what you just said is "excessive excessive desire is good."

Nice to see how carefully you thought that one through.

Ambition is good, that I can understand, but unless you want to refine the meaning of greed, and redefining things seems to be a common theme on EF, your response makes no sense.

[Teazer]

My understanding of greed is this: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.

That's a good point. I would say first that just what is excessive is a rather subjective thing. The number of 'greedy' people that spend their off hours wallowing around in piles of lucre are few and far between. Usually people believe what they're doing is in their best interest. Their perspective is skewed away from a more holistic/religious view of their overall well-being (except Mammon worshipers I guess!), hence the religious prescription.
Now, from my point of view, many people develop what could probably be described as unnatural and obsessive desires to do their particular thing, which is why we have olympic level athletes, inventors, researchers etc etc. On the whole this is considered a good thing, even if it cuts into their church going time. The greedy are just another group of these - someone who is focused on making money. The question then is whether their activities are generally good for society. I would say that where their efforts can be channeled away from unproductive (and usually illegal) competition, and stay within the realms of standard business practice, all the justifications of economics still hold. The trick would be in making sure their incentive structure is carefully laid out to be most in line with society's welfare, which is where things recently went astray.

[Steve James]

I think the desire to make excessive amounts of money is only one type of greed. Moreover, the Catholic proscription against greed was aimed at the poor, not the Wall Street types. There was that saying "Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven." Ultimately, "greed" --the sin-- becomes the prime motivation for "charity" --the need to give back. This makes sense, especially from the perspective of an enormously rich church. Thus, it becomes possible to acquire and possess money without being considered sinful.

Imo, the greed that we're talking about is "selfishness", not the amount of the acquisition. Of course, the economist will call it "self-interest" and argue that it is both necessary and inevitable. There will always be "good" and "scarce resources" and they will never be equally distributed.

But, if you have a savings account or a retirement account, is it greedy to want them to grow? or to have "more than enough" for day to day expenses? Is it greedy to put away money for a grandchild's education?

Otoh, that doesn't mean that there aren't enough resources so that everyone's needs can't be fulfilled. Within that context, it wouldn't matter if any individual had more than he needed. The problem, and I think what Walter means by greed, is that it means "lack of concern for anyone else's needs" (i.e., no charity) and that that is considered a "good" in and of itself. It's like "Yeah, I am screwing them over and living the high life while they eating shit."

[Teazer]

Imo, the greed that we're talking about is "selfishness", not the amount of the acquisition. Of course, the economist will call it "self-interest" and argue that it is both necessary and inevitable. There will always be "good" and "scarce resources" and they will never be equally distributed.

I'm not sure economists would defend selfishness as much as they do greed. Selfishness, by controlling more of something than you'd otherwise take just to stop someone else getting it, is usually inefficient (certainly in a social sense, but probably personally as well) since if you gain utility, it is by reducing someone else's and any utility added is more than offset by the decrease in wealth.

The problem, and I think what Walter means by greed, is that it means "lack of concern for anyone else's needs" (i.e., no charity) and that that is considered a "good" in and of itself. It's like "Yeah, I am screwing them over and living the high life while they eating shit."

I can see that. I think while economics in general tends to be okay with a lack of concern for the well-being of others, at least at a micro level, it wouldn't justify going out of your way to keep them down.

[Steve James]

Well, "enlightened self -interest" is based on the belief that helping oneself indirectly helps others and that helping others indirectly helps the individual. Selfishness isn't really "enlightened self interest." Now, how does one tell when self-interest is enlighted and when it's just selfishness?

[Walter Joyce]

Wanting to have enough money for retirement, or wanting to have an emergency fund is not greed, imo. Wanting to earn 275 times more than you average employee is greed.

Wanting to be good at software development is not greed, wanting to make sure you control software development to the point of driving your competitors who won't sell to you out of business is greed. Giving away billions after you've done that really doesn't help those you've screwed over to get those billions.

I agree that defining excessive can present a problem, but what about the examples I've given?

Steve,

Are you saying that greed was classified as one of the seven deadly sins in order to increase contributions to the church?

What about the idea that the pursuit of wealth is wrong because it puts worldly pursuits ahead of spiritual growth? Is that just a cover story?


So I copied the following from wiki to save typing, but I also agree:

"Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.

It has often been simply expressed by the belief that an individual, group, or even a commercial entity will "do well by doing good". Enlightened self-interest might be considered to be unrealistically idealistic and altruistic by detractors and practically idealistic and utilitarian by proponents.

In contrast to enlightened self-interest is simple greed or the concept of "unenlightened self-interest", in which it is argued that when most or all persons act according to their own myopic selfishness, that the group suffers loss as a result of conflict, decreased efficiency because of lack of cooperation, and the increased expense each individual pays for the protection of their own interests. If a typical individual in such a group is selected at random, it is not likely that this person will profit from such a group ethic.

Some individuals might profit, in a material sense, from a philosophy of greed, but it is believed by proponents of enlightened self-interest that these individuals constitute a small minority and that the large majority of persons can expect to experience a net personal loss from a philosophy of simple unenlightened selfishness.

Unenlightened self-interest can result in the tragedy of the commons."

Teazer,

In economic theory, is the market a zero sum scenario?

[Steve James]

Steve,
Are you saying that greed was classified as one of the seven deadly sins in order to increase contributions to the church?

What about the idea that the pursuit of wealth is wrong because it puts worldly pursuits ahead of spiritual growth? Is that just a cover story?

Well, one --if not the central-- of Luther's "protests", iinm, was that the church and individual priests took money ("penance") in exchange for their grace. Jesus's statements are almost irrelevant when it comes to the actions of those who have claimed to follow him.

[Steve James]

Here ya go, Walter, from "Luther's 95 Theses" that he nailed on the door:

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

etc., etc., etc., unfortunately.

[Teazer]

Teazer, In economic theory, is the market a zero sum scenario?

Usually not. In most cases markets are value creating. Since trade is considered to be voluntary, one would not enter into it unless it was more beneficial than no trade (assuming people are rational which can be a stretch at times!). So if I own a car and it is worth $1000 to me, trade won't happen unless you pay me more than $1000. But also, trade won't happen unless you buy it for at most what it's worth to you. Trade then makes allocation of assets more efficient even in a less than ideal world. You end up with something worth more to you than to me. I get some extra cash. Both are happier. That's not to say there isn't a role for government to supervise markets and ensure standards and fair practices, but overall people are better off for being able to trade.

Now given a trade will take place that is advantageous to both of us, when we haggle over the final price which is somewhere between where you are willing to buy and I am willing to sell - that bit of negotiation is zero sum. Economic theory doesn't say much about who should get the asset at what exact price since it involves value judgments.

Unenlightened self-interest can result in the tragedy of the commons."

Which has been shown widely to be due more to the lack of an allocation of property rights rather than from any individual fault.