Greed and philanthropy in the free market

[nodeal]

As advocates of the free market, we are all familiar with the purpose greed serves in the economy. The self interests of both the producer and the consumer check and balance each other. If the producer charges too much, the consumer will not buy. Similarly if the consumer offers too little then then producer will not sell. Greed is vital, and is limited by the compromise necessary for a successful business transaction.

However, if greed is a fundamental function of society, then where does philanthropy fit in with this model? Voluntary generosity surely plays an important role in the function of society as well. How can a society be both greedy and philanthropic at the same time?

It is new years and the family is over. As my politics differ from theirs, it is necessary for me to ask questions like these to all you experts so that i may be better equipped to destroy their arguments. Thanks everyone!

[heavenlyboy34]

Self-interest is not the same as greed. Greed is not at all vital to Laissez-faire capitalism, but self-interest is (as well as respect for others' self-interest). The importance of philanthropy is that it lifts up the disadvantaged and allows them to better function in the market. In this manner, philanthropy is partly self-interested and partly sincere generosity. (usually the latter is emphasized more)

Our respective self-interests and property also function as boundaries of order. To the extent that our interests conflict, markets serve as a way to reconcile these differences without resorting to aggression.

[nodeal]

Self-interest is not the same as greed. Greed is not at all vital to Laissez-faire capitalism, but self-interest is (as well as respect for others' self-interest). The importance of philanthropy is that it lifts up the disadvantaged and allows them to better function in the market. In this manner, philanthropy is partly self-interested and partly sincere generosity. (usually the latter is emphasized more)

Our respective self-interests and property also function as boundaries of order. To the extent that our interests conflict, markets serve as a way to reconcile these differences without resorting to aggression.

I just feel as though you may as well call self-interest greed. I mean, it is essentially greed that compels us to achieve an amount greater than what we see around us. It's what motivates us to find good deals, maximize income, pursue better careers, work extra hours, etc. Greed, self-interest, motivation -- all semantics. They essentially boil down to the same thing in my opinion.

[dannno]

^If you want a difference in definition for definition's sake, I think of greed as more of an irrational motivation of wanting more just for the sake of "more", like a drug addict, without adding any real benefit. Self interest is rational.

The question of whether greed is bad, well, it depends. The guy who makes more stuff and is more productive due to greed benefits society, whereas the person who takes advantage of the system for greedy purposes may not. The greedy crook or politician obviously does not benefit society.

[nodeal]

^If you want a difference in definition for definition's sake, I think of greed as more of an irrational motivation of wanting more just for the sake of "more", like a drug addict, without adding any real benefit. Self interest is rational.

The question of whether greed is bad, well, it depends. The guy who makes more stuff and is more productive due to greed benefits society, whereas the person who takes advantage of the system for greedy purposes may not. The greedy crook or politician obviously does not benefit society.

I agree that most people's definition of greed is a negative one. When they hear greed they think of some evil uber-rich jerk, rolling in millions while people starve on the streets in front of them.

I believe greed can lead people to obtain profits at the direct expense of others. I also believe that people's greed can lead them to hurt others or themselves without any benefit at all. However, I wouldn't distinguish greed from terms such as self-interest, motivation, drive, etc. in light of these examples. I think any of these words pertain to practices that COULD be abused at the expense of the individual or of others. However, I do believe that it is the market that checks and prevents such actions from either a) occurring at all, or b) from persisting in the market, as failure would surely regulate anyone who adopted such selfish practices that hurt others or themselves.

I just disagree with the universal disdain towards the word greed. I truly believe it is greed that drives us out of a standard of bare necessity. I think there are more instances of greed doing good than bad.

[hazek]

However, if greed is a fundamental function of society, then where does philanthropy fit in with this model? Voluntary generosity surely plays an important role in the function of society as well. How can a society be both greedy and philanthropic at the same time?

Greed much like generosity are both means to an end. If you understand our human nature and what guides all of our decisions on the most basic level, you'd realize that greed and generosity both serve the same purpose. And when you realize that it's fairly easy to see how and why a society can be both.

I suggest you read: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?272747-We-Need-to-Change-our-Strategy-in-Converting-Others-(VERY-URGENT-POST!) if you want to learn more about our human nature and gain this understanding.

[Acala]

Freedom isn't about greed. Freedom is about not being COMPELLED by force to do, or refrain from doing, what you wish with your own life, body, and property. A person might freely choose to give to the poor just as well as he might choose to spend his money on his own clothing, house, or vacation. And he will do them all for the same reason - because that is what will make him happy. Charity makes the charitable person happy else they wouldn't do it. So the charitable person has the identical motivation to the miser. Their respective paths might not be as effective at attaining the desired result, but that is for learning.

[akforme]

greed is a symptom of availability and has consequences.

The hockey store in the town I grew up got greedy. My dad opened a store because of it and took 30-40% of their business and stopped the greed.

[silverhandorder]

As advocates of the free market, we are all familiar with the purpose greed serves in the economy. The self interests of both the producer and the consumer check and balance each other. If the producer charges too much, the consumer will not buy. Similarly if the consumer offers too little then then producer will not sell. Greed is vital, and is limited by the compromise necessary for a successful business transaction.

However, if greed is a fundamental function of society, then where does philanthropy fit in with this model? Voluntary generosity surely plays an important role in the function of society as well. How can a society be both greedy and philanthropic at the same time?

It is new years and the family is over. As my politics differ from theirs, it is necessary for me to ask questions like these to all you experts so that i may be better equipped to destroy their arguments. Thanks everyone!

Because people that do charity do it for them selves too. My mom helps a lot to our neighbors and relatives. She always does it because it makes her feel better about her self. This buys her social status too. Philanthropy is greed in it's base. No one is going to do anything unless they see a benefit to them selves.

[hazek]

Because people that do charity do it for them selves too. My mom helps a lot to our neighbors and relatives. She always does it because it makes her feel better about her self. This buys her social status too. Philanthropy is greed in it's base. No one is going to do anything unless they see a benefit to them selves.

Exactly what I said.


No one is going to do anything unless they see a benefit to them selves.

It's actually: Every decision we make on the most basic level is to first and foremost avoid pain and second to seek pleasure. Greed and philanthropy are just means to these two ends.

[nodeal]

Greed much like generosity are both means to an end. If you understand our human nature and what guides all of our decisions on the most basic level, you'd realize that greed and generosity both serve the same purpose. And when you realize that it's fairly easy to see how and why a society can be both.

I suggest you read: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?272747-We-Need-to-Change-our-Strategy-in-Converting-Others-(VERY-URGENT-POST!) if you want to learn more about our human nature and gain this understanding.

Just glanced at the article. Haven't read it yet, but I certainly will when I have the time. It looks like a good read!

[teacherone]

every human being makes decisions following their own self interest---whatever brings them pleasure both in material terms and psychological.

some people gain pleasure by attaining material wealth.

some people gain pleasure by giving it away.

some people gain pleasure by doing both.

[fisharmor]

I agree that most people's definition of greed is a negative one. When they hear greed they think of some evil uber-rich jerk, rolling in millions while people starve on the streets in front of them.

I think it's worth noting that the USA, which is supposedly the richest, greediest country ever, has never known starvation - except in those cases where it was engineered by the government (think of what happened to the plains Indians).
Some would go farther and assert that starvation only happens in totalitarian countries. I certainly can't think of a free-market induced famine in history.


When I think of "greed" I'm actually thinking of luxury. Everyone wants some luxuries in life, and some get more than others. And the people who provide those luxuries benefit from it. So I don't see the problem.

What most other people think of as greed - saving resources for yourself and your kin - can hardly be called greed at all. It's a basic fact of life that people will try to buffer any bad news that might go down in the future. That's just smart - you know, paying attention to what 4000 years of recorded history have to say, and all.
Stealing someone's potential buffer in order to provide for someone who won't work or won't stop spitting out fatherless babies - that's not noble in any sense of the word. It's just piss-poor planning, and nothing else.