Tuesday, September 26, 2006

There is an essay called Greed on the Internet. It talks about how greed has corrupted society by expanding the gap between the few extremely wealthy and the ever growing poor population. In a nutshell, the wealthy take more than their share, leaving too little for others. The problem is greed has become fashionable, and the fix is to change the moral code in society so that people aren’t so apt to take more than their share.

It promised clear, conciese arguments and some deep revelations about both ends of the economic spectrum. We all know that greed is what drives the acquisition of massive amounts of material wealth; it is, after all, the basis for capitalism.

In my opinion, greed is the culprit, of course, but I think of it differently. It exposes extreme character flaws, and rewards some while punishing others. The extremely wealthy are the obvious ‘winners’, but to say that the poor are punished by the wealthy is a little off the mark. The poor punish themselves with their greed. They obviously provide for themselves, but they don’t use the resources available to improve their situation. I’m not saying this is true in all cases, but for most of the working poor this is the case. I don’t have any statistics to base this on, just general observations, which, I admit, could be flawed because my observations are so limited. If one stops to think, there are abundant examples of people who make poor economic choices, and many that spend everything they have as if it were going to disappear. The essay mentions advertisements, but is only critical of its impact on society psychologically, how it keeps people depressed because it makes them aware of what they are ‘missing’. I think it also exacerbates the conflicts that basic concepts of capitalism have with human attitudes, in that advertisements as they are now used encourage people to squander resources, forcing them to live on the edge, and in some cases, beyond their means. This of course would tend to keep those that live on the edge suspended in a specific economic class, or tend to drive those that live beyond their means to 'improve' their situation and status to maintain the lifestyle they are accustomed to.

I sent an email to the author of the essay, which anyone can find by doing an internet search for 'greed'. The email, and this blog in general, are just my way of arranging my thoughts and ideas into coherent concepts. Anyway, here's the email....

Hello,
I read your essay on greed. I followed various links on the Internet until I came across the piece. It has led me to Swan, which promises to be some good reading.
Here are the main points of your thoughts, as I see it. The fundamental flaw with the principles expounded by Adam Smith is that greed is held up as a virtue, when in reality it is a moral wrong. It leads people to acquire and hoard more than their share, which deprives others. This same character flaw keeps those that acquire material wealth from generous actions, which would alleviate the woes of the less fortunate. Your solution is to extoll generosity while deploring greed on a grand scale.
In my opinion the solution does not take everything into account. There are many other factors involved that allow the gaps you speak of to persist. There are too many that see the problem, have become 'victims' of the problem, but do little to improve their own situation. I know, this places the blame on the poor, which is socially unacceptable at times, but there is a fine line between a person's greed and their natural tendency toward self improvement. There are also those that tend to squander resources, forcing them to live on the edge, and in some cases, beyond their means. This would tend to keep those that live on the edge suspended in a specific economic class, or tend to drive those the live beyond their means to improve their situation and status in an effort to maintain the lifestyle they are accustomed to. Your solutions lean toward wealth redistrubution, which doesn't address these things.
If you have read this far, thank you for your attention.

No comments: