I feel the need to watch Office Space today.
[News] Science says: Rich people are better at being assholes then you
- Thread starter @Li3n
- Start date
- Status
Also, they're both words that show up in the definition, so you're saying we're seeing it as "more then you deserve or deserve"...
Plus, i'm pretty sure no one thinks of greed as taking more then your minimal needs, which is why excessive also comes up in the definition...
The word you're looking for is self-interest btw... greed, by definition is bad... which is why Catherine Zeta Jones husband goes to jail at the end of the film...
to bring it back on topic:
Man is the true monster.
Man is the true monster.
And the only true challenge to a real hunter.
Nah, doesn't work with the example. The Turtles are clearly much better off than the CHUDs, but the CHUDs are obviously way bigger assholes.
Necronic
Staff member
You misunderstand. "Deserve" is an irrelevant word in either honesty or greed, beyond saying that you deserve what you earn. As long as you earn relative to the wealth that you actaully create greed is a good thing and motivates people to create more wealth, which is good for society.
The problem is that some people have figured out ways to bypass the creation of wealth, and earn without creating anything, or earn by stealing it from someone else (they are effectively the same.)
Yeah, again, that's a redefining of the word greed...
See, the problem you're talking about there is what the word greed was created for in the first place...
And let's not even get started on how creating more wealth doesn't do anything if in the end only a certain group of people benefit from it (remember why people got rid of aristocracy?).
Yeah, beyond saying that you deserve what you deserve...
I mean it's like saying rape is good as long as both parties agree to it... by definition that's no longer rape, just rough sex... (and no, i'm not saying greed = rape, so stfu if you're thinking that).
I mean capitalism actually requires both sides to meet in the middle and both be satisfied with the end result, and being satisfied with a limited amount = not greed.
Weirdly, being a bigger asshole doesn't make you harder to hunt...
Necronic
Staff member
People got rid of the aristocracy because it was a kleptocracy. Aristocrats did not create wealth, they only stole it. Which is EXACTLY what I said was problematic.
I don't understand how you fail to see the difference between a lord's purse and Bill Gate's wealth.
You're right, peasants are very different from Xerox...
Yup, they only stole stuff the illiterate, unwashed masses made...
See, it's not that simple, and the fact that you feel the need to oversimplify it like that is why you go with "greed is good"... it's much simpler then "self-interest isn't bad"...
With @li3n here. Didn't we have this discussion already a few threads ago?
That there was a Department of Justice to force Microsoft to cease certain business practices doesn't make Bill Gates not greedy in the classical sense. In fact, I think the whole idea of antitrust legislation is to establish the point where a company's practice of self-interest crosses the line into "greed" and requires direct intervention into otherwise legal actions.
That there was a Department of Justice to force Microsoft to cease certain business practices doesn't make Bill Gates not greedy in the classical sense. In fact, I think the whole idea of antitrust legislation is to establish the point where a company's practice of self-interest crosses the line into "greed" and requires direct intervention into otherwise legal actions.
Hey, it's fantastic that he turned over a new leaf after the settlement deal with the US government went down. Kudos to him. Still doesn't make his pre-1998 business practices to price out smaller software competitors via direct relationships to OEM PC manufacturers any less a case for greed.
Oh, absolutely. Put me down for "agree" on that.
S
Soliloquy
That greedy jerk, hoarding all the philanthropy for himself and not leaving any for the rest of us.
Like I said, it's fantastic that he blew out his foundation to the tune of billions after the antitrust suit. No matter what else, he deserves every applause, accolade, and praise for that.
It just doesn't have any reflection on his business practices from before that. None whatsoever. A man can be perfectly greedy for one thing while being generous with something else.
Just because Cookie Monster gives lots of hugs doesn't mean he's not grabbing all the chocolate chip.
Necronic
Staff member
I have no idea what this means.
1/3
Yes, they did. I don't understand your point.
2/3
You're right that the second statement is more pallatable than the first, but I've always hated the implication that a desire to make money is unethical or wrong. If someone invents some incredible device for the sole purpose of making money, we are all enriched by the device he made and should be glad that wealth provided a motivation to do so.
2/3, your last point stands.
Also, on the Bill Gates thing: I'm not saying I don't think that there are serious problems with anti-trust systems and the like, and that business regulations need a LOT of work to clearly identify the grey areas that businesses like to play in and make them black/white. But it would also be ridiculous to say that we as a society did not profit alongside Bill Gates (or Stephen Wolfram or Steve Jobs for that matter) based on the value their inventions brought to our society.
I'm a tech guy (Computer Engineer) with a good view of computer HISTORY too, and so I'd say this: society benefited most by both Gates' and Jobs' (why do both of their names end in "s" making the possessive punctuation weird?) early inventions when they were not (or not very) wealthy. After the "revolutions" they kicked off, they mostly became the force for status quo, and stifled others' innovation.
For Gates IMO, this would have been the very first version of Microsoft C. Not because of any particularly innovative feature, but because of its pricing. Before Microsoft C, compilers cost literally thousands or tens of thousands of dollars PER SEAT. Borland and Intel ran the show more or less. Microsoft C priced it so that even hobbyists could enter extremely easily. Sure there was BASIC and other "cheap" languages, but for serious programs, it was C or nothing. I've actually seen it written that the cheapness of MS C allowed the GNU people to actually seriously start developing THEIR compiler (GCC), which is still the heart of virtually all open source software in existence. I won't deny the other things that Gates has influenced (BASIC itself is notable too, along with a number of others), but he and his company weren't the innovators in most cases. But bringing a quality C compiler to the masses kicked off so much else, and it was done in the most disruptive way, and thus I credit that.
For Jobs, it's more obvious: the Apple. Stop. It was something that was usable (for the time), affordable, and "just worked" (once they came out with non-put-it-together-yourself versions at least). It kicked off the whole IDEA of a "personal computer" years ahead of the IBM PC. Has Apple had innovations since? Absolutely. But their best always came in the "we never would have thought of that" realm such as the iPod (not first, but first undeniably "good" mp3 player). Once becoming dominant, they seem to have become about keeping the other players down.
IMO the whole purpose of anti-trust is to restore the prime virtue of capitalism: competition. There's literally no good things that Capitalism does over other economic systems unless there's competition. Fierce competition is what causes all the other good things, and suppresses the bad. Once you have a Monopoly, or a Duopoly, or anything where there aren't players continually entering and leaving, and thus disrupting the field through competition, you get everything bad about the system coming to the fore. The best statement to come out of the last few years IMO is "if it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist." If anything, companies shouldn't last decades. Governments should be more aggressive about breaking things up, ensuring a competitive market for the consumer. Because with extremely few exceptions, when the consumer wins, business will find a way to make money. But the reverse is not true.
Necronic
Staff member
Let's drop Gates because you guys make good points about his influence going both ways (disruptive and then restrictive) and instead focus on Steve Jobs/Apple, and two of the more recent innovations to have come out of apple: iTunes and the iPhone.
Both of these are disruptive and revolutionary products that have completely changed the marketplace and the minimum expectation of the consumer. iTunes, for instance, has made music accessible without leaving your house, which is a huge value add that has effectively killed off the brick and mortar stores. The iPhone revolutionized the smartphone market, bringing a minimum expectation in stability, touchscreen interfaces, accelerometers, and a healthy third party support system (the most important to the customer.)
Both of these have brough significant value adds to the consumer at zero cost. However, they have also made Apple OBSCENE amounts of money through music sales and app sales. That is what I call a win-win. That's capitalism.
Edit: However, when a part of those earnings come about through abuse of workers and dishonest practices of 3rd party outsourcing, it puts a dark cloud over it. Hence the requirements of honesty. But it doesn't really change the innovation side of it.
Both of these are disruptive and revolutionary products that have completely changed the marketplace and the minimum expectation of the consumer. iTunes, for instance, has made music accessible without leaving your house, which is a huge value add that has effectively killed off the brick and mortar stores. The iPhone revolutionized the smartphone market, bringing a minimum expectation in stability, touchscreen interfaces, accelerometers, and a healthy third party support system (the most important to the customer.)
Both of these have brough significant value adds to the consumer at zero cost. However, they have also made Apple OBSCENE amounts of money through music sales and app sales. That is what I call a win-win. That's capitalism.
Edit: However, when a part of those earnings come about through abuse of workers and dishonest practices of 3rd party outsourcing, it puts a dark cloud over it. Hence the requirements of honesty. But it doesn't really change the innovation side of it.
Exactly. "Capitalism is good" is a much more accurate statement than "greed is good" since the concept of capitalism in deliberately separate from the abuses it potentially enables ("greed" being one of them).
- Status