What does it mean to be 'Greedy' ?

[csuguy]

Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions (dictionary.com)

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all [g]sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Colossians 3:5
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.
​

This topic often comes up when I start discussing socialism versus capitalism. In our culture, they have attempted to ingrain the idea that capitalism is godly, and socialism is evil - and even that Greed is good. Even good Christians I know try to defend Capitalism and greed as beneficial for society; and I find this boils down to a divide on what 'greed' is.

As the definition above says, greed is an "excessive desire." But what makes a desire excessive? For some, this is anything that you don't strictly need. Any self-satisfying desire that goes beyond your necessities is greed. I'm not convinced by this myself, but it is a position that some have taken.

For others, an excessive desire is when you want as much of something as you can possibly get even when you no longer have a use for it. If you continually strive after money when you are the richest person in the world, what is the point? Will it really enrich your life in anyway?

This position is a little better, but I think still insufficient. This supposes that one can only be greedy if one has acquired an abundance of whatever it is they desire - and then continues to want more. Thus, under this understanding, a poor person - or a person who lacked the object of their desire - could never be greedy. I very much disagree - and instead defend the next position.

My view of Greed is that you are taking something - money, power, etc - and placing too much importance on it. You have done this to the extent that you have displaced other matters of importance in favor of this desire. This is why scripture says that greed is idolatry - you have displaced the love of God and your fellow man with the love of money. The result being that you act accordingly - choosing gain over the well-being of your fellowman. Capitalism has supplied no end of examples of this - and this is why it makes no sense for Christians to endorse such a system.

Under this view - even a poor person can be greedy - if they place so much importance on it that they are willing to harm their fellowman to acquire it.

What do you think about Greed and Capitalism? Which of the three views do you subscribe to on greed, or do you have an alternative? Is my view on Greed unfair with respects to Capitalism? If you accept that greed is bad, and still think socialism in principle is 'evil', why?

 

[Lon]

My view of Greed is that you are taking something - money, power, etc - and placing too much importance on it. You have done this to the extent that you have displaced other matters of importance in favor of this desire. This is why scripture says that greed is idolatry - you have displaced the love of God and your fellow man with the love of money. The result being that you act accordingly - choosing gain over the well-being of your fellowman. Capitalism has supplied no end of examples of this - and this is why it makes no sense for Christians to endorse such a system.

:up: I'd only add that this is also selfishness and not caring for our fellow man BUT Communism/Socialism is enforced greed or should at least be entertained that it is. (I might have put this in "Politics" btw, I'd have liked the responses there and they'd have more meaning for me there).

Under this view - even a poor person can be greedy - if they place so much importance on it that they are willing to harm their fellowman to acquire it.

Yep "Me first" in capitalism or socialism is the same.

What do you think about Greed and Capitalism? Which of the three views do you subscribe to on greed, or do you have an alternative? Is my view on Greed unfair with respects to Capitalism? If you accept that greed is bad, and still think socialism in principle is 'evil', why?

Capitalism doesn't have to operate on the principle of greed. Does it? Yes, we see a lot of that, but the business owners I know take pretty good care of their employees and enjoy doing so. J.C.Penny is always an inspiration to me. He prayed constantly to make more money that he could give it all away. By the end of his life, he was giving about 95% of his income away. In Him

 

[glorydaz]

I love this thread. :thumb:

2 Thess. 3:10-13
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. 13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.​

Just because capitalism can open the door to greed, doesn't mean it isn't the right way. Socialism just gives everyone less hope. In fact, there is actually more greed and less ability to give to others.

 

[csuguy]

:up: I'd only add that this is also selfishness and not caring for our fellow man BUT Communism/Socialism is enforced greed or should at least be entertained that it is. (I might have put this in "Politics" btw, I'd have liked the responses there and they'd have more meaning for me there).

Thanks. Yea I almost put it in politics - but felt that the religion section was a bit more appropriate due to the use of scriptures and the focus on more of a Christian perspective of greed and capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't have to operate on the principle of greed. Does it? Yes, we see a lot of that, but the business owners I know take pretty good care of their employees and enjoy doing so. J.C.Penny is always an inspiration to me. He prayed constantly to make more money that he could give it all away. By the end of his life, he was giving about 95% of his income away. In Him

I don't believe a free-market has to operate on greed. There are some good examples in our society of good business run by humanitarians. Costco similarly does right by its employees and customers.

That said, I would separate the concept of a free-market from the Capitalist Philosophy - which teaches that one should just pursue their own self-interests without worrying about the well-being of others. This, they say, will bring about the greatest good for society. They tried to get me to accept this non-sense when I was in 12th grade taking political science.

Greed is good - Gordon Gekko

There are those who try to argue that Adam Smith did not himself support greed, but only self-interest to a proper degree. I'm not well-studied on his views - but at the very least we know that Greed is an ingrained part of American Capitalism today.

 

[brewmama]

Thanks. Yea I almost put it in politics - but felt that the religion section was a bit more appropriate due to the use of scriptures and the focus on more of a Christian perspective of greed and capitalism.



I don't believe a free-market has to operate on greed. There are some good examples in our society of good business run by humanitarians. Costco similarly does right by its employees and customers.

That said, I would separate the concept of a free-market from the Capitalist Philosophy - which teaches that one should just pursue their own self-interests without worrying about the well-being of others. This, they say, will bring about the greatest good for society. They tried to get me to accept this non-sense when I was in 12th grade taking political science.

Greed is good - Gordon Gekko

There are those who try to argue that Adam Smith did not himself support greed, but only self-interest to a proper degree. I'm not well-studied on his views - but at the very least we know that Greed is an ingrained part of American Capitalism today.

All you have to do is look at the history of the world, in which the vast majority of people have lived in poverty, and what capitalism has done to bring so many out of poverty to know that your assessment is wrong. And I would say there is AT LEAST as much greed present in the poor or those who at least feel "poorer" than their neighbors, who then justify hating those who have more than them and coveting their property. If not more.

 

[csuguy]

I love this thread. :thumb:

2 Thess. 3:10-13
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. 13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.​

Just because capitalism can open the door to greed, doesn't mean it isn't the right way. Socialism just gives everyone less hope. In fact, there is actually more greed and less ability to give to others.

Thanks I am certainly not against the idea of a free-market that is not greed-driven. Personally, I advocate a mixed economy - where certain industries are primarily controlled by the government, like Health Care - but the rest are left to the free-market.

Why do you feel that socialism gives people less hope and more greed? Keep in mind that socialism does not equate to communism; I'm not advocating economic equality and the dissolution of all social classes.

 

[csuguy]

All you have to do is look at the history of the world, in which the vast majority of people have lived in poverty, and what capitalism has done to bring so many out of poverty to know that your assessment is wrong. And I would say there is AT LEAST as much greed present in the poor or those who at least feel "poorer" than their neighbors, who then justify hating those who have more than them and coveting their property. If not more.

When the US taxed the richest of society up to 90% and there was a good distribution of wealth so that a single parent could supply for his family and own a home and put money away into savings - that is when we developed a middle class and people were brought out of poverty. However, when republicans eliminated these taxes and corporations started taking more and more of the pie - the middle class dwindled and the US took on massive amounts of debt. Now here we are today with corporations not even paying their employees a living wage, with a dwindling middle class, and record profits. Kids are shackled with debt if they try to better themselves with an education. You have people like Trump who can fund their own presidential campaign out of pocket. Jobs are sent overseas to where they can pay as little as possible. These are the products of Greed today.

 

[Robert Pate]

Thank God I am not greedy like other men.

 

[brewmama]

When the US taxed the richest of society up to 90% and there was a good distribution of wealth so that a single parent could supply for his family and own a home and put money away into savings - that is when we developed a middle class and people were brought out of poverty. However, when republicans eliminated these taxes and corporations started taking more and more of the pie - the middle class dwindled and the US took on massive amounts of debt. Now here we are today with corporations not even paying their employees a living wage, with a dwindling middle class, and record profits. Kids are shackled with debt if they try to better themselves with an education. You have people like Trump who can fund their own presidential campaign out of pocket. Jobs are sent overseas to where they can pay as little as possible. These are the products of Greed today.

Surely you're aware that JFK (and the democrats) got rid of exorbitantly high tax rates, which in turn brought about an economic boom...


"JFK’s pitch in that legendary campaign was to “get this country moving again.” He was talking about economic growth. And that growth would get unleashed via tax policy, namely two big tax cuts, one on business and the other on personal income.

These tax cuts became law, the business ones in 1962 and the personal ones early in 1964, a few months after the assassination. The economic results that anticipated and accompanied these tax cuts remain among the most whopping ever recorded.

The eight-year expansion from 1961 to 1969 saw growth of 48%, a third more in an eight-year period than in the sixteen years ending in 1960. 1944-69, the “postwar prosperity” quarter century, saw growth at the nice peak-to-peak rate of 3% per year, but only because the 1960s lifted everything up.

Further statistics show more of the same. Unemployment was stuck around 6% in the 1950s, and then settled below 4% in the 1960s. 13 million jobs were created in the 1960s, 7 million in the 1950s. And how about federal receipts: they went up more than the epic rate of economic growth, rising by 55% in real terms in the seven years after 1961."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briando...st-policy-successes-of-all-time/#20f3cebb2308

And surely you're aware that the income tax did not even become permanent until 1913, and then on a very minimal basis, so much of the huge wealth and expansion generated in the 1800's and early 1900's involved no taxes, so your theory of "high taxes created the middle class" falls totally flat.

Not to mention that single parents were the tiny exception, rather than the rule, and 90% tax rates had very little to do with them.

And not to mention all the other flaws in your argument, which I can't take on all at once.

 

[glorydaz]

Thanks I am certainly not against the idea of a free-market that is not greed-driven. Personally, I advocate a mixed economy - where certain industries are primarily controlled by the government, like Health Care - but the rest are left to the free-market.

Why do you feel that socialism gives people less hope and more greed? Keep in mind that socialism does not equate to communism; I'm not advocating economic equality and the dissolution of all social classes.

Well, now I have to admit my ignorance, because I always thought that socialism invariably leads to communism. :idunno:

 

[csuguy]

Surely you're aware that JFK (and the democrats) got rid of exorbitantly high tax rates, which in turn brought about an economic boom...

Getting rid of exorbitantly high tax rates is fine, I'm not advocating we go back to a 90% tax rate; but now they are far too low. Bill Clinton raised them and as a result was able to erase the federal deficit was erased and we had a surplus in its place. Then Bush got into office and we went straight back into the red.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

"JFK’s pitch in that legendary campaign was to “get this country moving again.” He was talking about economic growth. And that growth would get unleashed via tax policy, namely two big tax cuts, one on business and the other on personal income.

These tax cuts became law, the business ones in 1962 and the personal ones early in 1964, a few months after the assassination. The economic results that anticipated and accompanied these tax cuts remain among the most whopping ever recorded.

The eight-year expansion from 1961 to 1969 saw growth of 48%, a third more in an eight-year period than in the sixteen years ending in 1960. 1944-69, the “postwar prosperity” quarter century, saw growth at the nice peak-to-peak rate of 3% per year, but only because the 1960s lifted everything up.

Further statistics show more of the same. Unemployment was stuck around 6% in the 1950s, and then settled below 4% in the 1960s. 13 million jobs were created in the 1960s, 7 million in the 1950s. And how about federal receipts: they went up more than the epic rate of economic growth, rising by 55% in real terms in the seven years after 1961."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briando...st-policy-successes-of-all-time/#20f3cebb2308

And surely you're aware that the income tax did not even become permanent until 1913, and then on a very minimal basis, so much of the huge wealth and expansion generated in the 1800's and early 1900's involved no taxes, so your theory of "high taxes created the middle class" falls totally flat.

Not to mention that single parents were the tiny exception, rather than the rule, and 90% tax rates had very little to do with them.

And not to mention all the other flaws in your argument, which I can't take on all at once.

During this time period, productivity and employee wage went hand-in-hand. As companies become more profitable, employees shared in the success. However, in the 1970s this started changing. Employee wages remained stagnant while the higher ups took all the profits. Today there is a huge disparity between the profits that these corporations are making, and what employees take home. Many don't even make a living wage:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ay-and-productivity-is-so-problematic/385931/

 

[csuguy]

Well, now I have to admit my ignorance, because I always thought that socialism invariably leads to communism. :idunno:

A common misconception, thanks largely to the Red Scare. Note that we already have socialist programs in place in this country: Medicare, Social Security, K-12 Public Education, etc. These things co-exist with our free-market.

 

[OCTOBER23]

SATANIC THOUGHTS.....................

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE..............

PHYSICALLY, FINANCIALLY, MENTALLY , EMOTIONALLY

SATAN AND HIS PSYCHIC VAMPIRES ARE ALWAYS BROADCASTING THIS

BECAUSE SATAN WANTS TO MAKE MANKIND JUST LIKE HIM AND THE OPPOSITE OF GOD.

GOD IS LOVE

SATAN IS HATE

GOD IS BLESSINGS

SATAN IS GREED AND SELFISHNESS

Resist these evil thoughts.

 

[brewmama]

A common misconception, thanks largely to the Red Scare. Note that we already have socialist programs in place in this country: Medicare, Social Security, K-12 Public Education, etc. These things co-exist with our free-market.

You certainly have drunk the koolaid. You probably don't even see how your "socialist programs" have contributed to the very things you deride in your other posts. And our free-market is anything but free.

 

[Clete]

Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions (dictionary.com)

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all [g]sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Colossians 3:5
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.
​

This topic often comes up when I start discussing socialism versus capitalism. In our culture, they have attempted to ingrain the idea that capitalism is godly, and socialism is evil - and even that Greed is good. Even good Christians I know try to defend Capitalism and greed as beneficial for society; and I find this boils down to a divide on what 'greed' is.

As the definition above says, greed is an "excessive desire." But what makes a desire excessive? For some, this is anything that you don't strictly need. Any self-satisfying desire that goes beyond your necessities is greed. I'm not convinced by this myself, but it is a position that some have taken.

For others, an excessive desire is when you want as much of something as you can possibly get even when you no longer have a use for it. If you continually strive after money when you are the richest person in the world, what is the point? Will it really enrich your life in anyway?

This position is a little better, but I think still insufficient. This supposes that one can only be greedy if one has acquired an abundance of whatever it is they desire - and then continues to want more. Thus, under this understanding, a poor person - or a person who lacked the object of their desire - could never be greedy. I very much disagree - and instead defend the next position.

My view of Greed is that you are taking something - money, power, etc - and placing too much importance on it. You have done this to the extent that you have displaced other matters of importance in favor of this desire. This is why scripture says that greed is idolatry - you have displaced the love of God and your fellow man with the love of money. The result being that you act accordingly - choosing gain over the well-being of your fellowman. Capitalism has supplied no end of examples of this - and this is why it makes no sense for Christians to endorse such a system.

Under this view - even a poor person can be greedy - if they place so much importance on it that they are willing to harm their fellowman to acquire it.

What do you think about Greed and Capitalism? Which of the three views do you subscribe to on greed, or do you have an alternative? Is my view on Greed unfair with respects to Capitalism? If you accept that greed is bad, and still think socialism in principle is 'evil', why?

Socialism is institutionalized greed.

Greed, among other things, is the desire for more than you've earned. Capitalism, real capitalism, not the fake socialistic crap version of it we have in America, is all about the fact that you have no right to anything that someone else has to produce and that which you produce belongs to you, by right. That which you produce, you may dispose of in any manner you wish, whether that means you trade it (i.e. barter), sell it for money, use it, save it, bury it, burn it or give it away. It is yours to do with as you please because it was your time and your talent (i.e. your life) that went into producing it. Thus to give someone else a right to your production is to give that person a right to your life, which is slavery.

This is the foundational principle of true and genuine capitalism, a system that has never once been tried in its pure form. We got very close here in America and for one shining century, this country produced more wealth than any nation before it had ever dreamed was possible and improved both the longevity and the quality of life of everyone, not just here in America but throughout the civilized world.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[glorydaz]

A common misconception, thanks largely to the Red Scare. Note that we already have socialist programs in place in this country: Medicare, Social Security, K-12 Public Education, etc. These things co-exist with our free-market.

But, all those programs are failing.

 

[nikolai_42]

Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions (dictionary.com)

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all [g]sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Colossians 3:5
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.
​

This topic often comes up when I start discussing socialism versus capitalism. In our culture, they have attempted to ingrain the idea that capitalism is godly, and socialism is evil - and even that Greed is good. Even good Christians I know try to defend Capitalism and greed as beneficial for society; and I find this boils down to a divide on what 'greed' is.

It seems to me that man tries to invent the perfect system and institute it on earth. My observation is that the closer he (seems) to come to utopia, the more horrific the results that come from it. Socialism is one of those systems that provides great examples of that. Communism is one form of socialism and results in no real good. Socialism has seen many countries continually repressed and stuck in 2nd or 3rd world status. Capitalism - while not ideal - has been the source of much economic benefit in the world. And that is, I think, because it has the most realistic view of man as he is (not as we want man to be). In an ideal world, capitalism would probably not work, but in the world we live with man fallen as he is, the liberty of conscience and the preservation of private property and the individual is essential for a general peace and prosperity.

As the definition above says, greed is an "excessive desire." But what makes a desire excessive? For some, this is anything that you don't strictly need. Any self-satisfying desire that goes beyond your necessities is greed. I'm not convinced by this myself, but it is a position that some have taken.

I would say that this is actually a decent basic definition. Where the problem comes is in defining "necessary". Necessary for what? Marx answered the question by offering from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Man existed, essentially, to meet someone else's needs. Man didn't live for himself but for someone else. This ignores the incentive of living off the sweat of one's own brow - earning one's own bread - and succeeding or failing based on his own abilities and merits. In that case, if a man deems something necessary, he is responsible for pursuing it (lawfully) and earning it. If he is willing to pay the price, then he shouldn't be denied the fruit of his labors. With that understanding, each man gets to determine for himself what is necessary but doesn't place the burden of providing that on someone else.

For others, an excessive desire is when you want as much of something as you can possibly get even when you no longer have a use for it. If you continually strive after money when you are the richest person in the world, what is the point? Will it really enrich your life in anyway?

Again, I agree with your initial proposal but see the problem as being who gets to decide what is "excessive". As Lon pointed out, there are men who get as much as they want only to give it all away. Another example that comes to mind is R.G. Letourneau who regularly tithed 90% and lived on 10% of what he earned. Not only did the man make quite a bit of money and give most of it away, but he revolutionized the earthmoving industry (big trucks, dozers etc...) and established an engineering university that is still operational. All this from a self-taught man...If he had been limited as to how much money he could make, how the world would have missed out...

This position is a little better, but I think still insufficient. This supposes that one can only be greedy if one has acquired an abundance of whatever it is they desire - and then continues to want more. Thus, under this understanding, a poor person - or a person who lacked the object of their desire - could never be greedy. I very much disagree - and instead defend the next position.

Yes. Greed has little to do with how much one has and nearly everything to do with the corrupt human heart. I venture to say that many - if not most - really poor people in the Western world are that way because of their inability to regulate their own desires (alcohol, drugs, possessions, even having time on their hands). There is more than enough opportunity for someone to establish themselves and do better than most of the rest of the world - if someone is willing to work. At least that's the case for now...

My view of Greed is that you are taking something - money, power, etc - and placing too much importance on it. You have done this to the extent that you have displaced other matters of importance in favor of this desire. This is why scripture says that greed is idolatry - you have displaced the love of God and your fellow man with the love of money. The result being that you act accordingly - choosing gain over the well-being of your fellowman. Capitalism has supplied no end of examples of this - and this is why it makes no sense for Christians to endorse such a system.

I agree that priority is everything. Even the most successful businessman will tell you that. Jesus even said that if we seek first His kingdom, then all these other things (worldly things) will be added to us. But I disagree with the idea that Capitalism encourages choosing gain over the well-being of one's fellow man. If anything, it does more to encourage than discourage it. Certainly more than socialism. Remember, socialism (and most other utopias) depend on the system itself to mold the individual and MAKE them act properly. Capitalism instead recognizes what man is and ALLOWS them to act properly. Certainly, there are many who have taken advantage of that to their destruction, but when there is less to go around to begin with (inevitably the case with socialism) and when a sense of personal responsibility is diminished (as with any system that tries to mandate giving), one ends up in a worse situation than giving freedom. And that's the key - liberty.

I am reminded of an anecdote I read in a history of money. It details the situation Elizabeth I had when she took the English throne nearly 500 years ago. Her father (Henry VIII) had been debasing the currency by replacing much of it with baser elements (thus the term "debasing"). When people began realizing what was going on, they held on to the more pure money while the cheaper money was kept in circulation. It's where we get the saying "Bad money drives out good". So Elizabeth had to strengthen the economy. In part, she made the currency inherently valuable again - but she also decided not to tax her people (part of why she became known as "Good Queen Bess") - or at least removed the legal obligation to pay. And even ended up having a lot of money owed her and England by the time she died. The result was that when the realm had to be defended, the populace was all too eager to step up and give all they had for its defence. Bottom line, if people are free to give, they end up being more generous (as a whole) than if people are made to give.
Yeah Capitalism!

Under this view - even a poor person can be greedy - if they place so much importance on it that they are willing to harm their fellowman to acquire it.

What do you think about Greed and Capitalism? Which of the three views do you subscribe to on greed, or do you have an alternative? Is my view on Greed unfair with respects to Capitalism? If you accept that greed is bad, and still think socialism in principle is 'evil', why?

Greed is bad, but covetousness is inevitably amplified under heavily managed economies.

 

[csuguy]

But, all those programs are failing.

These programs are not working as well as they could or as well as they have in the past because they have been steadily de-funded and diminished. However, even in their present state they are better than nothing. Or do you think education should go only to those who can afford it? Should someone who has worked all their life be thrown aside and told to die because they got sick or injured? Should the old be worked to death? Should someone who breaks their leg be told that they must pay up or they can't get it fixed?

Social programs are the backbone of society, without which everything crumbles. Without it, even a small mishap/accident can send one plunging to the bottom, losing everything one has worked for. The result being a large, angry lower-class who have no faith in the system and eventually revolution. Likewise, people who start from the bottom have no way to better themselves. You say to work - but what position can they hold that would allow them to advance? They can be the world's best burger flipper - but that won't move them up in society. You say get a better job - but that requires education, and education costs money - and is thus largely inaccessible to people who don't come from money.

 

[csuguy]

You certainly have drunk the koolaid. You probably don't even see how your "socialist programs" have contributed to the very things you deride in your other posts. And our free-market is anything but free.

And how do you propose these socialist programs conflict with my other posts? Not to say these programs couldn't use improvement. For instance, Free, universal healthcare as a right > Medicare. Nevertheless, better medicare than no-care.

 

[Ben Masada]

Thank God I am not greedy like other men.

What are you talking about Robert? Greed is good, as long as whatever we have achieved and aim at achieving more is acquired honestly and through legal ways. The opposite would rather be evil to stagnate for lack of some greed to grow.