Showing posts with label greed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label greed. Show all posts
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Who Is The Greedy Bastard?
Imagine a guy who sees that he can save his fellow humans a
lot of time, material and money by manufacturing a widget unlike any
other. It would be ½ the cost of other
widgets, be less harmful to the environment, and would save consumers’ money so
that they will have more dollars available for other necessities or desires.
The guy buys a few modified widget-manufacturing machines and pays a
few people to run them. The new and
improved widgets are a hit. He swaps the
widgets for dollars.
He uses some of the dollars to purchase new machinery,
passes some of the dollars on to his hardest-working employees, and puts his
best manager in charge of a 2nd widget factory. After about 10 years, he spends some of his
money on a new house and a couple of new cars.
People want his widgets.
But he doesn’t want that many things that other people have. He doesn’t worry much about new clothes,
hitting the nightclubs, or taking long vacations to Europe. He likes the idea of making widgets. So instead of swapping widgets for clothes,
drinks, cruises or yachts, he continues swapping widgets for money. He really doesn’t want that many things. But if anyone were to come up with something
he really wanted, he would probably swap some of his money for it.
After about 20 years, as majority owner of a large
corporation, this guy is one of the wealthiest people in the area. He isn’t ostentatious, doesn’t flash his
money around, and gives some to charity.
But mostly he just hangs onto his money, just in case he has an idea
for a new product to manufacture, or finds a new location for a factory.
So… if this guy were to go on buying sprees for mansions,
yachts, beachfront spreads, whores and politicians, would he then be considered a
greedy bastard? Or is he a greedy
bastard only if he hangs onto his money because nobody else has anything he wants to
swap for it?
And finally, why does any politician who crusades to take
away the guy’s money (by force) have a saintly reputation, even though these
politicians have never produced any “widgets” that people want to trade their own money or stuff for?
Who is the greedy bastard….the producer who hangs onto his
money, the producer who spends his money like a drunk cowboy, or the
non-producer who covets someone else’s money so he can give it to his
supporters?
What does it take to be considered greedy?
Thursday, August 9, 2012
On Greed
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce.
I’ve had this "money speech" from Atlas Shrugged on the bulletin board over my desk for about a year now. It's great, and I hope you'll hit the link and read all of it.
There are three ways to get money:
1) Steal it.
2) Win it/Inherit it/Find it.
3) Swap something of value for it.
On the other hand, there are three things you can do with money:
1) Have it stolen from you/Lose it to taxes.
2) Give it away.
3) Swap something of value for it.
When we say that someone is greedy, we usually mean that he hangs on to more of his money or more of his “stuff” than we think a normal person would. He doesn’t give away much of it or swap much of it for other stuff.
But if the greedy man came by his money honestly, through methods #2 or #3, that means he either swapped something of value for the money, or someone else did (probably a parent) who wanted him to have the proceeds.
Webster defines “Greed” as “a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed”. Whether the following people have that selfish and excessive desire isn’t really known, but they do have far more than is needed. They lead off the Fortune 400 list of richest Americans. Here are the Top Ten:
10. Alice Walton | Worth: $20.9 billion (Wal-Mart)
9. Jim Walton | Worth: $21.1 billion (Wal-Mart)
8. Sheldon Adelson | Worth: $21.5 billion (Casinos)
7. George Soros | Worth: 22 billion (Hedge Funds)
6. Christy Walton | $24.5 billion (Wal-Mart)
4. David Koch | Worth: $25 billion (diversified)
4. Charles Koch | Worth: $25 billion (diversified)
3. Larry Ellison | Worth: $33 billion (Oracle)
2. Warren Buffet | Worth: $39 billion (Berkshire Hathaway)
1. Bill Gates | Worth: $59 billion (Microsoft)
I’m writing this on a computer that uses Microsoft programs, I just finished shipping four truckloads of display equipment to Wal-Mart, the facility I’m working in has leased 30,000 square feet of space to TTI (owned by Warren Buffett), and I read websites partially sponsored by the Koch brothers every week. (The Agitator, Cato, etc.) I have no idea what Larry Ellison does, but I’m sure that this laptop is a better machine as a result. George Soros is the only outlier, in that I can’t quite determine how he’s made my life better, other than donating vast sums of money for drug policy reform in the U.S.
Some of these people give away vast sums of their money. Others don’t. But they didn't have to give away their money to enrich my life.
By Webster’s definition, though, all of them still have enough money to be considered “greedy”. They’ve wound up with far, far more than anyone needs.
How did they do this happen? Did they steal it? No. Did they find it? No. Did the government give it to them after taking it from someone else? No.
They, or someone in their family, provided goods and services that were worth more than money. You and I voluntarily gave the Waltons, Bill Gates, and the Koch brothers some vast sums of money in exchange for stuff they provided – garden hoses, underwear, or groceries (in the case of the Waltons) software (in the case of Gates) or oil (in the case of Charles and David Koch).
They Ellisons, Gateses, Waltons and Kochs don’t need or want all of the stuff that their money will now buy. And they don’t want to sell their companies.
Bill Gates wrote computer programs that I’ve purchased. Millions of other people have swapped their money for his computer software. But dammit, I can’t think of a single thing I could create that Bill Gates would want to buy from me.
I want what he’s got, and I want it badly. Bill Gates doesn’t want anything that I have.
Which one of us is greedy? And which one of us does the world need more of?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce.
I’ve had this "money speech" from Atlas Shrugged on the bulletin board over my desk for about a year now. It's great, and I hope you'll hit the link and read all of it.
There are three ways to get money:
1) Steal it.
2) Win it/Inherit it/Find it.
3) Swap something of value for it.
On the other hand, there are three things you can do with money:
1) Have it stolen from you/Lose it to taxes.
2) Give it away.
3) Swap something of value for it.
When we say that someone is greedy, we usually mean that he hangs on to more of his money or more of his “stuff” than we think a normal person would. He doesn’t give away much of it or swap much of it for other stuff.
But if the greedy man came by his money honestly, through methods #2 or #3, that means he either swapped something of value for the money, or someone else did (probably a parent) who wanted him to have the proceeds.
Webster defines “Greed” as “a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (such as money) than is needed”. Whether the following people have that selfish and excessive desire isn’t really known, but they do have far more than is needed. They lead off the Fortune 400 list of richest Americans. Here are the Top Ten:
10. Alice Walton | Worth: $20.9 billion (Wal-Mart)
9. Jim Walton | Worth: $21.1 billion (Wal-Mart)
8. Sheldon Adelson | Worth: $21.5 billion (Casinos)
7. George Soros | Worth: 22 billion (Hedge Funds)
6. Christy Walton | $24.5 billion (Wal-Mart)
4. David Koch | Worth: $25 billion (diversified)
4. Charles Koch | Worth: $25 billion (diversified)
3. Larry Ellison | Worth: $33 billion (Oracle)
2. Warren Buffet | Worth: $39 billion (Berkshire Hathaway)
1. Bill Gates | Worth: $59 billion (Microsoft)
I’m writing this on a computer that uses Microsoft programs, I just finished shipping four truckloads of display equipment to Wal-Mart, the facility I’m working in has leased 30,000 square feet of space to TTI (owned by Warren Buffett), and I read websites partially sponsored by the Koch brothers every week. (The Agitator, Cato, etc.) I have no idea what Larry Ellison does, but I’m sure that this laptop is a better machine as a result. George Soros is the only outlier, in that I can’t quite determine how he’s made my life better, other than donating vast sums of money for drug policy reform in the U.S.
Some of these people give away vast sums of their money. Others don’t. But they didn't have to give away their money to enrich my life.
By Webster’s definition, though, all of them still have enough money to be considered “greedy”. They’ve wound up with far, far more than anyone needs.
How did they do this happen? Did they steal it? No. Did they find it? No. Did the government give it to them after taking it from someone else? No.
They, or someone in their family, provided goods and services that were worth more than money. You and I voluntarily gave the Waltons, Bill Gates, and the Koch brothers some vast sums of money in exchange for stuff they provided – garden hoses, underwear, or groceries (in the case of the Waltons) software (in the case of Gates) or oil (in the case of Charles and David Koch).
They Ellisons, Gateses, Waltons and Kochs don’t need or want all of the stuff that their money will now buy. And they don’t want to sell their companies.
Bill Gates wrote computer programs that I’ve purchased. Millions of other people have swapped their money for his computer software. But dammit, I can’t think of a single thing I could create that Bill Gates would want to buy from me.
I want what he’s got, and I want it badly. Bill Gates doesn’t want anything that I have.
Which one of us is greedy? And which one of us does the world need more of?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Elizabeth ! Warren !! is back !!!!!!!!!!
Back in 2010, a writer named Brent Budowsky almost put himself in the hospital from just thinking about the nomination of Elizabeth ! Warren !! to a Consumer Protection boondoggle of some sort.
Most of the rational world had a great time with his piece, an editorial in which Budowsky imagined peace in Israel, justice in this life, the lion laying down with the lamb, the Democrats rallying behind Obama, and other unlikely scenarios - all from the nomination of Elizabeth ! Warren !! to a bureaucracy.
Elizabeth ! Warren !! is back, and she's running for the Senate. Here's something she had to say a few days ago at a political rally:
Here's the pic that's currently making the rounds on Facebook, which I think sums up the situation nicely:
But wait !!! It keeps getting better. I found this parody here.
Enjoy.
Most of the rational world had a great time with his piece, an editorial in which Budowsky imagined peace in Israel, justice in this life, the lion laying down with the lamb, the Democrats rallying behind Obama, and other unlikely scenarios - all from the nomination of Elizabeth ! Warren !! to a bureaucracy.
Elizabeth ! Warren !! is back, and she's running for the Senate. Here's something she had to say a few days ago at a political rally:
There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you!Ok, let's look a little closer.....
But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.
But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
Tax units in the lowest quintile (20%) pay 0.4 percent (of the total tax burden), while those in the second, third (or middle), and fourth quintiles pay 2.3 percent, 7.7 percent, and 17.6 percent respectively.What it boils down to is that some very rich people have a lot of money, and Elizabeth ! Warren !! wants more of it.
The top quintile pays 71.9 percent. The top 10 percent pays 55.9 percent while the top 0.1 percent pays 12.3 percent.
Here's the pic that's currently making the rounds on Facebook, which I think sums up the situation nicely:
But wait !!! It keeps getting better. I found this parody here.
Enjoy.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Quote Of The Day, on Greed
I saw this little gem at the Libertarian News blog.
"It’s true: greed has had a very bad press. I frankly don’t see anything wrong with greed. I think that the people who are always attacking greed would be more consistent with their position if they refused their next salary increase." – Murray N. Rothbard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


