What's Better? Greed? Giving? Or Government?

[Foxfyre]

Your idea of critical thought and mine are really just not in the same realm. You think my questions were criticizing, but yours are not? Is that really what you think? Go back read your questions in view of where we are in the discussion, and then read my questions. You'll note my questions and answers are meant to help you, whether you want my help or not. Just as your OP was intended to help, no? I don't expect you to appreciate, but I would expect you to figure out the basics of the dangers of generalizing questions that serve to divide us based on our own personal experiences in life resulting in vastly different reads on certain types of questions.

To your credit you almost admitted to one poster that you were wrong about using "greed" as a term vs. "private investment." Admitting when you are wrong is a hard thing to do for type A people. I applaud your effort.

I'm here to participate in this interesting topic, I have no ulterior motives here, just laying out my opinion on this oft discussed topic.

My questions were not in any sense critical. They were 100% objective. It is only those incapable of being objective about much of anything who would read more than that into them.

And in no place did I admit to anybody nor have I used "greed" as a term vs "private investment." I used 'greed' as a term some of you apply to private investment and was expressing that I gave those of you who would look at it that way some bait to use. I have been quite explicit that:

1. Seeing ambition or self interest of those engaged in private enterprise as "greed" is silly talk.

2. The net benefit to society via a successful business enterprise is not affected by whether the business owner or owners are 'greedy' or have any negative character traits.

Yes, I understand that you are a good person that does not see the evil in others, well except for those like me that are honest to you.

To your statement that "[t]he net benefit to society via a successful business enterprise is not affected by whether the business owner or owners are 'greedy' or have any negative character traits" is more than a little naive. While you may have grandiose ideas about the altruistic nature of corporations, I'm here to tell you there are just as many downright evil corporations out there as there are evil people by ratio. Owning a company does not make someone more or less likely to be bad or good, just like someone running for government. More to the contrary it would seem people seeking power many times have less than altruistic motives.

Geez you are incorrigible. How anybody with ability to think critically could get from ANY of my statements that I do not see the evil in others is simply mind boggling.

Nor does the OP deal in any way with what corporations are evil or who is bad or good or whether or not the person running a business has altruistic motives or is a total greedy, selfish, self-centered jerk.

The OP looks at what is most likely to benefit society as a whole between three options offered. It does not dismiss other options that could have been included or suggest that other options do not exist. It does ask us to look critically at which of those three specific options--limiting the focus to ONLY three specific opitions--is most likely to produce the most benefit to society overall.

It is both frustrating and interesting to me how difficult that concept is to so many when it is so simple and obvious to others.

 

[BlackSand]

Yes, I understand that you are a good person that does not see the evil in others, well except for those like me that are honest to you.

To your statement that "[t]he net benefit to society via a successful business enterprise is not affected by whether the business owner or owners are 'greedy' or have any negative character traits" is more than a little naive. While you may have grandiose ideas about the altruistic nature of corporations, I'm here to tell you there are just as many downright evil corporations out there as there are evil people by ratio. Owning a company does not make someone more or less likely to be bad or good, just like someone running for government. More to the contrary it would seem people seeking power many times have less than altruistic motives.

The second greatest challenge you come up against trying to convince corporations to do what is necessary to succeed with respect to improved initiatives ... Is explaining to them that it won't matter to the people that hate them ... They need to do it anyway.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

The questions offering in the OP, however, do not include what we do or do not value. The questions offered in the OP do not ask anybody to list what IS valuable or what helps or is beneficial to people. That list could go on for pages.

The OP asks us to focus on three very specific concepts and limit the discussion to those three things:

What is most likely to benefit society the most--i.e. all of society or society in general or society overall--if the rich guy has $100 million to use and is going to choose to spend it between those three things and ONLY those three things:

1. Paying the money in taxes to the government? - or -
2. Giving the money to a good charity? - or -
3. Investing the money in a successful new business or growing or expanding one?

Ok then I don't understand what you mean by "benefit" society the most.

I don't mean to be rude but you almost seem to be saying here that the only valid measure of money well spent is its return on investment as measured by an increase in the overall wealth of society as measured by cash value for buying hard assets. Are we also limiting to short term returns on investment or are long term investments valid as well?

That you don't understand it is pretty obvious.

The purpose of the exercise as I intended it is to evaluate the benefit to society as a whole--no matter HOW that benefit is defined--when $100 is given to government via taxes or given to a good charity or invested to start, grow, and/or expand a successful business.

Going back to the critical thinking concept, it is pretty easy to come up with a conclusion of which of those three things is most likely to benefit society as a whole the most. Only one of those three things is most likely to:

1. Provide revenue for the government - AND -
2. Provide ability for people to give more to private charity - AND -
3. Provide opportunity, jobs, and economic prosperity for more people thus reducing some of the need for some of the government revenues and reducing the need for some of the private charity.

That's not what I said at all. I said I don't know what you meant by benefit. You appear to believe I am Omnipotent or at least imbued with the ability to read your mind. You insult me for asking you to clarify your term as used by you, while simultaneously insulting me for providing you with appropriate and widely accepted definitions of the term, to show you just how wrong your statements have been thus far.

What part of your response explains what you meant by "benefit" society the most? What part of my response that what benefits society the most is not monetary at all because people are more important than wealth, brought out all this vitriol from you?

That you think it is easy to come up with a conclusion, is my point. You had your answer before you asked the question. Your questions were merely a straw-man that you desired to beat over the heads of anyone who disagreed with your conclusion. But hey I'm glad you are back to using "greed" in your straw-man and now admit your statements are meant as "bait."

 

[Sunshine]

My point to you Fox, is if money is wisely spent, that is better than money poorly spent, irregardless of whether it is through Government, Charity, or Greed.

And I have not here or anywhere else ever disputed that in any way. Nor have I made any kind of case that all taxes are unnecessary or that even most charity is not a worthy thing.

The thrust of the OP is to determine whether money well spent or poorly spent via taxes, charity, or via starting, growing, and/or expanding a private enterprise business is more likely to benefit society overall.

I think that is even subject to some qualification, such as the times. I have seen the times when everyone I knew who wanted a job had one. That is not the case currently. So, at this time, I think growing the economy would be the best choice. But I don't agree that anything you make over what you or others thin you 'need' constitutes greed. We all have a lot of things we don't particularly 'need.' When I was making house calls in the projects, some of those apartments had so much stuff in them you couldn't walk.

 

[Sunshine]

And what if that greed is directed to profit for your family or community? Is that, then charity?

Greedy is what people today without money call people with money.

It lost any meaning when the idea to loot the rich became more popular than the idea of spending money wisely.
To argue about it is irrelevant, as I have said before ... If someone has $100 million in their pocket to start with ... They have a better idea of what to do than anyone else.
That doesn't mean that they will do what is best ... Just that they know what they are doing and how it effects others.

They can either use it wisely or abuse it ... But the onus is on them, no one else ... And they are responsible for how it is distributed whether they choose to give it away or put it to work.

.

Greedy is what a lot of people call you when you won't give them all of your money. We see it here every day. If we won't give it, then by cracky they are going to fin a way to take it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok then I don't understand what you mean by "benefit" society the most.

I don't mean to be rude but you almost seem to be saying here that the only valid measure of money well spent is its return on investment as measured by an increase in the overall wealth of society as measured by cash value for buying hard assets. Are we also limiting to short term returns on investment or are long term investments valid as well?

That you don't understand it is pretty obvious.

The purpose of the exercise as I intended it is to evaluate the benefit to society as a whole--no matter HOW that benefit is defined--when $100 is given to government via taxes or given to a good charity or invested to start, grow, and/or expand a successful business.

Going back to the critical thinking concept, it is pretty easy to come up with a conclusion of which of those three things is most likely to benefit society as a whole the most. Only one of those three things is most likely to:

1. Provide revenue for the government - AND -
2. Provide ability for people to give more to private charity - AND -
3. Provide opportunity, jobs, and economic prosperity for more people thus reducing some of the need for some of the government revenues and reducing the need for some of the private charity.

That's not what I said at all. I said I don't know what you meant by benefit. You appear to believe I am Omnipotent or at least imbued with the ability to read your mind. You insult me for asking you to clarify your term as used by you, while simultaneously insulting me for providing you with appropriate and widely accepted definitions of the term, to show you just how wrong your statements have been thus far.

What part of your response explains what you meant by "benefit" society the most? What part of my response that what benefits society the most is not monetary at all because people are more important than wealth, brought out all this vitriol from you?

That you think it is easy to come up with a conclusion, is my point. You had your answer before you asked the question. Your questions were merely a straw-man that you desired to beat over the heads of anyone who disagreed with your conclusion. But hey I'm glad you are back to using "greed" in your straw-man and now admit your statements are meant as "bait."

Sorry, but you are becoming more and more incomprehensible and illogical here. And since it is obvious that you are not interested in discussing the concept in the OP but you are exclusively focused on dissing me including misrepresenting what I have offered thus far, and/or are trying to change the topic to something else, I won't respond further until you do decide to discuss the concept of the OP. Thank you for understanding and I will wish you a pleasant holiday season.

 

[RKMBrown]

My questions were not in any sense critical. They were 100% objective. It is only those incapable of being objective about much of anything who would read more than that into them.

And in no place did I admit to anybody nor have I used "greed" as a term vs "private investment." I used 'greed' as a term some of you apply to private investment and was expressing that I gave those of you who would look at it that way some bait to use. I have been quite explicit that:

1. Seeing ambition or self interest of those engaged in private enterprise as "greed" is silly talk.

2. The net benefit to society via a successful business enterprise is not affected by whether the business owner or owners are 'greedy' or have any negative character traits.

Yes, I understand that you are a good person that does not see the evil in others, well except for those like me that are honest to you.

To your statement that "[t]he net benefit to society via a successful business enterprise is not affected by whether the business owner or owners are 'greedy' or have any negative character traits" is more than a little naive. While you may have grandiose ideas about the altruistic nature of corporations, I'm here to tell you there are just as many downright evil corporations out there as there are evil people by ratio. Owning a company does not make someone more or less likely to be bad or good, just like someone running for government. More to the contrary it would seem people seeking power many times have less than altruistic motives.

Geez you are incorrigible. How anybody with ability to think critically could get from ANY of my statements that I do not see the evil in others is simply mind boggling.

Nor does the OP deal in any way with what corporations are evil or who is bad or good or whether or not the person running a business has altruistic motives or is a total greedy, selfish, self-centered jerk.

The OP looks at what is most likely to benefit society as a whole between three options offered. It does not dismiss other options that could have been included or suggest that other options do not exist. It does ask us to look critically at which of those three specific options--limiting the focus to ONLY three specific opitions--is most likely to produce the most benefit to society overall.

It is both frustrating and interesting to me how difficult that concept is to so many when it is so simple and obvious to others.

But you did not provide "specific" options you provided three broad based systems with no specifics whatsoever. You did not even define "benefit" yet and benefit is the goal. You relied on "understanding" of your small circle of friends that they would know what you meant by your statements. This apparently in spite of the basic fact that many people see the world in a different way than you do and use terms in different ways, such as based on the actual definitions of terms as opposed to the definitions used in your small circle.

I see every life as a very complex thing. I see our society as a very complex system created by very complex life forms that are each individuals.

I used to think myself an expert on many topics for which I had little to no knowledge, I got over that. You'll find the deeper you look into any subject the more complex and wonderful it becomes. You'll also find yourself questioning a lot of these "understandings" that you have come to know as basic things that everyone should just know.

 

[RKMBrown]

That you don't understand it is pretty obvious.

The purpose of the exercise as I intended it is to evaluate the benefit to society as a whole--no matter HOW that benefit is defined--when $100 is given to government via taxes or given to a good charity or invested to start, grow, and/or expand a successful business.

Going back to the critical thinking concept, it is pretty easy to come up with a conclusion of which of those three things is most likely to benefit society as a whole the most. Only one of those three things is most likely to:

1. Provide revenue for the government - AND -
2. Provide ability for people to give more to private charity - AND -
3. Provide opportunity, jobs, and economic prosperity for more people thus reducing some of the need for some of the government revenues and reducing the need for some of the private charity.

That's not what I said at all. I said I don't know what you meant by benefit. You appear to believe I am Omnipotent or at least imbued with the ability to read your mind. You insult me for asking you to clarify your term as used by you, while simultaneously insulting me for providing you with appropriate and widely accepted definitions of the term, to show you just how wrong your statements have been thus far.

What part of your response explains what you meant by "benefit" society the most? What part of my response that what benefits society the most is not monetary at all because people are more important than wealth, brought out all this vitriol from you?

That you think it is easy to come up with a conclusion, is my point. You had your answer before you asked the question. Your questions were merely a straw-man that you desired to beat over the heads of anyone who disagreed with your conclusion. But hey I'm glad you are back to using "greed" in your straw-man and now admit your statements are meant as "bait."

Sorry, but you are becoming more and more incomprehensible and illogical here. And since it is obvious that you are not interested in discussing the concept in the OP but you are exclusively focused on dissing me including misrepresenting what I have offered thus far, and/or are trying to change the topic to something else, I won't respond further until you do decide to discuss the concept of the OP. Thank you for understanding and I will wish you a pleasant holiday season.

All I was trying to do is get you to explain what you meant by your question by defining the extremely broad brushed terms you used that could mean just about anything. My caution was to making a generalized conclusion about which is best when you don't even know what the goals are.

If not agreeing with your conclusion is off topic... I find that odd. Why not just start an OP that states can everyone that agrees with my conclusion that greed is better than government and charity please give me an amen?

 

[Foxfyre]

My point to you Fox, is if money is wisely spent, that is better than money poorly spent, irregardless of whether it is through Government, Charity, or Greed.

And I have not here or anywhere else ever disputed that in any way. Nor have I made any kind of case that all taxes are unnecessary or that even most charity is not a worthy thing.

The thrust of the OP is to determine whether money well spent or poorly spent via taxes, charity, or via starting, growing, and/or expanding a private enterprise business is more likely to benefit society overall.

I think that is even subject to some qualification, such as the times. I have seen the times when everyone I knew who wanted a job had one. That is not the case currently. So, at this time, I think growing the economy would be the best choice. But I don't agree that anything you make over what you or others thin you 'need' constitutes greed. We all have a lot of things we don't particularly 'need.' When I was making house calls in the projects, some of those apartments had so much stuff in them you couldn't walk.

Yes, the guy with that $100 million to invest likely has all the money he needs to live luxuriously for the rest of his life. So whether he just sits on it, or pays it in taxes, or gives it to a good charity would not likely reduce his quality of life in any material way. Nor will investing the money likely increase his quality of life in any material way. But his motives, whether good, bad, or indifferent, for investing that money in a new venture or to grow/expand an existing business could very well directly or indirectly provide opportunities for any of us that would not otherwise exist for us.

When would you see growing the economy as the less desirable choice among the three choices offered?

 

[WillReadmore]

To me it is a no brainer that the successful businessman, even if he intends nothing more than increasing his own wealth, will contribute more to society overall than either of the other two options. That is not saying there is no place at all for government or that charitable organizations are not important for the social good. But it is an excellent argument for allowing the businessman to keep and use that $100 million as much as is reasonably possible to do so.

This thread consists of right wingers making a strong argument AGAINST charity, while the right wing also argues that taxes for social safety net should be cut, as private donations should be the source of aid for those in need.

Thus they argue against both private and public help for those in desperate circumstance.

In the end, the pope is right - the right wing worships money, and it's false trickle down ideas have to do with personal wealth alone.

 

[BlackSand]

This thread consists of right wingers making a strong argument AGAINST charity, while the right wing also argues that taxes for social safety net should be cut, as private donations should be the source of aid for those in need.

Thus they argue against both private and public help for those in desperate circumstance.

In the end, the pope is right - the right wing worships money, and it's false trickle down ideas have to do with personal wealth alone.

Instead of sharing fruitless observations ... Why don't you attempt to answer the OP?
Perhaps you can support some of your ideas about what is best and why ... Explain why you think Charity may be better at providing substantial and endearing support towards the welfare of a community.

.

 

[Againsheila]

And what if that greed is directed to profit for your family or community? Is that, then charity?

Greedy is what people today without money call people with money.

It lost any meaning when the idea to loot the rich became more popular than the idea of spending money wisely.
To argue about it is irrelevant, as I have said before ... If someone has $100 million in their pocket to start with ... They have a better idea of what to do than anyone else.
That doesn't mean that they will do what is best ... Just that they know what they are doing and how it effects others.

They can either use it wisely or abuse it ... But the onus is on them, no one else ... And they are responsible for how it is distributed whether they choose to give it away or put it to work.

.

Greedy is what a lot of people call you when you won't give them all of your money. We see it here every day. If we won't give it, then by cracky they are going to fin a way to take it.

Greedy is making $billions while paying your employees so little that they qualify for welfare.

 

[Care4all]

Under Clinton, because of the robust economy and the investments made in the economy, employment was increased by nearly 30 million people....

So there is no doubt that due to this....employment was up, crime went down, and welfare spending went down, and abortions went down....

putting people to work is good all around for everyone....in the general sense.

Our problems today, are that those that are prosperous.... with the 100 million to spend, are refusing to invest in our economy, many are hording their money and not reinvesting it or creating jobs in our Nation....it's the main reason why unemployment is still so high.....(topic for another thread?)

With all that being said, there are still things this person could do with the $100 million investment that could and would bring more to a community than let's say, 1000-1500 jobs at a low wage....

Or this business could put out of business all the mom and pops carrying the same goods this millionaire is opening shop with, so the net employed is not as good as it may appear....

Or for charity he could build a well needed bridge to connect two major cities, that would last 100 years, which would bring more to that community for the millions in that community and their grand children, than the 1000 people getting jobs...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Under Clinton, because of the robust economy and the investments made in the economy, employment was increased by nearly 30 million people....

So there is no doubt that due to this....employment was up, crime went down, and welfare spending went down, and abortions went down....

putting people to work is good all around for everyone....in the general sense.

Our problems today, are that those that are prosperous.... with the 100 million to spend, are refusing to invest in our economy, many are hording their money and not reinvesting it or creating jobs in our Nation....it's the main reason why unemployment is still so high.....(topic for another thread?)

With all that being said, there are still things this person could do with the $100 million investment that could and would bring more to a community than let's say, 1000-1500 jobs at a low wage....

Or this business could put out of business all the mom and pops carrying the same goods this millionaire is opening shop with, so the net employed is not as good as it may appear....

Or for charity he could build a well needed bridge to connect two major cities, that would last 100 years, which would bring more to that community for the millions in that community and their grand children, than the 1000 people getting jobs...

You don't think obama's policy has kept those millionaires from investing?
Where are all these rich liberals with their billions to invest with?
Don't they believe in obama and what he is doing?

 

[BlackSand]

Greedy is making $billions while paying your employees so little that they qualify for welfare.

Who would you pick as the biggest "stiffer" as far as sharing profitability with employees ... Wal-Mart, McDonalds or Apple?

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Greedy is making $billions while paying your employees so little that they qualify for welfare.

Who would you pick as the biggest "stiffer" as far as sharing profitability with employees ... Wal-Mart, McDonalds or Apple?

.

Liberal Mag Inadvertantly Proves Conservatives Right On Minimum Wage While Attacking Walmart | Independent Journal Review

 

[BlackSand]

Greedy is making $billions while paying your employees so little that they qualify for welfare.

Who would you pick as the biggest "stiffer" as far as sharing profitability with employees ... Wal-Mart, McDonalds or Apple?

.

Liberal Mag Inadvertantly Proves Conservatives Right On Minimum Wage While Attacking Walmart | Independent Journal Review

Yeah ... The answer is Apple ... And look at how many support their Apple products while bashing McDonalds and Wal-Mart.

Apple, Walmart, McDonald's: Who's the Biggest Wage Stiffer? | Alternet

.

 

[WillReadmore]

This thread consists of right wingers making a strong argument AGAINST charity, while the right wing also argues that taxes for social safety net should be cut, as private donations should be the source of aid for those in need.

Thus they argue against both private and public help for those in desperate circumstance.

In the end, the pope is right - the right wing worships money, and it's false trickle down ideas have to do with personal wealth alone.

Instead of sharing fruitless observations ... Why don't you attempt to answer the OP?
Perhaps you can support some of your ideas about what is best and why ... Explain why you think Charity may be better at providing substantial and endearing support towards the welfare of a community.

.

I DID answer the OP.

I pointed out that it is one of the more stupid questions asked on this board, except in that it points out one of the central problems with right wing philosophy.

Today we have a Republican party that is entirely focused on the 1%.

And, we have a Pope who notices that this isn't just a problem in America and who is willing to point out that it is a strongly non-Christian attitude. Nobody who has ever honestly asked WWJD has ever suggested "trickle down".


And, no, I did not suggest charity may be better at providing "substantial and endearing (??) support towards the welfare of a community." It's very clear that there is a need both for charity and for government involvement.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who would you pick as the biggest "stiffer" as far as sharing profitability with employees ... Wal-Mart, McDonalds or Apple?

.

Liberal Mag Inadvertantly Proves Conservatives Right On Minimum Wage While Attacking Walmart | Independent Journal Review

Yeah ... The answer is Apple ... And look at how many support their Apple products while bashing McDonalds and Wal-Mart.

Apple, Walmart, McDonald's: Who's the Biggest Wage Stiffer? | Alternet

.

liberals are hypocrites when their money is mixed in the pot.

 

[BlackSand]

I DID answer the OP.

I pointed out that it is one of the more stupid questions asked on this board, except in that it points out one of the central problems with right wing philosophy.

Today we have a Republican party that is entirely focused on the 1%.

And, we have a Pope who notices that this isn't just a problem in America and who is willing to point out that it is a strongly non-Christian attitude. Nobody who has ever honestly asked WWJD has ever suggested "trickle down".

And, no, I did not suggest charity may be better at providing "substantial and endearing (??) support towards the welfare of a community." It's very clear that there is a need both for charity and for government involvement.

So does that mean you think Government or Charity has the opportunity to show the greatest benefit?
I understand that you may want to answer both ... But my question would be which one you think is best and why?
It isn't a hard question ... And doesn't take anything away from one or the other ... Just which one do you think is best and why?

.