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

[Foxfyre]

I spent my whole life on the giving and government part. That gets you nothing. So I guess greed is the way to go.

Walter Williams has said that calling somebody 'greedy' who works to increase his/her holdings and/or to be even more financially successful is "silly talk." But in Wealth of Nations Adam Smith, as did others, pointed out that most of the great achievements in the world have not been accomplished by the altruistic, but rather have been accomplished by those looking to their own interests. As has almost all prosperity enjoyed by populations throughout history.

So at least you have their Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

 

[G.T.]

I spent my whole life on the giving and government part. That gets you nothing. So I guess greed is the way to go.

Walter Williams has said that calling somebody 'greedy' who works to increase his/her holdings and/or to be even more financially successing is "silly talk." But in Wealth of Nations Adam Smith, as did others, pointed out that most of the great achievements in the world have not been accomplished by the altruistic, but rather have been accomplished by those looking to their own interests.

So at least you have their Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

But there's a difference between greed and responsibly looking out for your own self interests.

For example, working your ass off to acquire billions so that your family will be well off for generations to come is not greedy.

Sitting at a table with 6 slices of pizza and your 6 year old son is hungry and they're the last six slices...

not giving him one?

That's greedy.


So "greed" as you're attempting to defend within this thread, is not actual greed. Nobody should defend actual greed.

 

[daveman]

Okay guys, let's keep this civil okay? It does not need to be a contentious issue or a pissing match and I would appreciate that it not be turned into one. There are lots of other threads out there to attack individuals or groups.

Also this thread is not about Wall Street.

Let's refocus shall we?

BBD opts for the charity route if HE had $100 million to disburse. And who can say that would not be a generous and judicious use of the money? I wouldn't fault him.

But would he benefit society more using his $100 million that way than would a businessman who used $100 million to expand his business and hire more people?

"Give a man a fish..." etc.

That's why I'd do both. I'd "give some fish" to those who were truly desperate for fish right now...and with the rest, I'd "teach people to fish" by creating jobs.

Win/win.

Very noble, but like a couple or three other of my favorite people on the thread, you dodged the question. Hee hee. (I don't get to say that to the conservatives very often--I constantly say that to our leftist friends. )

The question is not what would YOU do with the money. The question is what benefits the general public or society the most?
- Paying it to the government in taxes?
- Giving it to a good charity?
- Investing it in private sector commerce and industry?

I believe investing the money in the private sector would most benefit society.

 

[Foxfyre]

They're all better at different times under different circumstances.

But it's now, today. And Gazillionaire Joe Blow has a $100 million dollars burning a hole in his pocket. What choice is most likely to benefit society overall beginning today, right now?

1. Paying it in taxes to the government?
2. Giving it away to a good charity?
3. Reinvesting it in and growing/expanding his business enterprises? Or somebody else's?

 

[BlackSand]

But I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the question was if you had $100mm, where would be the most advantageous place to invest at that point in time? I think it's irrelevant what the gov't had or had not received up to that point.

Again, there's an argument to be made that the superhighway the gov't constructs would yield more of an overall benefit than just sprinkling the $100mm across various key areas of the private sector - you agree? Again, in an economy with an already strong infrastructure this might not be the case, but in developing nations it could mean all the difference...

My point was the fact the government has already gotten a cut before you ever have $100 million to think about doing something with.
No matter what you decide to do with it ... Whatever the government can do with it ... Already has benefited from your money ... Or it was wasted somewhere else.
Wherever you spend the money investing it ... Building a business ... Producing goods or services ... Paying employees ... Buying equipment ... The government will still see an increase in revenues.
.

 

[G.T.]

They're all better at different times under different circumstances.

But it's now, today. And Gazillionaire Joe Blow has a $100 million dollars burning a hole in his pocket. What choice is most likely to benefit society over all?

1. Paying it in taxes to the government?
2. Giving it away to a good charity?
3. Reinvesting it in and growing/expanding his business enterprises? Or somebody else's?

Well #3 is not greed so your thread is a faulty premise to begin with.

 

[Foxfyre]

They're all better at different times under different circumstances.

But it's now, today. And Gazillionaire Joe Blow has a $100 million dollars burning a hole in his pocket. What choice is most likely to benefit society over all?

1. Paying it in taxes to the government?
2. Giving it away to a good charity?
3. Reinvesting it in and growing/expanding his business enterprises? Or somebody else's?

Well #3 is not greed so your thread is a faulty premise to begin with.

I didn't say it wasn't greed. I said it didn't matter whether it was or not. So if you're going with #3, what difference does it make to the overall benefit to society in general if the investor is in fact greedy?

 

[daveman]

They're all better at different times under different circumstances.

But it's now, today. And Gazillionaire Joe Blow has a $100 million dollars burning a hole in his pocket. What choice is most likely to benefit society over all?

1. Paying it in taxes to the government?
2. Giving it away to a good charity?
3. Reinvesting it in and growing/expanding his business enterprises? Or somebody else's?

Well #3 is not greed so your thread is a faulty premise to begin with.

The word "greed" simply does not apply to this discussion.

 

[G.T.]

But it's now, today. And Gazillionaire Joe Blow has a $100 million dollars burning a hole in his pocket. What choice is most likely to benefit society over all?

1. Paying it in taxes to the government?
2. Giving it away to a good charity?
3. Reinvesting it in and growing/expanding his business enterprises? Or somebody else's?

Well #3 is not greed so your thread is a faulty premise to begin with.

The word "greed" simply does not apply to this discussion.

I agree.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This week I happened across John Stossel's late night television program in which he was interviewing an author who put forth an interesting concept. If a very wealthy businessman has $100 million extra dollars to use, what would benefit the general public more?

1. He pays that money in taxes to the government?

2. He gives that money to a good charity?

3.. He invests that money in commerce and industry?

The author made an argument for how investment of the money in commerce and industry to help business grow, prosper, expand, and thereby create more jobs would be the most judicious and beneficial use of that money.

The arguments against that concept, however, come from those who consider the wealthy who strive to be even more wealthy as being greedy. They should pay a lot more in taxes for the government to use.

And there is a third group who sees the greatest virtue in giving the money away to those in need via good charities.

So which is right?

A pragmatic approach is always desirable, as no one option is ‘best’ or 'right.'

All three options should be utilized to realized the advantages each has to offer.

 

[G.T.]

But it's now, today. And Gazillionaire Joe Blow has a $100 million dollars burning a hole in his pocket. What choice is most likely to benefit society over all?

1. Paying it in taxes to the government?
2. Giving it away to a good charity?
3. Reinvesting it in and growing/expanding his business enterprises? Or somebody else's?

Well #3 is not greed so your thread is a faulty premise to begin with.

I didn't say it wasn't greed. I said it didn't matter whether it was or not. So if you're going with #3, what difference does it make to the overall benefit to society in general if the investor is in fact greedy?

It does matter.

Greed being a motivator is a nefarious intention, and likely means you're nefarious in other ways.

Self betterment is not greed though, so like daveman said, greed doesn't really compute in this discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

But it's now, today. And Gazillionaire Joe Blow has a $100 million dollars burning a hole in his pocket. What choice is most likely to benefit society over all?

1. Paying it in taxes to the government?
2. Giving it away to a good charity?
3. Reinvesting it in and growing/expanding his business enterprises? Or somebody else's?

Well #3 is not greed so your thread is a faulty premise to begin with.

The word "greed" simply does not apply to this discussion.

But that is the rationale for why some think the government should get that money. If you check the poll results, at least one person does think that. And almost always they characterize the very rich who try to get even richer as 'greedy'. And that may or may not be true. I don't personally know many people who have that problem, and it sure as heck doesn't apply to me.

But I'm hoping maybe GT can come up with a rationale for what difference greed does make when it comes to how society benefits from the money depending on which choice the rich guy makes.

 

[G.T.]

Well #3 is not greed so your thread is a faulty premise to begin with.

The word "greed" simply does not apply to this discussion.

But that is the rationale for why some think the government should get that money. If you check the poll results, at least one person does think that. And almost always they characterize the very rich who try to get even richer as 'greedy'. And that may or may not be true. I don't personally know many people who have that problem, and it sure as heck doesn't apply to me.

But I'm hoping maybe GT can come up with a rationale for what difference greed does make when it comes to how society benefits from the money depending on which choice the rich guy makes.

I already told you,

"Greed being a motivator is a nefarious intention, and likely means you're nefarious in other ways. "

 

[Foxfyre]

The word "greed" simply does not apply to this discussion.

But that is the rationale for why some think the government should get that money. If you check the poll results, at least one person does think that. And almost always they characterize the very rich who try to get even richer as 'greedy'. And that may or may not be true. I don't personally know many people who have that problem, and it sure as heck doesn't apply to me.

But I'm hoping maybe GT can come up with a rationale for what difference greed does make when it comes to how society benefits from the money depending on which choice the rich guy makes.

I already told you,

"Greed being a motivator is a nefarious intention, and likely means you're nefarious in other ways. "

No dear. That is making a judgment of the person. We aren't judging the person. We are judging the likely outcome of what he chooses to do with his money.

So whether it is Mother Theresa or Genghis Khan or __(fill in the blank)__ who has $100 million to use, will she or he or whomever, whether or not he or she is greedy or nefarious, likely to benefit society more by:

1. Paying it to the government in taxes?
2. Giving it to a good charity?
3. Investing it in growing or expanding his/her business or somebody else's business?

 

[daveman]

But that is the rationale for why some think the government should get that money. If you check the poll results, at least one person does think that. And almost always they characterize the very rich who try to get even richer as 'greedy'. And that may or may not be true. I don't personally know many people who have that problem, and it sure as heck doesn't apply to me.

Nor me.

But I can guarantee you, the person who voted #1 in your poll has no rational explanation of the Dr. Sowell quote I posted earlier.

 

[Foxfyre]

But that is the rationale for why some think the government should get that money. If you check the poll results, at least one person does think that. And almost always they characterize the very rich who try to get even richer as 'greedy'. And that may or may not be true. I don't personally know many people who have that problem, and it sure as heck doesn't apply to me.

Nor me.

But I can guarantee you, the person who voted #1 in your poll has no rational explanation of the Dr. Sowell quote I posted earlier.

True. But in fairness, we don't know if that person is thinking about the government using the money to help the poor or, like Kevin suggested, using it to build that major highway. But either way, we can still have a pretty good rationale for why we would or would not choose among those three options.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This week I happened across John Stossel's late night television program in which he was interviewing an author who put forth an interesting concept. If a very wealthy businessman has $100 million extra dollars to use, what would benefit the general public more?

1. He pays that money in taxes to the government?

2. He gives that money to a good charity?

3.. He invests that money in commerce and industry?

The author made an argument for how investment of the money in commerce and industry to help business grow, prosper, expand, and thereby create more jobs would be the most judicious and beneficial use of that money.

The arguments against that concept, however, come from those who consider the wealthy who strive to be even more wealthy as being greedy. They should pay a lot more in taxes for the government to use.

And there is a third group who sees the greatest virtue in giving the money away to those in need via good charities.

So which is right?

I certainly don't believe in handing over to Obama-types, a government which ignores article 1, section 8....



But the other two courses of action are interesting choices.


I like the idea of incentivizing the free market....but it hardly exists....
Now, if it did, and we could encourage entrepreneurship.....I'd be down wit' dat.....

In fact, that's my choice from your list.


Why? Because Americans would take care of the charity aspect as they always have.
" We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

That was the rationale the author putting forth the concept used.

Private enterprise grows and expands the economy rather than taking from it while both government and charity take money out of the economy no matter how worthy are the reasons it does so.

Private enterprise produces more tax payers so the government receives. And it produces more affluence among the people that can generally result in more charitable contributions and, more importantly, reduce the need for charity in the first place.

But because such a concept so often results in the very rich becoming even richer, it is generally dismissed or detracted from by those who put heavy importance on class envy. A pity that is too.

"But because such a concept so often results in the very rich becoming even richer,..."

Not so sure.....the vast majority of millionaires are self-made....didn't inherit it....unless their names are Kennedy.


According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.
The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ

 

[daveman]

But that is the rationale for why some think the government should get that money. If you check the poll results, at least one person does think that. And almost always they characterize the very rich who try to get even richer as 'greedy'. And that may or may not be true. I don't personally know many people who have that problem, and it sure as heck doesn't apply to me.

Nor me.

But I can guarantee you, the person who voted #1 in your poll has no rational explanation of the Dr. Sowell quote I posted earlier.

True. But in fairness, we don't know if that person is thinking about the government using the money to help the poor or, like Kevin suggested, using it to build that major highway. But either way, we can still have a pretty good rationale for why we would or would not choose among those three options.

True. And of the two government options you just presented, building a major highway would provide the most benefit to society (as opposed to just giving it away to people with no expectation of anything in return) -- although you may not get much highway for a hundred mil.

 

[Foxfyre]

I certainly don't believe in handing over to Obama-types, a government which ignores article 1, section 8....



But the other two courses of action are interesting choices.


I like the idea of incentivizing the free market....but it hardly exists....
Now, if it did, and we could encourage entrepreneurship.....I'd be down wit' dat.....

In fact, that's my choice from your list.


Why? Because Americans would take care of the charity aspect as they always have.
" We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

That was the rationale the author putting forth the concept used.

Private enterprise grows and expands the economy rather than taking from it while both government and charity take money out of the economy no matter how worthy are the reasons it does so.

Private enterprise produces more tax payers so the government receives. And it produces more affluence among the people that can generally result in more charitable contributions and, more importantly, reduce the need for charity in the first place.

But because such a concept so often results in the very rich becoming even richer, it is generally dismissed or detracted from by those who put heavy importance on class envy. A pity that is too.

"But because such a concept so often results in the very rich becoming even richer,..."

Not so sure.....the vast majority of millionaires are self-made....didn't inherit it....unless their names are Kennedy.


According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.
The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ

But I didn't say the gazillionaire wasn't self made or didn't earn every penny he possesses. My comment was that so many of our political class and statists take the position that there comes a point when somebody has earned enough and should have to give back anything over that amount. They won't usually say what the amount is, but they make the sentiment quite clear. Anybody who is already rich and tries to become richer does so because he or she is 'greedy'.

They don't accept any concept that some people just flat out love doing what they are best at, and some are best at making lots of money. And despite poor GT's conviction, I maintain that most are quite honorable and ethical and not the least bit nefarious when they do so. The side benefit is that they offer training, acquisition of skill sets and experience and references, etc. to many others thus giving them the chance to strive to become rich also. I forgot exactly how many millionaires the Microsoft Corporation has created over the years, but it is astounding. And hundreds of thousands of other folks have made a very good living because Bill Gates founded that organization.

And many of the super rich become great philanthropists donating university labs, museum exhibits, hospital wings, or start great philanthropic foundations or research organizations, etc.; things that wouldn't as easily exist without those big chunks of money.

But whether greedy or philanthropist, the bottom line remains unchanged. The ultimate benefit to the people overall is likely not affected by the moral center or the character of the person investing the money in private sector enterprises.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the problem lies in how that $100 million is invested in commerce and industry. If you are talking about building factories overseas with slave labor, that doesn't help our economy. If you are talking about building factories here with living wage jobs, that's an enormous help to our economy. Unfortunately, most of the corporations are going with option number 1.

I probably should have specified which society I was talking about though I was thinking here in the USA. But whichever society we are talking about, the net benefit would be the same to that society would it not?

For instance, what would help the people of the slums in Calcutta more? $100 million as

1. Government assistance from the USA?
2. Charitable contributions through Catholic Charities or World Vision or Church World Service?
3. Building a factory that would provide a lot of permanent jobs for a lot of jobless people?

Have you seen those factories in China? 5 or 6 women living in a one room apartment working 80 or more hours a week. Not allowed to date or even leave the grounds without special permission. No that's not a benefit to their society or ours.

Well, first Calcutta isn't in China. So we consider working conditions deplorable for poor working women in China. And probably they are by our standards. But what would those women be doing if they weren't working for the factories? Would their circumstances be better?

This piece at CNN paints a picture of factory life for these young Chinese women that isn't quite so bleak:
U.S. misses full truth on China factory workers - CNN.com

So the valid question still remains:

Would that $100 million likely do more good for society overall if it was

1. Paid to the government?
2. Given to a good charity?
3. Invested in growing or expanding private sector business and commerce?