Greed - 20/20

[Dermbrian]

Another thought -
regardless of your love or hate of our corpatalistic (I just made that up  )society here in the states, it probably woiuldn't hurt us too much if we stopped buying so much crap that was made in China, and sending our companies over there to help build up their infrastructure. That money would be much better spent at home, even if there was less of it to go around.

Nice word.  My made up word is crapitalism.

That one sums up my biggest issue with capitalism.  I don't deny that it is a system that results in tremendous innovation and technical achievement.  But along the way, a tremendous amount of only marginally useful crap gets sold, too, using up limited resources in insane ways.  It fosters a competetive environment rather than a cooperative existence. 

Maybe nothing else has worked better so far, but I'm unconvinced that it's the best sustainable system that can work in an overcrowded world.  I will say that I think socialism, as I understand it, is a worse system.   That seems to require the same, or worse, frantic existence for the producers to supply the needs of themselves and the non-producers (who are usually not a non-producer by choice, IMHO).  I think that eventually we have to find ways to produce the mostly things that we need and things of value, and less things just for the sake of producing things.


Brian

[Crazy Cooter]

One might easily say that the US needs to share the wealth "better" so the poor would not be "poor"anymore.

Wow. Redistrubution of wealth. Take it from those that can make it and give it to those who don't know what to do with it. So we can empower them to wait for more. Great idea 

I actually don't believe in monetary donations.  What I'd like to see is the risk for an existing company and a startup company to be more equal.  I think that would lead to faster innovations.

Right now, large corporations can start a new venture with zero risk to their current operations.  Try doing that as an individual.  It can't be done.  Look at Northwest Airlines.  They are going through bankruptcy, yet the management gets bonuses and they can still order millions in new planes.  If I file for bankruptcy, can I still have a high paying job and buy a new house?  Nope.  I'm held personally accountable for my debts (as it should be).  That same accountability should be pushed on corporations.  Let Northwest fail and other companies take over their market share.  there are several smaller outfits that would love to get a piece of that pie and might do a better job.  At least they should be given that shot.

Look at GM:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10138507/
GM has been crippled by high labor, pension, health care and materials costs as well as by sagging demand for sport utility vehicles, its longtime cash cows, and by bloated plant capacity. Its market share has been eroded by competition from Asian automakers led by Toyota Motor Corp. GM lost nearly $4 billion in the first nine months of this year.

Toyota is a better run company.  They didn't let themselves get into a position like this.  GM's management made the decisions that got them into their mess.  Look at what the menagement team makes (old info): http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_gm_execs_forego/index.htm  luckily they didn't get their bonuses  .  They suck at their jobs, they're making poor decisions.  I don't see any accountability for their decisions.  What happens now?  They cut 30,000 jobs.  The problem isn't the 30,000 people in the trenches, it's the morons at the top.  But they won't fire themselves, instead they slip into their retirement package  .  Look at Lutz in particular: Bob Lutz, chairman-GM North America and vice chairman-product development - Lutz's pay jumped from $483,333 in 2001 to $1.45 million in 2002. Other compensation totaled $120,734.  Their product development sucks.  They aren't building for the market.  They didn't look 5 years ahead at what people would want.  His salary tripled that year and the decisions he made then caused 30,000 people to lose their jobs.

Get rid of the corporate safety nets, or give them to individuals.  I don't care so long as it's equal risk.

[fredster]

What you are saying about GM and Toyota are very true.  GM is a huge corporation with people who can't see more than the next quarterly cycle ahead.

If you ever talk to anybody in the automotive industry, top on down, you will find out in the first 5 minutes exactly how many years/months/days it will be until they retire. After that, they don't care.

But is it just time for them to fall out?  Is it just time for that dysfunctional system to just die?  They were not responsive to the market, they couldn't keep their costs in line, etc.  So they die out.

The demand for the vehicles will not disappear. Somebody who is adaptive and can respond to the market will step in and hire those people and make those cars.  Will they get paid the same and have the same benefits? Who knows?

This just proves that the capitalistic system is working actually.  It's going to replace something inefficient with something efficient.  "there are several smaller outfits that would love to get a piece of that pie and might do a better job.  "

The people displaced will find new jobs. It could happen to any of us at any time.  Any social/economic system have to abide by the law of supply and demand at some level.

[patrickl]

This just proves that the capitalistic system is working actually.

[fredster]

I'd say more often than not capitalism leads to extra waste and inefficiency.

Maybe.  Like strip mining or clearing forests.  There are examples of that in about every culture.

But I wouldn't generalize that it is because of capitalism more than it would be the society that does that.

Look at Russia and China. Look at what happened there as far as waste. 

[patrickl]

I'd say more often than not capitalism leads to extra waste and inefficiency.

Maybe.

[fredster]

I can see that.

So we'd all have the same things.  We'd all have exactly the stuff we need to live.

Wonder if somebody didn't like it like that? Wonder if he wanted one in Red with a turbocharger?

[Crazy Cooter]

Interesting reading...

CIA - The World Fact Book:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. The war in March/April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. The rise in GDP in 2004 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity. The economy suffered from a sharp increase in energy prices in the second half of 2004. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.

You'd think that over 30 years time, we'd be able to address this... unless nobody wants to...

[Crazy Cooter]

Also of interest since we've brought up China quite a bit:
US: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
CHINA: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

Poverty Rate: China= 10%, US= 12%
Degree of inequality in the distribution of family income: China= 44, US= 45
Business investments on assets: China= 46%, US= 16%
Public Debt: China= 31.4% of GDP, US= 65% of GDP
Industrial Growth: China= 17.1%, US 4.4%
Current Account Balance: China= +$30.32 billion, US= -$646.5 billion
Manpower available for military service:  China= 342,956,265, US= 67,742,879male & 67,070,144female
Military Expenditures: China=  $67.49 billion, US=  $370.7 billion

Be sure to read the background paragraph & the description of the politics.

[jbox]

Anyway, it's probably more a result of greed rather than capitalism. If people weren't so greedy they could accept a little less profit and keep things more environmentally sane.

I agree, if people weren't so greedy they would attempt to buy the more expensive products from eco-friendlier companies instead of getting the cheapest 'no frills super toxic' laundry powder.

Companies can't sell products people won't buy. That's why it's called supply and demand. If people really cared about the environment there are dozens of changes they could make today, but all of them require their time and effort, instead of some other entity with a capital letter doing it for them (like Government, or Companies, or The Education System). Just because I'm morally opposed to share-holders doesn't mean I don't think that customers bear 99% of the responsability for what is wrong with capitalist markets.

Enforced conformity is a bad thing people, and capitalism is currently the best system at giving people the choices they want to have. Just because by and large people can't be bothered putting the energy into making good choices doesn't make the system wrong, it just makes them idiots.

[patrickl]

Enforced conformity is a bad thing people, and capitalism is currently the best system at giving people the choices they want to have. Just because by and large people can't be bothered putting the energy into making good choices doesn't make the system wrong, it just makes them idiots.

The government is supposed to enforce things for the greater good. Individuals cannot make that distinction. That's not because they are idiots. Nope. That's because they are greedy!

I'm a big fan of "the polluter pays". In the Netherlands there a sort of tax on polluting the environment (a very broad definition of pollution btw)

The average Joe will just buy the toxic waste cleaning product because it's cheaper. Helping the environment is not something individuals can do. You need to influence (or rule) the masses for that. Just like we have the government to stop people from stealing the government should also help against people/companies raping the environment.

[patrickl]

Capitalism was on the news here this night. I saw big stores open, people running over each other and starting fistfights over cutting lines. The few who actually did get the TV at "deep discount" often got robbed on their way home. Amusing I guess, but a pretty frightning example of greed too.

Anyway, it showed me most of all that greed is something that can be instilled in the people. Just use enough marketing power and people will run over each other to buy a TV with some extra discount.

[Crazy Cooter]

I saw the lady that "flipped her wig"  .

The funny part is that MicroCenter has $400-$500 notebooks all the time with but require a rebate from them (I've never been shorted on a MicroCenter rebate):
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=214681

$459 after $200 mail-in.  Might not work for everyone at x-mas time because of the rebate, but I've seen them with better deals anyhow...
That one has TV-out too.

Somebody should seriously sue WalMart and the others for the safety aspect and for not letting the disabled have a chance at the products.  If they are going to offer something from 5am -11am, they should be required to carry enough to cover that time span.  Or at least do what Best Buy did and hand out vouchers to people standing in line prior to opening the doors.  That way there is no mad dash to fight people.

[Crazy Cooter]

Interesting reading about the concentration of wealth vs purchasing power.  Also discusses why we may be heading for a recession (again):
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P134742.asp

[DrewKaree]

The government is supposed to enforce things for the greater good. Individuals cannot make that distinction. That's not because they are idiots. Nope. That's because they are greedy!

I don't understand why you believe that government is supposed to enforce things for the greater good.  The government is comprised of individuals.  Those people you state are greedy.  One person can (and often DOES) try to do something for the greater good in government.  What we often don't see (perhaps EVER) is the greed attached to that "greater good" thing, such as a bridge to nowhere.

To state that individuals CANNOT make that distinction simply makes a collection of individuals (who CANNOT make that distinction) equally unable to make that distinction, only on a grander scale.

To allow government to make those "greater good" decisions has resulted time and again in the government abusing its power to the point that the "greater good" is served only minimally, if at all.  If 49 cents of every dollar is going to "the greater good", are we REALLY serving the "greater good"?  I realize setting the bar at a cent less than half a dollar is VERY low, but I'm betting throwing away 50% is considered acceptable.

[jbox]

The government is supposed to enforce things for the greater good. Individuals cannot make that distinction. That's not because they are idiots. Nope. That's because they are greedy!

Congratulations, you have passed Facism 101. Which second year subjects would you like to enrol in?

The solution to this problem is never going to be disempowering people, because then you just end up concentrating even more power in the hands of these animals you think are greedy anyway. There is no philosopher king, and never will be while the solution to a problem is simply to make someone else solve it instead of having society at large agree to take up the challenge. That's pretty damn hard of course, but most real solutions are.

[jbox]

To state that individuals CANNOT make that distinction simply makes a collection of individuals (who CANNOT make that distinction) equally unable to make that distinction, only on a grander scale.

I love that site.

[DrewKaree]

I'd love to have BOTH of those framed and hanging on the wall

I'd also like to add that having so little faith in people, specifically, any single person, is foolish beyond belief.  It also implies such a negative attitude towards our fellow man as to make me believe that attitude itself is the foundation of greed:  I can't count on ANYONE to do it, therefore, I have to do it myself, or get a collective of more people like ME to "do it right".

That "no one will do it unless forced to do it" is in direct contradiction to such organizations as the Red Cross, efforts such as donations to areas devastated by natural disasters (seen in spades this year), and daily work being done by soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and churches.

[Crazy Cooter]

...Look at Northwest Airlines.  They are going through bankruptcy, yet the management gets bonuses and they can still order millions in new planes.  If I file for bankruptcy, can I still have a high paying job and buy a new house?  Nope.  I'm held personally accountable for my debts (as it should be).  That same accountability should be pushed on corporations.  Let Northwest fail and other companies take over their market share.  there are several smaller outfits that would love to get a piece of that pie and might do a better job.  At least they should be given that shot..

I should charge for my thoughts:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/REGIONAL_AIRLINES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
At a time when the nation's major airlines are being buffeted by skyrocketing fuel costs, heavy competition and bankruptcies, some regional carriers are posting growing profits and looking to expand.

[jbox]

That "no one will do it unless forced to do it" is in direct contradiction to such organizations as the Red Cross, efforts such as donations to areas devastated by natural disasters (seen in spades this year), and daily work being done by soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and churches.

Hippies and commies, the lot of them. Fancy doing things even though no body is paying you to try your hardest! 

[DrewKaree]

Hippies and commies, the lot of them. Fancy doing things even though no body is paying you to try your hardest! 

Wait...all this time I've been called "Evil" and "fascist".  Are you calling me schizo?  Man, I'm SO messed up on this one now!

Does this mean I have to start eating dirt and licking frogs and such?

Seriously though, I'm all for getting government the hell out of my way to allow me to accomplish more, ultimately for ME, but I also feel my government is FAR more wasteful with my money in attempting to use it to help people, than with the decisions I make to distribute what the government "allows" me to keep to charitable organizations. 

What patrickl is essentially saying is that the government is better capable than I to avoid "greed" with my money, yet it's often shown to be the reverse - NOT giving as much to government often results in MORE giving to charitable organizations - and are often (but not always) far less wrapped up in paperwork and "offices" the funds have to go through, which inevitably siphon off their "share" of that forced learning individuals can't grasp

Well, I figure since he's not here, I'd just shove as many words into his mouth as possible to show him I'm not greedy with his words

[jbox]

Well, I figure since he's not here, I'd just shove as many words into his mouth as possible to show him I'm not greedy with his words

Don't forget to leave room for the dirt and frogs.

[patrickl]

LOL, you guys really don't understand the government should be the one to protect the environment? Of course in a country that is the greatest waster of resources in the world people probably don't care no.

Doesn't the government enforce a maximum speed? Stop (or at least try to stop) people from stealing, murdering (if it is not done in the name of a crusade) and such? That's all for the greater good. Making sure the country (or even the planet) is an inhabitable place in a couple of years is also something only the government can make happen. Greedy individuals will always choose for their own good.

[Grasshopper]

Hippies and commies, the lot of them. Fancy doing things even though no body is paying you to try your hardest! 

Wait...all this time I've been called "Evil" and "fascist".  Are you calling me schizo?  Man, I'm SO messed up on this one now!

Does this mean I have to start eating dirt and licking frogs and such?

Seriously though, I'm all for getting government the hell out of my way to allow me to accomplish more, ultimately for ME, but I also feel my government is FAR more wasteful with my money in attempting to use it to help people, than with the decisions I make to distribute what the government "allows" me to keep to charitable organizations. 

What patrickl is essentially saying is that the government is better capable than I to avoid "greed" with my money, yet it's often shown to be the reverse - NOT giving as much to government often results in MORE giving to charitable organizations - and are often (but not always) far less wrapped up in paperwork and "offices" the funds have to go through, which inevitably siphon off their "share" of that forced learning individuals can't grasp

Well, I figure since he's not here, I'd just shove as many words into his mouth as possible to show him I'm not greedy with his words

I tell you what Drew why not make the paying of all taxes voluntary? I mean I'm sure most people would still pay right?

And why not have charities running the police and Army? I'm sure everyone would contribute just as much as they do now through taxation. I mean people are not greedy and selfish are they?

[Crazy Cooter]

The common thread I see is that "Companies waste less money than Government".  Then why are we keeping people in Congress for 30+ years?  Get them out and get people in that can run the Government in a cost effective manner.  It's not a hopeless situation.  We should be forcing the Government to spend wisely.  Instead, the general public buys into the propaganda/rumors sent out by the interest groups that persuade the Government to waste money in the first place.

How many people (besides us) know about the vote to immediately pull troops out of Iraq?  How many of those can explain the difference between the Republican version that was voted on and the Democrat version that was not?

People just don't care.  That's how the Government gets away with waste and how interest groups get away with influencing politicians.  Politics isn't about serving the public, it's about serving the interest groups to get re-election money... to serve the interest groups longer.

To get rid of Greed, I think first we have to get people to care.  Charities are far from safe.  I've brought up my research into the Rockefeller family and would like to point out how they used the Red Cross & 9/11 for profit.  You'd think that the Red Cross would be in charge of distributing the funds donated for 9/11 victims right?  Wrong.  They "hired" the Rockefellers to do it:
http://www.rockpa.org/_ARC.aspx

Where is that money "stored" until it is dispersed?
http://www.rockpa.org/Content/rockpadocs/donor%20advised%20fund%20-%20tpc%20infopack.pdf
It's invested in Rockefeller companies.

Of course considering the Board of Directors are Rockefellers, where else would they invest it?
http://www.rockpa.org/Board.aspx
(The "R." that you *think* is a middle initial stands for Rockefeller)

So Greed is rampant in Charity work as well.  The Rockefellers actually "donate" money from one of their charities to another one.  That inflates the dollar amount the charities handle and, in turn, inflate the income of the people that run them.

[fredster]

Patrickl, do you think the example of people fighting for notebooks is a capitalistic thing or more like a cultural thing?

[patrickl]

Patrickl, do you think the example of people fighting for notebooks is a capitalistic thing or more like a cultural thing?

[fredster]

Patrickl,
So that means "Yes it's a capitalistic thing" then?

[Crazy Cooter]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4480156.stm

A Republican congressman in the United States has resigned after admitting he took $2.4m (

[DrewKaree]

I tell you what Drew why not make the paying of all taxes voluntary? I mean I'm sure most people would still pay right?

And why not have charities running the police and Army? I'm sure everyone would contribute just as much as they do now through taxation. I mean people are not greedy and selfish are they?

Sure, I'm all down with that, I mean that is what was said, right?  Or do you simply don't see or are unwilling to acknowledge that government wastes far more money on things unnecessary to this "greater good"?

Try not to give us the knee-jerk apology for government's wasteful ways.  You might get more attention paid to your points if you weren't so myopic and could realize it's not a crime to admit government wastes so much that they could E-A-S-I-L-Y cut spending on stupid things like a bridge to nowhere, a museum for "music", foolishly using money on stopgap projects that cost more in the long run than just doing it right the first time......cut spending, or better yet, STOP spending on stupid crap like that, and you would have all the money you'd need to fund your pet projects too.

When you can admit these things, we might be able to have a sane conversation.  In the meantime, I'll keep pointing out government wastes money, and you keep assuming government is the ONE area in America that isn't wasting money - remember, the point I actually made?

[fredster]

I never understood why people think "the government" can possibly do anything effectively.  It's too big. It's a bohemouth that stumbles around sometimes aimlessly.  The right hand doesn't even know where the left hand is, let alone what it's doing.

Look at all that money. Billions and trillions of dollars.  It's beyond conprehension where it all goes.  But it does go, doesn't it?

If you think the government will protect you, man, you didn't see it in action at katrina. Don't blame the current administration, it will happen again.

If there is a man cutting through your door with a chainsaw, they aren't going to save you.If you expect them to help you take care of your family, you'll starve waiting.

You have to help yourself and take care of yourself. Take care of other people when you can.

[jbox]

Jbox,

I didn't write that, Grasshopper did. Deliberately misunderstanding my original point about how any government is inherently communist is one thing, but falsly attributing a quote to me and arguing against 'me' when I don't agree with the original point anyway once again reminds me why I usually only bother reading DK's posts to better sum up whatever it is you are currently rambling about. 

For example:

A voluntary tax is the Lotto. People do that in about every state. Greed feeds it.  But you can't win if you don't play, can you?

has *nothing* to do with taxes. Gambling is a zero-sum game, and using that as an example works *against* the point the pro-caps are trying to make. In reality, I have won more than 99.99% of the gamblers (ie. me=+$100, them=-$100) simply by not playing. Roulette is not a business strategy like economies of scale is supposed to be, or middle-man reduction, or R&D, etc...

I tell you what Drew why not make the paying of all taxes voluntary? I mean I'm sure most people would still pay right?

I would love to have a line-item power over the budget. Up until now the technology simply hasn't existed to really enforce this. In the same way that house insurance and car insurance is optional, I would love to have a card that gives me access to roads and the bus that my neighbour is not allowed to use because they chose not to pay that tax. I would love to have a card that lets me get my medicine at PBS prices, while the woman next to me pays 400% as much because she didn't want to pay her medicare levy. I don't declare any tax deductions for exactly that reason, and I do my best to try and convince the people around me to do the same. In return, I try to vote in the people who I think will then spend my money in the way I would most like it to be spent.

To get rid of Greed, I think first we have to get people to care.

And finally, this is 100% right. Now go out there, talk to your friends, talk to your family, call up on the radio, start a blog, hand out flyers, run information nights with free fizzy drinks & donuts.

These steps will actually educate and encourage the people around you to care, removing their right to make decisions about their own life is about the quickest way to make them *stop* caring. Nothing is solved by the Government, it is solved by people doing a job because a bunch of other people will all give a bit of their life to you in return for doing it.

For a long time I wanted so badly to be put in charge because I knew I was better educated then the "slobbering masses". But that opinion is exactly what we react against when a leader comes to power who thinks differently than we do. The solution is to try and convince other people to your point of view, not simply deny them the ability to make the choice at all. The theory of capitalism is that the person with the best idea of what you want is *you*. If you think other people should be making a different decision, try to reason with them, don't just write them off completely.

[Grasshopper]

I tell you what Drew why not make the paying of all taxes voluntary? I mean I'm sure most people would still pay right?

And why not have charities running the police and Army? I'm sure everyone would contribute just as much as they do now through taxation. I mean people are not greedy and selfish are they?

Sure, I'm all down with that, I mean that is what was said, right?  Or do you simply don't see or are unwilling to acknowledge that government wastes far more money on things unnecessary to this "greater good"?

Try not to give us the knee-jerk apology for government's wasteful ways.  You might get more attention paid to your points if you weren't so myopic and could realize it's not a crime to admit government wastes so much that they could E-A-S-I-L-Y cut spending on stupid things like a bridge to nowhere, a museum for "music", foolishly using money on stopgap projects that cost more in the long run than just doing it right the first time......cut spending, or better yet, STOP spending on stupid crap like that, and you would have all the money you'd need to fund your pet projects too.

When you can admit these things, we might be able to have a sane conversation.  In the meantime, I'll keep pointing out government wastes money, and you keep assuming government is the ONE area in America that isn't wasting money - remember, the point I actually made?

There are enough straw men here to fill a scarecrows convention.

I am aware that governments and indeed many charities and corporations waste a lot of money. In a democracy you're supposed to hold your government to account. If you don't like how they spend your money you kick then out. OK, I accept that the US has a deeply flawed voting system which makes holding the government to account difficult in practice but that is a bit off topic.

The main point I was making was that some things by their very nature have to be funded collectively whether we like it or not. If for instance you made payment towards defence voluntary then many people (probably the majority) simply wouldn't pay. We'd all be keeping our fingers crossed and hoping the other guy would pay. Do you honestly think an invading army is going to differentiate between people who chose to pay towards defence and those that didn't? Then there is state funded education. It could be argued that people who choose not to have children should not be obliged to fund people who have kids. The trouble is that if you don't provide 'free' education a lot of parents simply won't educate their kids. Those kids then grow up to be ignorant and unemployable. They then turn to crime and that means in the long run even more money has to be spent on police, prisons etc.

I also happen to believe in redistribution of wealth both for reasons of morality and pragmatism, and the most efficient way to redistribute wealth is through a progressive taxation system. I think the figures in Cooter's link speak for themselves.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P134742.asp

In an unregulated capitalist system there is a natural tendency for the gap between rich and poor to widen over time. No economist will dispute this. This is not because, as some have suggested, all rich people have some innate ability to generate wealth that poor people lack.  It's simply because after rich people have paid for the basics of life plus a few luxuries they have a lot of money left over to re-invest i.e. money makes money. Poor people are running hard just to stand still. For every Bill Gates there are dozens of George Bushes.

There comes a point when inequality actually starts to stifle innovation. I mean why should someone who has inherited a lot of wealth work hard and take risks?

The question is where do you draw the line? How much inequality is acceptable? Do you really want to go back to the eighteenth century where a small number of aristocrats controlled most of the wealth and everyone else had to work their butts off to maintain the aristocrats' lifestyle? Didn't you guys fight a war to get away from that BS? Well that is the future facing America is you don't start taking redistribution seriously.

[patrickl]

Patrickl,
So that means "Yes it's a capitalistic thing" then?

LOL. I don't think I said that. I thought it was a nice display of what happens when people get to greedy or more importantly how they were made greedy. These people were lured to that store with some promise of huge discounts I guess. So I'd say it's more psychological.

I don't think greed can be related only to capitalism. Too much greed is the downfall of any system. I'd say greed brought down the USSR (or maybe paranoia). China is doing much better. They don't try to dominate the world. Even though they will in a few years.

[patrickl]

I never understood why people think "the government" can possibly do anything effectively.

They don't really have to DO anything. They just have to legislate to make sure people don't abuse resources. It's really not that hard.

[patrickl]

To get rid of Greed, I think first we have to get people to care.

People can't care. It's too much for them to do that. It takes a real effort to care about something doesn't it? First it has to tee you off before you care.

[fredster]

Only the "greater good" is what they think it is. And the "greater good" is the ideal of those in power.

Government isn't that effective at anything it does. Well, our government anyway.  If we give it more power, we lose our power.

After a while, the goverment becomes less responsive to the people.  It becomes more restrictive to personal freedom for the "greater good"

[Crazy Cooter]

So how do we make the government be more responsible & careful about spending?  The "greater good" *should* be what we want.  Is there an unbiased site that summarizes what the House & Senate did that day so I don't have to watch C-Span?

I think it goes back to what I brought up before.  How many people even know what the government is doing that will affect them?  Do we even have reasonable access to that info without having to study law for 10 years to understand it?

[patrickl]

Only the "greater good" is what they think it is. And the "greater good" is the ideal of those in power.

Government isn't that effective at anything it does. Well, our government anyway.

[Crazy Cooter]

Personally, I'd love to see a return to the "Wild West" mentality.  I'm pretty much an anarchist at heart, so when I say the government should step into something it's usually after a great amount of consideration.

FWIW, I was surprised by fredsters comments too.  Maybe deep inside he's a liberal .