Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Dramatically Poisonous’ Economy Heading to ‘Catastrophic’ Collapse, Says Acclaimed Economist
http://theintelhub.com/ ^ | 9-24-2010 | Activist Post

Posted on 09/25/2010 6:24:20 AM PDT by Whenifhow

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last
To: nitzy
We will agree to disagree. No doubt that "greed" is a pejorative word--one of the seven deadly sins. Leaving aside the meaning of the word, it is part of human nature to satisfy one's needs and to want some sort of reward for one's efforts, whether intrinsic or extrinsic.

I am a fan of Ayn Rand and agree with her on the concept of altruism. "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

"If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject."

"Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property."

And similarly one's excellence would be measured by one's wealth.

No, wealth is not a measure of one's excellence. That certainly is not Rand's point nor mine. By greed, I mean that men are motivated by the concept of being able to keep the fruits of their labor. It is not about redistribution of wealth and the Marxist "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

The success of Capitalism and the genius of our Founders and the Constitution is that they recognized and accepted that you can not change the basic nature of man and can only channel that nature to create a system that works for the general good of society.

41 posted on 09/25/2010 9:13:17 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Leaving aside the meaning of the word.... By greed, I mean that men are motivated by the concept of being able to keep the fruits of their labor.

I think having the correct definition of the word is the first and most important part of the discussion.

from webster...greed - a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Your definition of greed is no more than defending one's Natural rights.

No, wealth is not a measure of one's excellence.

A love of excellence being an important virtue, I would argue that the Natural Laws were set up by the Creator to do precisely that.

42 posted on 09/25/2010 9:30:05 AM PDT by nitzy (A just law does not punish virtue nor reward vice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: nitzy

I think that clip should be mandatory in public schools!


43 posted on 09/25/2010 9:35:28 AM PDT by Cincinnatus.45-70 (What do DemocRats enjoy more than a truckload of dead babies? Unloading them with a pitchfork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: nitzy
I think having the correct definition of the word is the first and most important part of the discussion.

I thought I made it quite clear about the definition of greed, i.e., it is a pejorative word and one of the seven deadly sins. The point is that some use the word to frame the issue of so-called "greedy capitalists." They would llike the government to "spread the wealth around."

A love of excellence being an important virtue, I would argue that the Natural Laws were set up by the Creator to do precisely that.

I have no problem with the love of excellence. I just don't buy the idea that wealth is a measure of one's excellence. It smacks of Calvinism.

44 posted on 09/25/2010 5:10:49 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Read the comments for an example of similar tripe:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4971
When considering limitless energy, several socialists argue that it is irresponsible to provide such a service because that would allow for more advancement and higher pop growth. Better to withhold such tech and let the pop of the planet dramatically decrease as humanity fights over decreasing energy.

It’s also a great article about LTFR - liquid thorium flouride reactors.


45 posted on 09/26/2010 1:53:13 AM PDT by ziravan ("Are you better off now than you were 7 trillion dollars ago?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
But Greed is.. well....actually quite GOOD!


46 posted on 09/26/2010 1:57:39 AM PDT by FormerACLUmember (Character is defined by how we treat those who society says have no value.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

This isn’t a topic that belongs on the Catastrophism ping list. Thanks for your time.


47 posted on 09/26/2010 7:43:46 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Democratic Underground... matters are worse, as their latest fund drive has come up short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kabar
I have no problem with the love of excellence. I just don't buy the idea that wealth is a measure of one's excellence.

sorry to bring this back up but I was reading old posts and had to clarify...

It is not an indicator in OUR society but it would be in a just, virtuous society. If you look at the most free time in the most free place in the history of humanity (US 1700-1800). Wealth was the best gauge of one's virtue. Those who were the hardest working, the most honest, the most excellent, the most trustworthy, most cooperative, most compassionate were the ones who succeeded. Those who were liars, lazy, untrustworthy, aggressive, sociopaths didn't fair as well.

If we had a free, virtuous and just society today the way God intended we would see the same ratio of wealth to virtue.

48 posted on 10/21/2010 8:10:58 PM PDT by nitzy (A just law does not punish virtue nor reward vice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: nitzy
If you look at the most free time in the most free place in the history of humanity (US 1700-1800). Wealth was the best gauge of one's virtue.

Simply not true. It was the best gauge of power, not virtue. And this period was followed by the rise of the robber barons.

If we had a free, virtuous and just society today the way God intended we would see the same ratio of wealth to virtue.

Does that include members of the clergy or those devoted to works of charity like Mother Teresa? Are members of the NBA or Hollywood more virtuous because of their wealth? Material wealth is not a measure of virtue.

49 posted on 10/22/2010 6:04:12 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson