Greed

[Jen]

Just something to think about.
And I would really like for someone to explain the "why" of it.

 

[oicu812]

envy.

 

[Craig]

Just something to think about.
And I would really like for someone to explain the "why" of it.

Mr. Sowell is supposed to be intelligent, yet he does not know the meaning of the word "greed".

Greed is the intense and extreme desire for MORE than needed.

a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greed

And if the Dictionary definitions indicating the desire for EXCESSIVE wealth don't work for you and Mr. Sowell, the Bible also discusses the idea.


Bible Summary. The Bible provides us with a rich definition of greed. From a Christian perspective, the core definition of greed is that it is the obsession with accumulating material goods. A greedy person values material goods more than they value God. The Bible also tells us that greed is something that can never be satisfied. Greed and slothfulness have similarities in definition. The greedy and slothful both crave material goods as well as they have no desire to work for or to exchange anything of value for the object of their desires. The slothful will not work even for basic necessities much less add value to the world around them. The greedy will use deception to acquire material goods. The greedy will lie and use false pretenses to acquired goods at the expense of others.

See below for Biblical commentary and scriptures on the definition of greed. - See more at: http://access-jesus.com/definition-of-greed.html#sthash.MnywU7ge.dpuf

http://access-jesus.com/definition-of-greed.html

 

[Max R.]

Just something to think about.
And I would really like for someone to explain the "why" of it.

Good comment by Sowell! Thanks, Jen.

While I fully support everyone paying their share for our first responders, roads, bridges and military, we've grown into a society of people who think think they are entitled to other people's money to pay for their college debt, miscalculations in the housing market and for their livelihood for one reason or another. That's not right since it breeds laziness and a lack of both respect for others and self-respect. How can a person have self-respect if they are constantly mooching off others?

 

[Jen]

Mr. Sowell is supposed to be intelligent, yet he does not know the meaning of the word "greed".

Greed is the intense and extreme desire for MORE than needed.

a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greed

And if the Dictionary definitions indicating the desire for EXCESSIVE wealth don't work for you and Mr. Sowell, the Bible also discusses the idea.


Bible Summary. The Bible provides us with a rich definition of greed. From a Christian perspective, the core definition of greed is that it is the obsession with accumulating material goods. A greedy person values material goods more than they value God. The Bible also tells us that greed is something that can never be satisfied. Greed and slothfulness have similarities in definition. The greedy and slothful both crave material goods as well as they have no desire to work for or to exchange anything of value for the object of their desires. The slothful will not work even for basic necessities much less add value to the world around them. The greedy will use deception to acquire material goods. The greedy will lie and use false pretenses to acquired goods at the expense of others.

See below for Biblical commentary and scriptures on the definition of greed. - See more at: http://access-jesus.com/definition-of-greed.html#sthash.MnywU7ge.dpuf

http://access-jesus.com/definition-of-greed.html

So......
Someone decides that someone else has more than needed?
Someone decides that someone else is obsessed with material goods?
Who has that job? The government?
Your screed here is just stupid, Craig.

 

[georgephillip]

Just something to think about.
And I would really like for someone to explain the "why" of it.

Sowell is sufficiently intelligent and educated to know what the word "earn" means. He's attempting to assert pre-tax incomes are presumptively just and therefore the proper moral base line to begin the tax debate from.

Nothing is farther from the truth. Government influences pre-tax incomes in countless ways, from interest rates to rules on employment to allowing widely different qualities of education. Pre-tax incomes are presumed just today for the same reason slavery was once the law of the land: pervasiveness makes legal inventions appear as natural law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/books/you-can-t-take-it-with-you.html

 

[Craig]

So......
Someone decides that someone else has more than needed?
Someone decides that someone else is obsessed with material goods?
Who has that job? The government?
Your screed here is just stupid, Craig.

Screed? Stupid? By showing that Sowell fails to understand the definition of the word greed? You really have lost any ability to be reasonable.

Anyone can judge or decide for themselves what constitutes "too much"...or "excessive desire" for material wealth. Sowell's comment doesn't address greed in any fashion. It is not greedy to keep more of what you "earned". That is not "excessive" desire for material wealth. That's anti-tax, right wing, rhetoric from the Reagan era.

You can't tell if someone is obsessed with material goods?

 

[Jen]

Screed? Stupid? By showing that Sowell fails to understand the definition of the word greed? You really have lost any ability to be reasonable.

Anyone can judge or decide for themselves what constitutes "too much"...or "excessive desire" for material wealth. Sowell's comment doesn't address greed in any fashion. It is not greedy to keep more of what you "earned". That is not "excessive" desire for material wealth. That's anti-tax, right wing, rhetoric from the Reagan era.

You can't tell if someone is obsessed with material goods?

"Taxing the rich" doesn't distinguish between those obsessed with material goods and those not obsessed with it.

 

[Max R.]

Sowell is sufficiently intelligent and educated to know what the word "earn" means. He's attempting to assert pre-tax incomes are presumptively just and therefore the proper moral base line to begin the tax debate from.

Nothing is farther from the truth. Government influences pre-tax incomes in countless ways, from interest rates to rules on employment to allowing widely different qualities of education. Pre-tax incomes are presumed just today for the same reason slavery was once the law of the land: pervasiveness makes legal inventions appear as natural law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/books/you-can-t-take-it-with-you.html

Nice socialist point of view.

So, in short, a person who sweats their ass off in a field picking fruit all day isn't completely entitled to all of the rewards of his labors since people like you think he should give at least part of his harvest to those you deem more worthy.

 

[Craig]

"Taxing the rich" doesn't distinguish between those obsessed with material goods and those not obsessed with it.

Right...It has absolutely nothing to do with greed, which is clearly tied in with wanting more...and more...and more. In every case, from the Bible through today's dictionaries, the word revolves "excessive desire".

One "taxes the rich"...because that is where the money is.

 

[Caroljo]

Nice socialist point of view.

So, in short, a person who sweats their ass off in a field picking fruit all day isn't completely entitled to all of the rewards of his labors since people like you think he should give at least part of his harvest to those you deem more worthy.

Right...and nobody has ever said they don't want to help the truly poor. It's the lazy asses that don't deserve it.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 (CEB) Even when we were with you we were giving you this command: "If anyone doesn't want to work, they shouldn't eat."

 

[georgephillip]

Nice socialist point of view.

So, in short, a person who sweats their ass off in a field picking fruit all day isn't completely entitled to all of the rewards of his labors since people like you think he should give at least part of his harvest to those you deem more worthy.

I was actually thinking about hedge fund managers earning $billions yet paying $0 taxes. I hope you don't mind if the fruit pickers share some of their meager rewards with their children?

 

[Max R.]

I was actually thinking about hedge fund managers earning $billions yet paying $0 taxes. I hope you don't mind if the fruit pickers share some of their meager rewards with their children?

Nice attempt to walk back your statement, but your multiple other posts with the same dreamy socialist ideals speak louder than any half-assed attempt at walking back bullshit like this: "Pre-tax incomes are presumed just today for the same reason slavery was once the law of the land: pervasiveness makes legal inventions appear as natural law."

 

[georgephillip]

Nice attempt to walk back your statement, but your multiple other posts with the same dreamy socialist ideals speak louder than any half-assed attempt at walking back bullshit like this: "Pre-tax incomes are presumed just today for the same reason slavery was once the law of the land: pervasiveness makes legal inventions appear as natural law."

If it's true pre-tax incomes are morally insignificant since individuals don't earn or own anything except through laws enacted and enforced by the state, then it is post-tax incomes that individuals are morally entitled to own. I know many good capitalists today believe morality plays no role in economics, but they are just as mistaken as the good capitalists of 1861 who believed in the economics of chattel slavery. Remember how that one turned out
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/books/you-can-t-take-it-with-you.html

 

[Max R.]

If it's true pre-tax incomes are morally insignificant since individuals don't earn or own anything except through laws enacted and enforced by the state, then it is post-tax incomes that individuals are morally entitled to own. I know many good capitalists today believe morality plays no role in economics, but they are just as mistaken as the good capitalists of 1861 who believed in the economics of chattel slavery. Remember how that one turned out
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/books/you-can-t-take-it-with-you.html

Thanks admitting my assessment was correct.

 

[georgephillip]

Thanks admitting my assessment was correct.

IMHO, we're running out of time to waste on Cold War labels:
"A socialist economy is based on the principle of production for use, to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs, and objects are valued by their use-value, as opposed to the principle of production for profit and accumulation of capital."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Production for use means putting people over profits. What could be more democratic?

 

[oicu812]

"taxing the rich" is a subjective term..we can always find people who are richer or poorer than ourselves...

but in general terms,,lets look at the two main political parties members...

the democrats are generally richer than republicans...

lets tax the "rich" democrats and give it to the "poor" republicans...

 

[Max R.]

IMHO, we're running out of time to waste on Cold War labels:
"A socialist economy is based on the principle of production for use, to directly satisfy economic demand and human needs, and objects are valued by their use-value, as opposed to the principle of production for profit and accumulation of capital."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Production for use means putting people over profits. What could be more democratic?

Cold War labels? Socialism existed long before Lenin and Trotsky, but it's always failed in the end no matter what it's called for one simple reason: Human Nature.

 

[georgephillip]

Cold War labels? Socialism existed long before Lenin and Trotsky, but it's always failed in the end no matter what it's called for one simple reason: Human Nature.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and/or social control[1] of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[2][3] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.[4][5] 'Social ownership' may refer to cooperative enterprises,common ownership, state ownership (achieved by nationalization), citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[6]

"There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

If you know of any natural human characteristics that preclude citizen ownership of equity or the cooperative management of an economy, let me know.

 

[Max R.]

....If you know of any natural human characteristics that preclude citizen ownership of equity or the cooperative management of an economy, let me know.

Most people are nice, but nice people don't rise to the top of a highly competitive race for power. Like it or not, any socialist group larger than a tribe requires electing or appointing representatives. That means competition for a powerful role. Once that happens, it's "off to the races" where the worst of human nature is often concentrated.

Would you run for political office, George? If not, why not. If so, again, why?