QuestionCan you define the word "greed"?
      – DigitalBoss, 2009-09-17 at 19:24:05   (47 comments)

On 2009-09-17 at 19:26:07, Lee J Haywood wrote...
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Agreed
On 2009-09-17 at 19:32:09, DigitalBoss wrote...
Who is going to tell me when I have reached more that I need or deserve? I am sure you can come up with a government committee on greed that will assign me a level never to be exceeded. Greed is moot. It is a liberal construct.
On 2009-09-17 at 19:33:16, DigitalBoss wrote...
@LeeJ: I asked you to define it, not link to some other person's definition.
On 2009-09-17 at 19:41:29, DigitalBoss wrote...
By the way, it would be nice if I could edit my topics. I did not put a question mark on this one, and I regret it.
On 2009-09-17 at 19:56:19, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It's an English word and it has a dictionary definition. I don't need to define it myself - its definition is what it is. When people ask me how I spell a word, I say "correctly".
On 2009-09-17 at 19:57:57, DigitalBoss wrote...
I guess that is a "no".
On 2009-09-17 at 20:11:06, BorgClown wrote...
Greed is wanting more than you need. And the context defines how much you need. If there's three parking slots left and you park your car sideways because you think all three must be yours, if you eat the last slice of pizza even if you're stuffed just so no one will get it, when you try make money scamming people because you want your saving account to increase faster, etc. These examples could be made not greedy if you change the context, for example, if there were lots of parking slots, it would be ok to take as many as your car can fit.
On 2009-09-17 at 20:16:02, BorgClown wrote...
Greed is something inherently cloudy, so my personal definition is: "amassing possessions by fucking up other people" If you a has done its fortune by treating other people as people, I don't see that as greedy. But is there such a thing?
On 2009-09-17 at 20:38:14, DigitalBoss wrote...
@TheBorg: In the situations that you describe, I think asshole would be a better word.
On 2009-09-17 at 20:41:59, DigitalBoss wrote...
Thank you for adding the question mark for me.
On 2009-09-18 at 19:06:46, Thelevellers wrote...
I don't know how I managed to answer this in the wrong topic, sorry. However, I don't think I have anythign to add at this point, having given my definition elsewhere... I suppose I could add that your attitude is slipping a bit DB - Lee clearly defined the word greed as he understands it, his understanding is of the dictionary definition...
On 2009-09-19 at 00:50:08, DigitalBoss wrote...
Ok, we have a definition of the word greed. Who is it that is going to decide if I am greedy, or not? And if I am decided to be greedy, what are you going to do about it?
On 2009-09-19 at 01:01:44, BorgClown wrote...
In times of yore a mob would kill you and redistribute your possessions between them. Now you have the law to protect your possessions, no matter how morally or ethically acquired.
On 2009-09-19 at 09:56:21, Thelevellers wrote...
Hmmm, I like that analogy - and DB will like this extension: Tax is obviously the modern mob of yore! :D In which case I'm all the more for it :P
On 2009-09-20 at 04:03:41, BorgClown wrote...
Sweet, "Tax is [...] the modern mob". That quote is deeper than it seems. I'll steal, er, quote it!
On 2009-09-21 at 02:12:18, DigitalBoss wrote...
Taxes are an abomination, an anathema to freedom and liberty. One cannot truly be free while subject to the pain of government.
On 2009-09-21 at 03:39:50, BorgClown wrote...
5 years in the future: USA approved the fairtax. Money laundering skyrockets. Corporations are happier. People remains more or less unchanged.
On 2009-09-21 at 05:02:50, DigitalBoss wrote...
When business is good, people have jobs.
On 2009-09-21 at 08:05:14, Baslisks wrote...
@DigitalBoss: when business is good, people in china have jobs.
On 2009-09-21 at 14:17:00, DigitalBoss wrote...
People in China need jobs too. I believe they have a right to earn monies or to trade a portion of their life for capital compensation. You are just upset because they will work for less than you.
On 2009-09-21 at 20:05:44, BorgClown wrote...
The tuition fees are crazy in USA. Working for an Indian or Chinese wage would take forever to pay them plus interest. How will the market fix that, shrinking tuition fees? Schools currently receive government grants, if you take that away and also reduce the fees, don't expect to have much done in the research department.
On 2009-09-21 at 20:11:04, BorgClown wrote...
A foreign poor person can make a living pumping up a MMORPG accounts in exchange for a few bucks. Imagine how much your salary would reduce if someone can live with what your kids or yourself do for free. Another example of the awesomeness of raw free market: Amazon's Mechanical Turk (http://www.mturk.com): Your work hours are worth cents here.
On 2009-09-21 at 20:11:20, BorgClown wrote...
Buy hey, they are WHOLE cents, wow!
On 2009-09-22 at 19:20:18, Thelevellers wrote...
I have to say, I am willing to work for less than I'm earning (don't tell my boss!!! :P), but I would never work for as little as the people in third world countries as they are near enough slaves. It's not exactly a choice to work for less for them, they have no money, the only place that will employ them demands ludicrous working hours for stupidly little pay. Where's the choice? This is where limiting population comes in handy, instead of focusing on an ever expanding economy (an impossibility, the resources in the universe are finite), keep the numbers down, and you don't need to keep so many people employed. I think I can find some flaws in that argument myself, but meh.
On 2009-09-22 at 20:20:33, Baslisks wrote...
@Thelevellers: is the universe infinite or finite?
On 2009-09-22 at 20:26:09, DigitalBoss wrote...
You people keep mentioning "limiting population", how in the hell do you think you are going to tell free citizens that they cannot reproduce? In the US, the government gives tax deductions to people with children and more welfare to people with more children. They are raising more and more tax subjects.
On 2009-09-22 at 20:32:15, BorgClown wrote...
The media would help immensely. Portraying successful and happy DINKs in the sitcoms would sway the two-legged sheeps toward less (or zero) kids.
On 2009-09-22 at 20:32:58, BorgClown wrote...
If that's going too far, maybe small families in TV shows? Oh wait, that's already done, isn't it?
On 2009-09-22 at 20:36:04, DigitalBoss wrote...
That is the reason, the US WILL NEVER try and control population growth because that would be cutting in to the number of available tax subjects.
On 2009-09-22 at 20:38:19, DigitalBoss wrote...
I know, you could limit the population of the US by raising taxes so high that everyone would want to leave. That is what is happening now in California, New York and other cities.
On 2009-09-23 at 01:24:09, BorgClown wrote...
That's actually a somewhat effective measure. Of course, the market compensates by paying higher salaries to the workers it needs to stay.
On 2009-10-15 at 14:46:59, DigitalBoss wrote...
Is it greedy to demand that the government confiscate money from taxpayers to pay for your healthcare?
On 2009-10-15 at 20:39:29, Bensci wrote...
Greed is acting out of pure self-interest in the pursuit of money that substantially surpasses the amount that you need or use.
On 2009-10-15 at 20:48:13, DigitalBoss wrote...
Who decides how much you need or use?
On 2009-10-16 at 02:56:30, BorgClown wrote...
That depends, but usually you need the money for something, so your needs decide how much is enough. If you just amass resources without a practical goal, you're being greedy/an asshole.
On 2009-10-16 at 02:57:02, BorgClown wrote...
And if your goal was just amassing more resources, double asshole.
On 2009-10-16 at 13:30:06, DigitalBoss wrote...
If I am looking out for myself and my family, for any situation that comes up for myself or my family, can I amass too many resources? Is it possible to have too much money? No.
On 2009-10-17 at 00:58:53, BorgClown wrote...
You know what Jews say? Don't leave your son enough money to live without working.
On 2009-10-17 at 01:03:07, BorgClown wrote...
If you amass a million or more, it's awesome. If you amass a billion and keep going and going, don't joke. You did it for yourself, not for your family's uncertain future. You already solved that.
On 2009-10-17 at 01:04:45, BorgClown wrote...
My point is: After a certain point, money making becomes a penis envy game. And yes, wealthy people can have wealth envy too.
On 2009-10-17 at 01:17:48, DigitalBoss wrote...
So, Borg, you intend to be the one that decides? Or do we call a Jew?
On 2009-10-17 at 08:02:02, BorgClown wrote...
Is the Jew female and gorgeous?
On 2009-10-17 at 18:30:15, DigitalBoss wrote...
My point is that your view of my greediness may be wrong. You may think I am greedy, but you do not know my situation. My drive for wealth is none of your business. You worry about yourself, I will worry about me. Only I know my situation and my family's situation. Liberals love to tell other people how to run their lives. Why not worry about your own life?
On 2009-10-17 at 19:47:26, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I would imagine that greed was historically about taking possessions from others at their expense, e.g. hoarding a limited amount of food whilst others starve. Today, resources tend to be more plentiful and civilisations much larger, so greed isn't so obvious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Greed Even if you had $1,000,000,000 you'd only be considered greedy if you hoarded the money or used it selfishly - if you gave the majority to charity, or used it to help others, then you couldn't be considered greedy for accumulating so much 'by accident'. In today's society, it's still true that society has burdens that could be met with some of the riches possessed by the most wealthy - and it's unlikely that they'd hand it over charitably. Relatively, they're actually less likely to be wealthy than their ancestors thanks to inheritance taxes. There's no doubt that the distribution of wealth is uneven, and whether or 'deserve' it or are simply greedy makes little difference. Money is a human invention.
On 2009-10-18 at 00:08:44, DigitalBoss wrote...
Wealth is not distributed, it is earned.
On 2009-10-23 at 11:35:06, Bensci wrote...
@DigitalBoss: not according to Obama...
On 2009-10-23 at 15:16:49, DigitalBoss wrote...
Yeah, we will see how long that lasts.