Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greed isn't necessary for Capitalism

Comments Filter:
  • Really, as a Catholic, you don't hope to eliminate greed from the sphere of human attitudes and behaviors?

    You have to come to a system of mutual agreements in which the effects of greed are minimised and mitigated.

    • Meh. I don't think that the human spirit has varied significantly since the arrival of writing.
      Probably wasn't much different in oral days, either.
      The best thing you're going to do with greed is disperse is and offer equality of opportunity, so that the effects cancel as best they can.
      • Don't need force to offer equality of opportunity. 100% death taxes for those who don't leave a beneficiary, funding a "Human Capital Investment Fund" for teenagers would do wonderfully. Oh, you'd still have the 20-80 rule in effect (20% of any given population does 80% of the work- and should receive 80% of the rewards) but at least you'd have equality of opportunity in the starting line- funded by the property of those who failed to breed after they can't use it any longer.

        There's something fitting in t

        • (20% of any given population does 80% of the work- and should receive 80% of the rewards)

          Do you see the current system in the US as being close to that or not? If not, which way do you see it being skewed?

          • I don't see it currently as being close to that. I see it as currently being 20% of the population owning 99% of the assets, and thus getting 99% of the rewards. But even worse- 10% of the top 20% isn't doing any work at all- no labor. They own 80% of the assets, and are rewarded disproportional for the work everybody else does. The financial industry has taken over our economy- and the financial industry is the definition of immoral behavior- earning money off of other people's labor.

            That 20% of the la

    • Not necessarily eliminated- you can't eliminate sin. But frowned upon and punished (I'm not sure I'd go so far as the vigilantes did against Uly Mörnach, but I certainly do agree with repentance for sin and reparation of harm caused *even when it seems to go against the right of private property*).

  • ...those most Leftward biased articles. Ones that are obviously slathered thick in it. But you don't notice it, and just find them to be interesting articles. Even ones that seem too good to be true (for your side) don't seem to arouse any suspicion. It must be nice.

    Saying greed isn't necessary for capitalism is like saying love isn't necessary for marriage; technically true, but the yearnings of the human spirit typically rule them out.

    • This, to me, seems a RIGHTWARD article. But your liberal free market addiction to sin can't see it.

      The true right wing is MORALITY, nos sin.

      And love isn't necessary for marriage. Commitment is necessary for marriage. Marriage for love is a rather recent aberration, post 1700s. Only liberals believe in it.

      • Marriage for love is a rather recent aberration, post 1700s

        If "love" means "romantic feeling" or "physical attraction", I could agree with you.
        But if "love" means "a free decision to cause good to another person" then I would say that love is the foundation of marriage.

        • Prior to 1700 the desire was more "to merge the property of two households for the purpose of providing a better future for the children" or in the case of nobility "to merge the political interests of two nations".

          Personal good didn't even enter into it.

Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it.