Human greed

ScumLord

chrissb8 wrote: »

Human greed is good as well. It keeps us wanting more. Human nature is to not be satisfied.

I wouldn't say that's exactly true. Humans have been known to get extremely comfortable with ways of doing things even in the face of better, more efficient ways emerging. Many inventions lasted for hundreds of years and it wasn't until the industrial revolution and mechanising processes became the in thing that constant innovation started happening. Now we get new products not because we need them, but because a company has to constantly come out with new products to keep afloat.

It has advantages and disadvantages, having an economy that relies on constant growth was fine in the past because there was an abundance of resources in relation to the population. Now it's actively hurting the human species because we're wasting a dwindling pool of resources making things we don't need or even want.

lufties

Tony EH wrote: »

That's definitely an issue. But what does a country do? Do they continuously swing the meter to the foreign companies at the expense of their own people? Or should there be better efforts to nourish homegrown companies and job investment?

Apple have paid less tax than the top Irish companies like Glanbia, Ryanair or the Kerry Group. Is that a situation that we want? Just to say that Apple are here?

I don't think so.

It's very difficult to set up business in Ireland and unless you have a shedload of capital behind you, you can forget it. But, Irish businessmen have a lot to answer for as well. It's a sad fact that a lot of Irish business gets set up, they operate for a short period and then the owner sells the comapny, usually to some larger concern involved in the same enterprise.

It's why there will never be an Irish Microsoft, or an Irish Apple.

We have too many get rich quick merchants.

I agree, I wish Ireland was more like Germany or scandinavia where people are well protected in employment and medical is decent. Currently the Irish get diddly squat in return for paying high taxes. I'm gone from Ireland nearly 5 years and used to be homesick, and want to return, but now, no way since the penny has dropped. As that old whale harney once said we are closer to boston than we are to berlin...unfortunately its true.

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

Maybe greed is good on your plant.

But here on Earth, it's been a source of incredible misery.

:pac:


By the by...some people on here seem to be mixing up greed and ambition.

Greed drives ambition, income equality isn't the problem, social mobility is.

lufties wrote: »

I agree, I wish Ireland was more like Germany or scandinavia where people are well protected in employment and medical is decent. Currently the Irish get diddly squat in return for paying high taxes. I'm gone from Ireland nearly 5 years and used to be homesick, and want to return, but now, no way since the penny has dropped. As that old whale harney once said we are closer to boston than we are to berlin...unfortunately its true.

We don't have Scandinavian oil to extract.

knird evol

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Greed drives ambition

Greed clarifies.

Iwasfrozen

knird evol wrote: »

Greed clarifies.

Clarifies?

knird evol

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Clarifies?

It cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Greed drives ambition, income equality isn't the problem, social mobility is.

Greed can drive negative ambition, like war.

But greed isn't the motivator for all ambitious endeavour.

Iwasfrozen

knird evol wrote: »

It cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Yep Social Darwinism at it's finest. The natural state of humanity.

Tony EH wrote: »

Greed can drive negative ambition, like war.

But greed isn't the motivator for all ambitious endeavour.

No one ever said it was. Just that greed is overall beneficial to human society.

Tony EH

Nonsense.

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

Nonsense.

What a constructive argument, that's me told!

Donkey Oaty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Just that greed is overall beneficial to human society.

As opposed to generosity?

Iwasfrozen

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

As opposed to generosity?

Yes. Charity does not drive incentive. It encourages dependency rather than ambition. Charity has it's place but you can't build an economy around it.

Donkey Oaty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes. Charity does not drive incentive. It encourages dependency rather than ambition. Charity has it's place but you can't build an economy around it.

Who said anything about charity? I'm talking about generosity.

Iwasfrozen

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Who said anything about charity? I'm talking about generosity.

"Yes. Generosity does not drive incentive. It encourages dependency rather than ambition. Generosity has it's place but you can't build an economy around it."

Gee Bag

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes. Charity does not drive incentive. It encourages dependency rather than ambition. Charity has it's place but you can't build an economy around it.

Indeed, let the hungry starve, let the blind fumble around without guide dogs, let kids who need life saving surgery die if their parents can't afford it etc. etc. blah, blah, blah.

If they can't pull themselves up by their own boot straps then they can go and shyte. etc. etc. blah blah blah

Do you actually believe this victorian nonsense?

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What a constructive argument, that's me told!

Ah come on, it's not like you're really interested in the other side of the debate, is it.

A lot of your posts in this thread have been flippant one liners.

Donkey Oaty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

"Yes. Generosity does not drive incentive. It encourages dependency rather than ambition. Generosity has it's place but you can't build an economy around it."

Spoken like a person who does not know the meaning of the word.

I'd wish you the best of luck, but hey - I want to keep all the luck for myself!

Iwasfrozen

Gee Bag wrote: »

Indeed, let the hungry starve, let the blind fumble around without guide dogs, let kids who need life saving surgery die if their parents can't afford it etc. etc. blah, blah, blah.

If they can't pull themselves up by their own boot straps then they can go and shyte. etc. etc. blah blah blah

Do you actually believe this victorian nonsense?

My central argument is very simple, high income inequality isn't important if social mobility is also high. That's no to say there will be absolutely no government support for the sick or disabled.

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote: »

Ah come on, it's not like you're really interested in the other side of the debate, is it.

A lot of your posts in this thread have been flippant one liners.

My position is quite clear, high income inequality isn't a major problem as long as social mobility is also high. Those who wish to be successful will be and will be rewarded financially for their contributions to society. Those who are perfectly capable of work but choose not to will be punished financially by society. It is in essence a carrot and stick based approach to encourage hard work.

Donkey Oaty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

My central argument is very simple

Agreed.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

Ah come on, it's not like you're really interested in the other side of the debate, is it.

A lot of your posts in this thread have been flippant one liners.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

My central argument is very simple, high income inequality isn't important if social mobility is also high. That's no to say there will be absolutely no government support for the sick or disabled.

Hmmm...and again I'll say you're not really interested in the other side of the debate.

Iwasfrozen

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Agreed.

There's little point expanding the argument when we disagree on the fundamentals, wouldn't you agree?

Tony EH wrote: »

Hmmm...and again I'll say you're not really interested in the other side of the debate.

No more than you are.

Donkey Oaty

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There's little point expanding the argument when we disagree on the fundamentals, wouldn't you agree?

Well, I was starting to come around to your way of thinking until I read this:

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's no to say there will be absolutely no government support for the sick or disabled.

What sort of Communist propaganda filth are you now spouting? Help for the sick and disabled indeed.

You've crossed a line there, pal...stay away from my tax dollars.

Iwasfrozen

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

What sort of Communist propaganda filth are you now spouting? Help for the sick and disabled indeed.

You've crossed a line there, pal...stay away from my tax dollars.

Dollars? Ah no worries, we're in different countries anyway.

Wibbs

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yep Social Darwinism at it's finest. The natural state of humanity.

Eh no. Social Darwinism, a great idea for some to latch onto thinking it made elitism "natural" and scientific. It didn't and it doesn't. Not unless you're a Victorian glancing through on the origin of species, looking to justify unethical notions. It also gave rise to, worse justified some of the most dubious philosophies in history. Colonialism, rule of colonies, slavery, eugenics, fascism, even some aspects of communism, robber barons, industrialists raping the land and those on it and those in their employ. Long list for a failed philosophy, so to even mention the notion today godwins the purveyor of the notion.

There are a couple of problems with it. For a start the "natural state" of humanity is incredibly hard to define and there are many states human cultures form into. Secondly "survival of the fittest" doesn't start and end with the individual, but is more active across a population/society. And even if it did come down to the individual, in that case, the Daily Mail's worst nightmare, the petty criminal layabout on some sink estate with 10 kids from 5 different mothers is actually "fitter" than the industrialist with one or two kids as far as Darwinism is concerned. Thirdly "fitter" depends entirely on the culture you find yourself in. EG a slightly built intelligent "nerd" who could end up running a business empire in stable times isn't worth jack in a warzone.

Most of all it assumes that what is "natural" and "evolutionary" is applicable to humans culturally and morally. Which is pretty much a nonsense. We have been shaping our own evolution for nigh on a million years. We have stepped out of the shadow of "hard" natural selection. It's what we do and it's what truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. In every other facet of human endeavour you'll find an animal analogy of some nature. Chimps have culture and use rudimentary tools, even bees have a language, but nothing out there has shaped it's own evolution like us.

Today more than ever this is the case. I recall a very interesting idea for a thread in AH a few years back entitled/subject being something along the lines of "without medical science how many of you would be still here". The results were interesting. Of the many generally bright, sound posters no doubt making differences large and small in their own part of the world, scarily few would have made it to adulthood without modern medicine and a couple needed it to stay alive as adults. 6 pages in it was me and about 4 others who didn't. Cool for me, it would have meant I could pontificate to a captive audience(who would have ended up seeking out and licking plague rats in the pursuit of oblivion in short order), but not so good for those we would have lost that would make me look like the gibbering ape I am.

Basically "survival of the fittest" is no longer as clear a statement of human societal reality and it hasn't been for an incredibly long time. Recently there has been much discussion on the implications of variability in the same species of ancient hominid(from nearly two million years ago) coming on the heels of discoveries concerning Homo Erectus in present day Georgia. Interesting stuff(if you're odd like me), however one such individual found was old and missing nearly all his teeth. Now this was a stage in our history where language was rudimentary at best, the human culture we swim in today an alien concept. So his value as an elder who knows shít was minimal if present at all. Yet, someone, or his tribe/pack had to look after him, had to process the tough food they ate, had to find this food in the first place, but they did it and did so long enough for his jawbone to nearly atrophy. He would have been as useful in a social darwinian sense as tits on a bull, but it seems that didn't matter. He was part of a group, a society, small or not and that was the important bit. Nearly two million years ago we looked after the "weak" the "past it" and we find this stuff again and again. Neandertals did it CroMagnons did it. You want "natural", then you're going to have to argue against two million years of generosity.



TL;DR? Social Darwinism is a crock of poo. It only finds favour with elites or those who consider themselves thus and can be destroyed in debate on nearly every level.

Iwasfrozen

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh no. Social Darwinism, a great idea for some to latch onto thinking it made elitism "natural" and scientific. It didn't and it doesn't. Not unless you're a Victorian glancing through on the origin of species, looking to justify unethical notions. It also gave rise to, worse justified some of the most dubious philosophies in history. Colonialism, rule of colonies, slavery, eugenics, fascism, even some aspects of communism, robber barons, industrialists raping the land and those on it and those in their employ. Long list for a failed philosophy, so to even mention the notion today godwins the purveyor of the notion.

There are a couple of problems with it. For a start the "natural state" of humanity is incredibly hard to define and there are many states human cultures form into. Secondly "survival of the fittest" doesn't start and end with the individual, but is more active across a population/society. And even if it did come down to the individual, in that case, the Daily Mail's worst nightmare, the petty criminal layabout on some sink estate with 10 kids from 5 different mothers is actually "fitter" than the industrialist with one or two kids as far as Darwinism is concerned. Thirdly "fitter" depends entirely on the culture you find yourself in. EG a slightly built intelligent "nerd" who could end up running a business empire in stable times isn't worth jack in a warzone.

Most of all it assumes that what is "natural" and "evolutionary" is applicable to humans culturally and morally. Which is pretty much a nonsense. We have been shaping our own evolution for nigh on a million years. We have stepped out of the shadow of "hard" natural selection. It's what we do and it's what truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. In every other facet of human endeavour you'll find an animal analogy of some nature. Chimps have culture and use rudimentary tools, even bees have a language, but nothing out there has shaped it's own evolution like us.

Today more than ever this is the case. I recall a very interesting idea for a thread in AH a few years back entitled/subject being something along the lines of "without medical science how many of you would be still here". The results were interesting. Of the many generally bright, sound posters no doubt making differences large and small in their own part of the world, scarily few would have made it to adulthood without modern medicine and a couple needed it to stay alive as adults. 6 pages in it was me and about 4 others who didn't. Cool for me, it would have meant I could pontificate to a captive audience(who would have ended up seeking out and licking plague rats in the pursuit of oblivion in short order), but not so good for those we would have lost that would make me look like the gibbering ape I am.

Basically "survival of the fittest" is no longer as clear a statement of human societal reality and it hasn't been for an incredibly long time. Recently there has been much discussion on the implications of variability in the same species of ancient hominid(from nearly two million years ago) coming on the heels of discoveries concerning Homo Erectus in present day Georgia. Interesting stuff(if you're odd like me), however one such individual found was old and missing nearly all his teeth. Now this was a stage in our history where language was rudimentary at best, the human culture we swim in today an alien concept. So his value as an elder who knows shít was minimal if present at all. Yet, someone, or his tribe/pack had to look after him, had to process the tough food they ate, had to find this food in the first place, but they did it and did so long enough for his jawbone to nearly atrophy. He would have been as useful in a social darwinian sense as tits on a bull, but it seems that didn't matter. He was part of a group, a society, small or not and that was the important bit. Nearly two million years ago we looked after the "weak" the "past it" and we find this stuff again and again. Neandertals did it CroMagnons did it. You want "natural", then you're going to have to argue against two million years of generosity. .

You're taking the meaning of Darwinism to literally. In fact you're taking the literal biological meaning of Darwinism and applying it to human society which no one on this thread myself included has ever argued in favour of or even hinted towards. But you choose the extreme, fanatical extent of my argument to try and discredit the entire concept of competitive capitalism.

To put it another way Darwinism within the extent of free market capitalism alludes to the competitiveness of firms within the market and individuals within firms. Just like Darwinism which rewards the strong and the adaptable within the ecosystem so does competitive capitalism reward strong and adaptable firms within the market and workers within companies. Firms and workers who can't adapt are punished by the system, hence the comparison.

If you are going to argue against social Darwinism within free market capitalism please do but don't allude to some obvious nonsense about capitalism trying to bring us all back to the stone age!

Wibbs

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If you are going to argue against social Darwinism within free market capitalism please do but don't allude to some obvious nonsense about capitalism trying to bring us all back to the stone age!

Point

---

country mile

---

Iwasfrozen

You're taking the meaning of Darwinism too literally.

TBH I had a little chortle at this, given you said "Yep Social Darwinism at it's finest. The natural state of humanity.". You seem to have problems with defining both "natural state" and "humanity". I was merely pointing out your errors of vagueness of definition.

Iwasfrozen

Wibbs wrote: »

Point

---

country mile

---

Iwasfrozen

Except you did

"Nearly two million years ago we looked after the "weak" the "past it" and we find this stuff again and again. Neandertals did it CroMagnons did it. You want "natural", then you're going to have to argue against two million years of generosity."

You're trying to imply those who favour competitive markets are arguing against two million years of generosity. Ignoring of course I've already pointed out there will never be absolutely no support for the weak, sick, old and disabled. We aren't arguing for eugenics here, far from it. Hospitals and other caring facilities will work much better when removed from the constraint of government inefficiencies.

Wibbs

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We aren't arguing for eugenics here, far from it. Hospitals and other caring facilities will work much better when removed from the constraint of government inefficiencies.

Point your gaze to the US of A and it's hospitals, where pills cost 8 times more than in the rest of the developed world, where "non profit" CEO's of same are earning millions per year, where "competitive markets" are anything but and are again making millions and being gloriously inefficient to boot(though still maximising the bottom line). "Oh but that's down to bad government and lobbying, etc". Yep it is that, but like I've asked of others in similar debates, remove government out of the loop and it just means the profit principle has even less of a barrier to being a dick. Where will competition come from in a multiple monopoly?

EDIT, better yet, in all the world, show me where a competitive market led health service with no government involvement in medical/health matters that has done better than a national health service. Not a mixture of the two, but lone examples of both.

Capt'n Midnight

wazky wrote: »

Why shouldn't they?, its a business not a charity.

Actually it is a charity.

Corporate welfare. Basically it means that large corporations and billionaires pay a lower rate of tax than small companies and the rest of us. Large corporations here pay something like 2% effective tax, and that's just on the stuff they couldn't fix better.

And remember the stealth taxes like property tax, bin charges, water charges, standing orders for utilities all affect us proportionately more than those who make money off artificial concepts like derivatives and such.

There are also things like jobbridge where they get labour free.

Not to mention the constant blackmail of threating to move jobs abroad unless they get their way.