[To my mind, "greed" is the same as sociopathy or psychopathy (what
the shrinks call "anti-social personality disorder"), i.e.,
self-interest untempered by any moral commitments. It is, of course,
what's rewarded and encouraged by untrammeled markets.]

September 27, 2008 / New York TIMES

BELIEFS / Modern Market Thinking Has Devalued a Deadly Sin

By PETER STEINFELS
Greed, to put it mildly, is no longer good.

Today, Gordon Gekko could not get away with the paean to greed that he
delivered in the 1987 movie "Wall Street." Not after Alan Greenspan
denounced "infectious greed" before Congress in 2002. Not when every
third book about finance and corporate power has the word "greed" in
the title. Not when the presidential nominee of the traditionally
pro-business party is blaming Wall Street's greed for the current
financial crisis.

Denouncing greed, however, appears easier than defining it.

Over the last three decades, the average compensation for chief
executives of major American corporations has gone from 35 times the
average pay of American workers to 275 times. That increase, it is
suggested, or at least implied, constitutes greed.

But what if the increase had "only" been to 100 times? Would that have
signaled greed? What about 50 times? And why wasn't 35 times itself a
sign of greed?

If the economy were humming along rather than melting down or freezing
up, would soaring executive salaries qualify as greed? Or would such a
suggestion be itself condemned as class warfare?

Greed is a notion, in fact, that comes positively bristling with
religious and moral assumptions that modern culture does not quite
know how to handle. Greed, a k a avarice, has long been ranked among
Christianity's seven deadly sins. In some accounts, it is the
deadliest, the "root of all evils," according to St. Paul. Similar
judgments can be found in the other great religious traditions.

But in the 17th and 18th centuries, European thinkers in search of
political stability and order looked beyond the religious strictures
that had manifestly failed to repress unruly rulers' passions for
power, pleasure and possessions.

Perhaps, it was argued, these passions could serve as checks on one
another — and soon passions were being viewed, well, dispassionately.
That is, they were re-envisioned as more rational "interests."

Finally, pursuit of commerce and economic interests were generally
supposed to tame and channel the wasteful pursuit of glory and
domination that had bred wars and royal display.

It was a remarkable mutation, described brilliantly by Albert O.
Hirschman in "The Passions and the Interests" (Princeton, 1977): Greed
disappeared and was reborn, domesticated, as self-interest.

Greed did not really disappear, of course; it just became the province
of moralists and novelists, like Carlyle and Dickens, and of preachers
and politicians to this day. Those who dealt with economics,
practically or theoretically, have preferred another concept.

Don't look for "greed" in the indexes of most economic textbooks. When
it does crop up in economics literature, the point is often to
disabuse readers of their lingering sentimentality and
soft-headedness.

Last fall, a year after the death of Milton Friedman, a short clip
from a 1979 television interview that the Nobel Prize-winning
economist gave to Phil Donahue surfaced and was gleefully featured on
the Web sites of libertarians and defenders of free enterprise.

"When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the
desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries,
when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the
greed and the concentration of power," Mr. Donahue agonized, "don't
you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism? And whether greed's
a good idea to run on?"

Mr. Friedman, a practiced debater, brushed past the question about
ever suffering a moment of doubt about capitalism and went right to
the matter of greed.

"Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society that doesn't run
on greed?" he said. "Do you think Russia doesn't run on greed? Do you
think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us
is greedy; it's only the other fellow who's greedy."

"This is a world run on individuals pursuing their separate
interests," he continued. "The great achievements of civilizations
have not come from government bureaus," he said, proceeding to a
defensible if wildly oversimplified case for free enterprise as the
only way "so far discovered of improving the lot of ordinary people."

Doing his best to bounce back, Mr. Donahue protested that free
enterprise "seems to reward not virtue so much as the ability to
manipulate the system."

"And what does reward virtue?" Mr. Friedman parried. "Do you think the
Communist commissar rewards virtue? Do you think a Hitler rewards
virtue?" And so on.

This may not have been Mr. Friedman at his most brilliant or
thoughtful, but he certainly carried the skirmish from behind this
phalanx of straw men. More important, his impatience with Mr.
Donahue's resort to the vocabulary of greed and virtue was not
idiosyncratic; it was reflective of modern economic thinking. He did
not deny their existence, simply their relevance and their moral
resonance.

Despite all the current talk of greed, then, one wonders whether it is
not a kind of specter, flitting in and out of sight, momentarily
frightening and yet finally bereft of the religious and moral
conviction that might give it body and weight in the nation's
deliberations.

In "Wall Street," Gordon Gekko may have sounded a bit like Milton
Friedman when he said that greed "works" and "clarifies" and "has
marked the upward surge of mankind."

But he did not actually say, "Greed is good." What he said in the
movie was "greed, for lack of a better word, is good."

Economics has given us a lot of better words, from self-interest to
incentive to profit. They do not mean the same thing as greed, but
they have displaced it, obscured it — and certainly demoted it from
being a deadly sin.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

-- 
Jim Devine /  "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange
days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to