Re: Greed
Ted Winslow writes: Is Marx making an empirical point? Yes. It's an empirical claim about the psychology dominant in capitalism. The idea of greed' as an irrational passion is ancient. As Marx points out in Capital, it can be found in Aristotle. Aristotle opposes Oeconomic to Chrematistic. He starts from the former. So far as it is the art of gaining a livelihood, it is limited to procuring those articles that are necessary to existence, and useful either to a household or the state. True wealth (o aleqinos ploutos) consists of such values in use; for the quantity of possessions of this kind, capable of making life pleasant, is not unlimited. There is, however, a second mode of acquiring things, to which we may by preference and with correctness give the name of Chrematistic, and in this case there appear to be no limits to riches and possessions. Trade (e kapelike is literally retail trade, and Aristotle takes this kind because in it values in use predominate) does not in its nature belong to Chrematistic, for here the exchange has reference only to what is necessary to themselves (the buyer or seller). Therefore, as he goes on to show, the original form of trade was barter, but with the extension of the latter, there arose the necessity for money. On the discovery of money, barter of necessity developed into kapelike , into trading in commodities, and this again, in opposition to its original tendency, grew into Chrematistic, into the art of making money. Now Chrematistic is distinguishable from Oeconomic in this way, that in the case of Chrematistic circulation is the source of riches poietike crematon ... dia chrematon diaboles . And it appears to revolve about money, for money is the beginning and end of this kind of exchange ( to nomisma stoiceion tes allages estin ). Therefore also riches, such as Chrematistic strives for, are unlimited. Just as every art that is not a means to an end, but an end in itself, has no limit to its aims, because it seeks constantly to approach nearer and nearer to that end, while those arts that pursue means to an end, are not boundless, since the goal itself imposes a limit upon them, so with Chrematistic, there are no bounds to its aims, these aims being absolute wealth. Oeconomic not Chrematistic has a limit ... the object of the former is something different from money, of the latter the augmentation of money By confounding these two forms, which overlap each other, some people have been led to look upon the preservation and increase of money ad infinitum as the end and aim of Oeconomic. (Aristoteles, De Rep. edit. Bekker, lib. l. c. 8, 9. passim.) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm) I understand the Aristotelian argument -- that there is a difference in producing for use value and producing for money ad infinitum as an end in itself. I understand the criticism of capitalism as an ideology that glorifies accumulation free of all restraint. However, as an empirical point, is it your position that the typical businessman in modern capitalist society has a materially different subjective motivation than a typical businessman in say, Augustan Rome or 14th Century Venice? Similarly, as an empirical point, in my experience, most people engaged in business, whether self-employed or employed in an organization, are not primarily motivated by money as an end (although some are), but by other goals that can be achieved through the use of money, such as providing for a family in a comfortable manner, etc. David Shemano
Re: Greed
greed describes an aspect of a personality, whereas rational profit maximization is simply behavior. Economics can't deal with personality issues. It simply assumes that people are sociopaths (without the charming personality) and leaves it at that. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Ted Winslow wrote: Greed in this context can't be translated into instrumentally rational profit maximization. Ted, all this squishy talk makes economists nervous. Doug
Greed
Regarding greed and capitalism, a couple of questions based upon the quotations from Mr. Winslow: Is Marx making an empirical point? Based upon observation, capitalists are motivated by greed? Or is it a definitional point -- under capitalism, capitalists by definition are motivated by greed. For instance, let's hypothesize a man who decides in his youth that there is a Rembrandt that he loves and wants to own. So he decides to become rich enough to buy the Rembrandt and then spends a lifetiime engaging in capitalist acts until he is sufficiently wealthy to buy the Rembrandt, at which time he sells his business and buys the Rembrandt. Now, while we can criticize this man for being possessive, exclusionary, etc., I would suggest he is not motivated by greed in the colloquial sense or even in the sense that Marx seems to be using the term. So he is not a capitalist? David Shemano --- Original Message--- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Ted Winslow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 7/21/2004 4:28PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] absolute general law of capitalist accumulation Ralph Johansen wrote: Where do you find in Marx any reference to innate greed as the motivation for accumulation under capital? Greed, sloth, etc., are among the seven deadly sins of western mythology and religious doctrine, the basis of Judaeo-Christian guilt, not the basis for accumulation under capital according to Marx. To ascribe an immanent human propensity to accumulate, or greed', as the basis and motivation for capital accretion is another expression of Adam Smith's innate propensity to truck, barter and exchange, which Marx explicitly repudiates. Marx, in the passage from the Grundrisse I previously quoted, explicitly repudiates the classical political economy's conception of greed as innate (this is an expression of its failure to take account of the fact that social relations are internal relations) , but explicitly endorses the conception as an accurate description of the subjectivity dominant in capitalism (the idea of irrational passions of this kind playing a positive role in human historical development was already present in Kant - see his Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose - and Hegel, both of whom were influenced in their conception of this by Adam Smith). How the multiplication of needs and of the means [of their satisfaction] breeds the absence of needs and of means is demonstrated by the political economist (and by the capitalist: in general it is always empirical businessmen we are talking about when we refer to political economists, [who represent] their scientific creed and form of existence) as follows: (1) By reducing the worker's need to the barest and most miserable level of physical subsistence, and by reducing his activity to the most abstract mechanical movement; thus he says: Man has no other need either of activity or of enjoyment. For he declares that this life, too, is human life and existence. (2) By counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard - general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need - be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity - seems to him a luxury. Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving - and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. . . . Thus political economy - despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance - is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save - the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour - your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything which the political economist takes from you in life and humanity, he replaces for you in money and wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can
Re: Greed
David Shemano wrote: Is Marx making an empirical point? Yes. It's an empirical claim about the psychology dominant in capitalism. The idea of greed' as an irrational passion is ancient. As Marx points out in Capital, it can be found in Aristotle. Aristotle opposes Oeconomic to Chrematistic. He starts from the former. So far as it is the art of gaining a livelihood, it is limited to procuring those articles that are necessary to existence, and useful either to a household or the state. True wealth (o aleqinos ploutos) consists of such values in use; for the quantity of possessions of this kind, capable of making life pleasant, is not unlimited. There is, however, a second mode of acquiring things, to which we may by preference and with correctness give the name of Chrematistic, and in this case there appear to be no limits to riches and possessions. Trade (e kapelike is literally retail trade, and Aristotle takes this kind because in it values in use predominate) does not in its nature belong to Chrematistic, for here the exchange has reference only to what is necessary to themselves (the buyer or seller). Therefore, as he goes on to show, the original form of trade was barter, but with the extension of the latter, there arose the necessity for money. On the discovery of money, barter of necessity developed into kapelike , into trading in commodities, and this again, in opposition to its original tendency, grew into Chrematistic, into the art of making money. Now Chrematistic is distinguishable from Oeconomic in this way, that in the case of Chrematistic circulation is the source of riches poietike crematon ... dia chrematon diaboles . And it appears to revolve about money, for money is the beginning and end of this kind of exchange ( to nomisma stoiceion tes allages estin ). Therefore also riches, such as Chrematistic strives for, are unlimited. Just as every art that is not a means to an end, but an end in itself, has no limit to its aims, because it seeks constantly to approach nearer and nearer to that end, while those arts that pursue means to an end, are not boundless, since the goal itself imposes a limit upon them, so with Chrematistic, there are no bounds to its aims, these aims being absolute wealth. Oeconomic not Chrematistic has a limit ... the object of the former is something different from money, of the latter the augmentation of money By confounding these two forms, which overlap each other, some people have been led to look upon the preservation and increase of money ad infinitum as the end and aim of Oeconomic. (Aristoteles, De Rep. edit. Bekker, lib. l. c. 8, 9. passim.) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm) Ted
Re: Greed
David S. writes: Is Marx making an empirical point? Based upon observation, capitalists are motivated by greed? Or is it a definitional point -- under capitalism, capitalists by definition are motivated by greed. For instance, let's hypothesize a man who decides in his youth that there is a Rembrandt that he loves and wants to own. So he decides to become rich enough to buy the Rembrandt and then spends a lifetiime engaging in capitalist acts until he is sufficiently wealthy to buy the Rembrandt, at which time he sells his business and buys the Rembrandt. Now, while we can criticize this man for being possessive, exclusionary, etc., I would suggest he is not motivated by greed in the colloquial sense or even in the sense that Marx seems to be using the term. So he is not a capitalist? David Shemano From a certain theoretical standpoint--and I'm talking mainstream theory, not Marxist--these questions are irrelevant. Given competitive markets (or indeed, just competitive markets for firm equity shares), it can be shown that, whatever their personal consumption goals, people who own equity shares in a given firm will want that firm to maximize profits. So to the extent that firm managers respond to the concerns of equity holders, they will act as though greedy--that is, operate the firm so as to maximize (the expected present value of) profit. These theoretical results vindicate and give a precise interpretation for Marx claim that it doesn't really matter what individual capitalists want to do--Capital wants to accrue profit (in Marxian terms, surplus value). Gil
Re: Greed
Gil Skillman wrote: From a certain theoretical standpoint--and I'm talking mainstream theory, not Marxist--these questions are irrelevant. Given competitive markets (or indeed, just competitive markets for firm equity shares), it can be shown that, whatever their personal consumption goals, people who own equity shares in a given firm will want that firm to maximize profits. So to the extent that firm managers respond to the concerns of equity holders, they will act as though greedy--that is, operate the firm so as to maximize (the expected present value of) profit. These theoretical results vindicate and give a precise interpretation for Marx claim that it doesn't really matter what individual capitalists want to do--Capital wants to accrue profit (in Marxian terms, surplus value). Greed in this context can't be translated into instrumentally rational profit maximization. It's an irrational passion characteristic of a subjectivity produced by the internal social relations that constitute capitalism. The irrationality, which will be found to some degree in the means as well as the end, can't, for this reason, be competed away, It's immanent in these relations. What rational individuals, as Marx (again following an ancient tradition in ethics and aesthetics) understands rational, will want is life in the realm in freedom. Ted
Re: Greed
Ted Winslow wrote: Greed in this context can't be translated into instrumentally rational profit maximization. Ted, all this squishy talk makes economists nervous. Doug
Sabri Oncu's response to Greed
Gil Skillman wrote: So to the extent that firm managers respond to the concerns of equity holders, they will act as though greedy--that is, operate the firm so as to maximize (the expected present value of) profit. I believe Gil meant expected present value of future cash flows/net income/residual income or some such thing, assuming that the managers' compensation schemes are sufficiently goal congruent, that is, sufficiently strong to induce them to follow that path. But why is the below so certain: Given competitive markets (or indeed, just competitive markets for firm equity shares), it can be shown that, whatever their personal consumption goals, people who own equity shares in a given firm will want that firm to maximize profits. For example, what if suddenly the shares of the Nesin Foundation in Turkey, which houses orphans and funds their education until they are able to earn their own bread, become competitive because a large number of people become interested in owning its shares since the foundation pays more to the orphans that they are dieing to help than other competing foundations? The more the funds the foundations spend on the orphans, the more expensive their shares get, since those who are willing the help the orphans have more to pay to these funds to satiate their locally non-satiable utilities by helping the orphans. In this case, wouldn't the Nesin foundation want to maximize its loss which, unless there are some contraints, is infinite? May Aziz Nesin, the founder of the Nesin Foundation, one of the greates writers of all times of my part of the world, rest in peace. Sabri -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
the speed of greed
Bank loses £100m in two-minute frenzy Jill Treanor and Neil Hume Saturday September 21, 2002 The Guardian More than £50bn was added to the stock market value of Britain's 100 biggest companies yesterday in an unprecedented 20-minute burst of trading which left at least one big City firm nursing a loss of up to £100m. Most of the activity took place in a frantic two-minute period which stunned City veterans and pushed trading systems close to collapse. The FTSE 100 blue chip index endured a 300-point swing in the busiest trading day on record when more than double the normal activity took place. In the turmoil: · One dealer made a £1m profit on BP, the oil company and biggest company in Britain, in two minutes · Another at Lehman, the US investment bank, was rumoured to have made £600,000 in three minutes in trading in Lattice, the gas pipeline company, and Next, the high street retailer · One investor made £30,000 selling shares in chemicals company Johnson Matthey as the price rocketed · The market value of 3i, the country's biggest private equity firm, almost doubled to £5bn · £24bn was added to the market capitalisation of BP and Shell, Europe's biggest oil companies, in two minutes · At the same time Rolls-Royce jumped 35% while accounting software group Sage went up 66% In the 20-minute period £3.2bn worth of shares changed hands, more than often takes place during an entire working day. The volume of activity was so large that prices of shares were delayed as some computer systems across the City failed to cope with the number of deals. Two big City firms, Swiss-owned Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB) and Germany's Deutsche Bank were thought to have been at the centre of the action. Neither firm would comment last night but some traders said they believed that costly mistakes had been made, particularly at CSFB. According to market insiders, a trader at CSFB mistakenly entered an order to buy £1.2bn worth of shares twice - or even three times - into his bank's dealing system, leaving a loss of £100m. The mistake was the opportunity for other traders in the market to make huge profits as the deal propelled the FTSE 100 index sharply higher. Sources at CSFB tried to play down any suggestion that the trade had been an error or that losses had been made. However, this failed to quash the rumours of anger and recrimination at the bank's headquarters at Canary Wharf. The London stock exchange said it was looking into the unusual share price movement while the financial services authority, the City regulator, was monitoring the situation. The London stock exchange insisted that its systems had not buckled under the volume of business. But what goes up usually comes down: the FTSE 100 index hit a high of 4,060 and a low of 3,755 before ending 46 points up at 3,860, breaking a three-day losing streak.
DC Sept 25-29th WB/IMF Actions! QUARANTINE corporate greed!
please circulate widely Call to Action! September 25th - 29th in Washington, DC STOP Infectious Corporate Greed! CONFRONT Corporate Evil-doers at their CEO Summit! QUARANTINE the World Bank and IMF on Saturday, September 28th Get Plugged-in at www.globalizethis.com or call 202-452-5912 The International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and related elites are gathering in Washington, DC from September 25th to the 29th to discuss how to continue the destructive path of corporate globalization. They think that bankers should write the rules of the global economy and put profits ahead of local communities, workers, the environment, human rights, justice and future generations. Right now, their actions in South America threaten to drag the world down in a global depression and cost untold millions their jobs. Obviously, these policies are sick and we plan to protect the rest of the world from them by symbolically quarantining these diseased institutions until they learn basic respect for democracy, justice and the earth. Join us for 5 days of marches, rallies, creative actions, workshops, trainings and teach-ins with voices of hope and dignity from around the world. Following the lead of the grassroots uprising in Argentina we will share our organizing and strategies for building stronger movements for justice. Come share your vision and help turn this autumn into the corporate fall and eradicate the disease of corporate greed from the globe! --- For more details, read on . . . --- Now is the Moment to Voice our Dissent to Profits-over-People! Over the last three years, hundreds of thousands of North Americans have joined the Global Justice Movement by rallying, marching and engaging in mass non-violent direct action. We've shown our opposition to the globalization of corporate greed, destruction and control. We've shown that a world based on true democracy, dignity, justice and ecological sanity is possible. WE ARE WINNING! Over the last year, our movement around the world has grown, just as dramatically as the veneer of corporate America has been tarnished. In Barcelona, 300,000 rallied against the economic policies of the European Union. In Argentina, millions have protested the IMF's policies over the last year. In Peru, tens of thousands protested electricity privatization. In Lesotho, thousands protested three World Bank dam projects. Already in Ecuador tens of thousands of people are preparing for mass actions against the next Free Trade Agreement of the Americas meeting set to happen in Quito in October. Meanwhile in the United States, corporate America has exposed its own avarice and corruption by cheating workers and pensioners out of millions. It's time to show the world that the Global Justice Movement is stronger, smarter and more relevant than ever. With our actions we will reveal that scandals like Enron (one of the World Bank's favorite partners) are just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, it's not just a few bad corporate apples -- it's a rotten tree and we plan to uproot it by building a people's globalization movement to fight for a real democracy, ecological sanity and global justice! Globalize Justice : Another World Is Possible! . If you think the unchecked power of corporate greed is a threat to democracy, freedom and the future of the planet . If you are saddened by polluted land, water, and air... . If you have grown weary of representatives that do not represent and institutions that do not serve people... . If your heart has grown heavy in the face of distinctions based on power over others, sexism, racism, homophobia... . If you are dismayed with participation in a system that brings untold wealth to the doorsteps of a few by stealing bread from the tables of many... . If you are appalled by excuses that place profits before the lives of millions of people living with HIV... . If you know in your heart and mind that a just, sane and nonviolent world is possible, and you want to help create it... COME TO DC! We demand that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund: . Open all World Bank and IMF meetings to the media and the public. . Cancel all impoverished country debt to the World Bank and IMF, using the institutions' own resources. . End all World Bank and IMF policies that hinder people's access to food, clean water, shelter, health care, education, and right to organize. (Such structural adjustment policies include user fees, privatization, and economic austerity programs.) . Stop all World Bank support for socially and environmentally destructive projects such as oil, gas, and mining activities, and all support for projects such as dams that include forced relocation of people. We furthermore demand that the United States government, the largest shareholder and most influential government in the World Bank and IMF, adopt the above demands, and work vigorously to compel the World Bank
greed
Title: greed This rightwinger is right, i.e., that much of the revulsion is that of old wealth being repulsed by the grasping of the newly-wealthy and the wannabe wealthy. But there's also a revulsion from those laid off or who have lost their pensions or who lost due to inside trading. It seems to me that greed would be better defined as self-aggrandizement unconstrained by any sense of morality. In any event, the problem isn't greed _per se_ as much as an economic system that rewards people for being greedy and thus encourages them to be so, while allowing sociopaths to rise to the top. Also, it should be mentioned that capitalism (unlike other modes of production) has no natural limit to the accumulation of individual wealth and power... JD -- August 4, 2002 Was Gordon Gekko Right About Greed? By DANIEL AKST N a Tolstoy story titled How Much Land Does a Man Need? a peasant named Pahom who longs for loam is granted his wish by the devil. First he gets 40 acres, then 125. Finally, in his acquisitive hunger, he accepts an offer of as much fertile territory as he can encircle in a day on foot. His cost will be just 1,000 rubles. Of course, his eyes are bigger than his cardiovascular fitness level, and after walking as much land as possible by sunset, he drops dead. Tolstoy answers the title's question in the very last line: Six feet from his head to his heels was all he needed. That parable about greed seems especially relevant today, amid the bear market and the constant eruption of business scandals. The novelist David Gates cited it in a recent Newsweek column. But the joke is on us, because Pahom's story was written by a man who inherited a 4,000-acre estate. (For the record, that's 10 miles around.) What the story really shows is that there is nothing like the dashed material longings of others to bring out humanity's strongest censorious impulses - nothing, that is, but a whiff of financial apocalypse. I tried a search for all the published references to greed of the last 60 days, but there were too many to count. Rest assured that if stocks keep declining, there will be many more - and that they will come mainly from people of means. Greed, it seems, is everywhere. But now that the culture's well-fed opinion makers have uncovered our collective avarice, perhaps we should ask about the nature of this greed that so appalls us. My first instinct was that greed is the term to describe someone else's trying to make money. But that seemed unscientific, so I turned to the dictionary, which defines it as an excessive desire to have or possess more than what one needs or deserves. But what does any of us really need? And, on a more complicated level, what do we deserve? Does anyone have the right to eat in a restaurant when people in Africa are starving? How can society spend money on punditry while others cannot afford health care? All that aside, the definition is interesting because of the lexicographer's agnosticism about how much we already have. The implication is that you can be as rich as Croesus, because the crime here is not having, but wanting. In the Bible, after all, it's not money that is the root of all evil; in his letter to Timothy, Paul wrote that it was the love of money. Americans have never especially warmed to the notion that having is all right, while getting isn't. For one thing, it's bad economics. The world of commerce is not a zero-sum game and, besides, demand is the driver of economic growth. Without demand - for more, better, bigger, faster, prettier - the whole system would collapse, and with it the health and freedoms that only affluence can underwrite. Excess is always a little sickening, but John Updike basically had it right when he suggested that money and sex are alike in this way: only too much is enough. As usual, there is consolation in philosophy. Ivan F. Boesky was probably a little too blunt for comfort when he contended, in his heyday making money on Wall Street, that greed is healthy. (The actor Michael Douglas utters a similar line as Gordon Gekko in the 1987 movie Wall Street.) Of course, we should deplore astronomical C.E.O. paychecks bestowed by chummy boards, or investors who ignore a company's lack of earnings or prospects. Even capitalism has a moral context. But is the baseball shortstop Alex Rodriguez greedy for getting a $252 million contract from the Texas Rangers - a willing buyer in an open market? Similarly, is anyone greedy for seeking the highest possible investment returns? The system will survive; corporate reforms will occur, seemingly working until the next round of market panic and scandal. And the market will go up again, as it always has. When will that be? Nobody knows, of course. And even if I did, I wouldn't say. I'm too greedy, just like everyone else. Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
Re: greed
Devine, James wrote: It seems to me that greed would be better defined as self-aggrandizement unconstrained by any sense of morality. As a technical term for use among marxists and semi-marxists I would agree with this definition. (And in particular with your further point -- below -- about the system that rewards, I would say _demands_ greed.) But in _general_ use definitions (or their range of reference) can't be imposed and/or contained. And I think the general usage of greed is one marxists can't accept. True, whenever the 'excessive' misbehavior of the wealthy becomes a topic of headlines, greed gets applied to the wealthy. But this is an aberration. Under normal conditions the phrase greedy workers is very nearly a tautology in popular usage. Hence I think we should be very cautious in our use of the word. Carrol In any event, the problem isn't greed _per se_ as much as an economic system that rewards people for being greedy and thus encourages them to be so, while allowing sociopaths to rise to the top. Also, it should be mentioned that capitalism (unlike other modes of production) has no natural limit to the accumulation of individual wealth and power... JD
nfectious greed
Title: nfectious greed [was: RE: [PEN-L:28127] Re: do recessions have a good side?] And yet, in AG's latest quotable, the blame falls on infectious greed. poor old AG. How can he reconcile his Ayn Randite tradition -- which worships greed -- with his new disdain for it? JD
Re: nfectious greed
poor old AG. How can he reconcile his Ayn Randite tradition -- which worships greed -- with his new disdain for it? JD Actually, she doesn't worship greed. At bottom, she's a capitalist stakhanovite: all her good characters are selfish but workaholics. What she is incapable of acknowledging is the contribution of the working class. This led her into quite a conundrum in Atlas Shrugged where she documents a the successful strike of the intellectuals and entrepreneurs. The reason the strike is succesful is because they create a mysterious source of infinite energy that they are able to tap into. In real life the mysterious source of infinite energy is the working class: be they galley slaves, industrial workers, or what have you; but in the Randite universe, this becomes a black box...and stays that way. Yeah, I read every book she wrote. But, I have an excuse. I was eleven and a social outcast. Joanna
Re: nfectious greed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/17/02 15:29 PM [was: RE: [PEN-L:28127] Re: do recessions have a good side?] And yet, in AG's latest quotable, the blame falls on infectious greed. poor old AG. How can he reconcile his Ayn Randite tradition -- which worships greed -- with his new disdain for it? JD yesterday's 'irrational exuberance' is today's 'illogical despondency'? not sure 'greed' - excessive desire - fits into randian framework... if memory serves, rand believed in 'objective, rational order' (making rather odd use of aristotlean thomist thought) in which rational life was pursuit of pure egoism by each individual, positing idea as 'virtue of selfishness', doctrine holds that one's own life and survival are sole criteria of value, thus, egoism is only basis to ethics (which she called 'objectivism'), rational life is purely self- interested, capitalism is only socio-economic arrangement suitable for such a life, blah, blah, blah... michael hoover
Greed Surfaces
from SLATE: The [Washington POST] runs this comment from the attorney representing Scott Waddle, the skipper of the Navy sub that surfaced into a Japanese fishing boat killing nine of its crew, about a possible book or movie deal for Waddle: It would be an appropriate way for Scott to be rewarded for what has been an incredibly difficult time. the poor dear! that will teach the Japanese for attacking our sub. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Greed Surfaces
- Original Message - From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 2:12 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11008] Greed Surfaces from SLATE: The [Washington POST] runs this comment from the attorney representing Scott Waddle, the skipper of the Navy sub that surfaced into a Japanese fishing boat killing nine of its crew, about a possible book or movie deal for Waddle: It would be an appropriate way for Scott to be rewarded for what has been an incredibly difficult time. the poor dear! that will teach the Japanese for attacking our sub. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine == But if the Feds lease/rent the sub for the film they'll recoup court costs on the torts, heck they may turn a profit. Ian
Re: [fla-left] Greed fuels the stampede to Hurricane Alley (fwd)
As Mike Davis points out, we have the same problem here in LA with the government encouraging rich people to live in fire- and mudslide-prone areas like Malibu. This is the famous moral hazard problem. At 10:38 AM 8/8/00 -0400, you wrote: -- Published Sunday, August 6, 2000, in the Miami Herald CARL HIAASEN Greed fuels the stampede to Hurricane Alley August marks another queasy anniversary of Hurricane Andrew, the costliest natural disaster in the country's history. If a storm of similar magnitude hammers the coast this year, the results likely will be even more catastrophic and deadly. Hundreds of thousands of potential new victims have migrated to the Atlantic and Gulf shores since 1992, when Andrew creamed parts of Florida and Louisiana. Despite the well-publicized increase in hurricane activity, oceanfront real-estate sales are booming. Never before have so many people so blithely placed themselves in harm's way. It's not only the lure of the sea but the promise of future reimbursement that brings newcomers. Government policy fosters development on high-risk coastal zones, wetlands and barrier islands by essentially subsidizing those who, in the face of dire predictions, elect to live there. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Los Angeles, the city of your future: the city of smog, traffic jams at 2 a.m., unfinished, incoherent, and very expensive subway systems, earthquakes, modern slavery, wildfires, mudslides sinkholes, civil disturbances (a.k.a. riots or rebellions), chaotic schools, OJ, the Menendi, and Heidi Fleiss (daughter of our nephew's pediatrician).
[fla-left] Greed fuels the stampede to Hurricane Alley (fwd)
forwarded by Michael Hoover -- Published Sunday, August 6, 2000, in the Miami Herald CARL HIAASEN Greed fuels the stampede to Hurricane Alley August marks another queasy anniversary of Hurricane Andrew, the costliest natural disaster in the country's history. If a storm of similar magnitude hammers the coast this year, the results likely will be even more catastrophic and deadly. Hundreds of thousands of potential new victims have migrated to the Atlantic and Gulf shores since 1992, when Andrew creamed parts of Florida and Louisiana. Despite the well-publicized increase in hurricane activity, oceanfront real-estate sales are booming. Never before have so many people so blithely placed themselves in harm's way. It's not only the lure of the sea but the promise of future reimbursement that brings newcomers. Government policy fosters development on high-risk coastal zones, wetlands and barrier islands by essentially subsidizing those who, in the face of dire predictions, elect to live there. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for instance, spends about $80 million a year replenishing beaches that nature nibbles away. Artificial beach restoration enhances property values, which in turn spurs more coastal construction. The closer you get to the ocean, the more you pay for land. Meanwhile, ironically, the ocean is getting closer to you. From New York to Key West, sea levels are rising steadily to reclaim the shore inch by inch. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) estimates that about 30,000 single-family homes and condos are on coastal tracts that will be submerged by 2030. One could reasonably argue that anybody who lives on a beach is surely aware of the risks, and is free to take a chance against weather, erosion and rising oceans. The government goes farther than that. It compensates homeowners who fall victim to their own arrogance, ignorance or misplaced optimism. The program is national flood insurance, and it's sold to those who live in such imminent danger of being swamped that no private insurer will go near them. Many folks with government flood protection never report a claim. Others file again and again. According to a recent series in USA Today, one piece of property in Houston has been the subject of 16 federal flood claims that so far have paid out $807,000. Remarkable, for a property valued at only $114,480. FEMA officials have fought to curtail beach replenishment and sharply limit development that ruins crucial natural drainages. Congress has repeatedly refused to act. Huge money is at stake. Banks, land speculators, builders, highway contractors -- all of them get rich off waterfront projects, and all have clout with politicians. Witness the fierce struggle required to pass a minimally sensible building code here in Florida. At issue was nothing less than the safety of millions of families, yet industry lobbyists came disgracefully close to gutting the law. National flood insurance has been tightened in recent years, but not enough. It's absurd that fellow taxpayers must bail out those of us, like myself, who've chosen to live on a flood zone in hurricane alley. Cutting federal flood benefits won't happen, though. It would discourage banks from financing oceanfront property, which would slow coastal building. Profits always win out over common sense. Those now stampeding to America's shorelines figure the move isn't so risky. If a hurricane comes, Uncle Sam will pay up to $350,000 to rebuild their splintered dream home, which they will have safely evacuated in advance of the surge. Or maybe not. So densely populated is the U.S. coastal hurricane corridor that some experts believe evacuation might be more perilous than riding out the weather. FLOYD'S WILD EXODUS Last year, three million people across the South headed inland to escape Hurricane Floyd. The wild exodus gridlocked interstate highways, leaving some evacuees stranded in traffic for 18 hours. If the storm had veered ashore, many would have died in their cars. No wonder the mood among hurricane experts is one of glum resignation. Disaster is inevitable. Those who should have listened didn't. People's mad dash to relocate at the ocean's edge -- and lawmakers' cowardly refusal to curb it -- shows how quickly Andrew was forgotten. Consequently, the most destructive storm in history is destined to become the second most destructive. The big question, as always, is when.
