Greed is not good or bad. Greed is merely a fact of the human condition and we should live in a society that has the institutions to best harness that greed for the benefit of all.
I agree. However, Williams is an economist, and we all know that an economist will never become president. Why? Well, economists think too rationally - they would make too many "unpopular" decisions that would be "unfair," even though they would truly help everyone. The funny thing about "fairness" and "equity" is that each person has their own definition of it. As Williams says, "Do-gooders fail to realize that most good is not done in the name of good." Equity for one is force to another.
The point is that many people out there attach the word "greed," with its negative definition (as you said), to the actions of people who aren't "greedy." People pursuing their own self-interest isn't negative. Thus, they're not "greedy," unless you view that word with new light. That's the point Williams, and many other economists, try to get across. That was and is the beauty of Adam Smith - people pursuing their own self-interests benefit all of society, not just their personal self.
The word greed means what the word greed means. It is not to be confused with the word ambition. Greed is not good. Greed is selfish ambition, and no perversion of it's definition will change what the word means to those who speak the English language. God tells us that greed is wrong. I pray that he will show you the light soon, so that your heart can rest free from the sin and the weight of trying to justify that sin.
@@bossman6798 the Bible is mainly talking about covetousness when it addresses greed. I also notice that older Bible’s would use the word covetousness where newer Bible’s use the word greed.
@@bossman6798 listen to what Walter Williams is saying. The ranchers in Texas put the people in New York first. Not because they love New Yorkers per se, but because they have an incentive to gather as much as they can for their own homes and families.
Greed is not good. But greed is a reality, and in spite of millennia of trying to teach people to suppress it, it's just as strong as ever. We have two choices: we can _harness_ greed and turn it into a force that motivates people to do good (through the free market) or we can pretend we're smart enough to make it magically vanish and let it ruin our society while we pretend we're not just sweeping it under the rug.
@@Angrycapitalist Spot on, and as @BladeOfLight16 puts it, it's a reality to be "harnessed". We must respect and understand our nature in order to harness it; suppressing it has always been futile.
Ephesians 5: 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person-such a person is an idolater-has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.[a] 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
“The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge in mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.”
I think you just stated the foundation for Jesus' famous commandment... Love your neighbor as yourself.... If one doesn't take care of himself and his own, his neighbor probably needs a security system😢
There's always an incentive to make repairs. #1 ... you don't want to live in a heap, right? #2 ... you never know what's going to happen in your life. You might get a great opportunity and need to move very suddenly, and if you do, you're going to want as much money out of your home as possible so that you can buy the best home possibly where you're moving to. #3 ... aside from the value of your home, you also want your home to be SAFE to live in. You don't want your roof to rot and drop boards
this guy is brilliant. That being said, greed is by definition negative. If all these economists and financiers would just replace the word greed, with 'desire,' they would make more sense. Greed is by definition, an irrational amount of desire, that will actually result in actions that will result in a net loss. All of the 'sins' are based on ratios. Lust is too much sexual desire. Gluttony is too much hunger. It is all about the correct amount.
I'll be sure to inform the brilliant professor Williams of your concerns next time I see him😁 The Man simply stated the facts of reality... Sins are defined by The Ten Commandments... Not the reformed churches😮 And if we remain on track with the video, Proverbs has a thing or two to say about the foolishness of not taking care of your own property. Greed... A term applied to the *haves*, by the *have nots*.. A word of *accusation*... Made by those who are *actually* sinning, by coveting someone else's stuff... That's number 10 BTW 👍 An ironic joke by a man that has preached against the welfare state for a long time... Because of the damage it does.
Williams rocks! Read some of his columns; he's a regular contributor to the Conservative Chronicle. Good stuff and easy to understand (just like this speech).
I believe that everything has its good side and its bad side, but if you know how to handle the bad side turning it into something favorable, you have already won
There are 2 ways for a monopoly to exist. ALL of the monopolies in the U.S. are created through regulation and government force. The other way a monopoly can exist is if one provider can provide at a cost lower than all of his competition. Low prices are good for customers, so this isn't a problem. If the provider uses his position of monopoly to try to increase his price, competitors will join the market and bring the price down again. It's a self correcting mechanism.
rather than from a long disease (when he'd have more time to think what's the greediest thing he can do with the house). Or.. the less likely situation, that he maintains some semblance of humanity and does something beneficial for humanity. I think we've all seen what unrestrained greed leads to in the financial collapse of 2008. And THAT is some logic for you.
You don't think he want's liberty for himself? By securing liberty for himself, he can't help but provide it for future generations ... but that doesn't mean his motivation is the future.
In a truly free market, If Isaac Newton were greedy he could have had indefinite intellectual property rights to the Principia Mathematica. Which means that anything manufactured afterward that was based on modern physics (ie. probably 99% of everything we have in the modern world) would have been (at least partly) monopolized by Isaac Newton's descendants (had he had any). Luckily, there are some people who are not greedy, and they are responsible for the scientific advancement of humanity.
It was implicit in his talk, but greed is good only insofar as the institutions of freedom, like private property and markets are available. But yes, when they are available, then greed is without intention the noblest sentiment.
You're taking it too literally. Either that or you missed the point. The reason "greed" is good - acting in your own self-interest - is because it can benefit third parties and ultimately all of society when self-interests are summed together. The example you gave of a moocher is different because they're free-riding, not creating a positive byproduct for third parties. As far as the notion of "greed being bad" coming from Christian religion, first you must show its nonexistence prior.
Yall need to use your reason and not just your intelligence! The arguments such as " i don't care about the future generation because it hasn't done anything for me" sounds like something true to say. In fact it is true, as much as the people who say i don't want to take care of my parents when they are old because i haven't asked them to be born" although it may be true it's not reasonable. We human use reason, our intelligence suppose to be used for progressing not destroying the world.
Professor Williams has preached against the welfare state for decades... Greed is a term used by the "less fortunate", to describe the "lucky"... People have called him a greedy sell out for a long time... But as he said... He is acting in his own *enlightened self-interest*.... In other words, he's not stupid 😎... He's educating. 🎉
When your only motivations are greed and cynicism, and you know you're going to die soon, you do whatever you can get away with. This means that you do a shoddy work on the house (with the least amount of investment on your part) before you sell it as if it is in perfect condition. Then you take the money and spend it in the most wasteful way possible.
I don't see anyone coming up with an alternative to the transistor - that was invented in 1902. I also don't see anyone coming up with an alternative to Newton's laws of physics. In a real free market Newton could have claimed his laws of physics to be intellectual property which he could have held right to FOREVER. Despite what you may think, the market cannot magically alter the laws of physics. In a real free market everything you own would have been produced by the Newton Corp. monopoly.
And look at how the market has reacted to it. 20 years ago no one knew what an "organic grocery store" was. Now they pop up all over the place. People are starting to recognize that their food isn't worth what they're paying for it, and they're moving their business to places who provide real food. The market is auto-correcting without the need for government intervention or regulation. When people want a better product, they'll go find it, and someone will provide it because they want the money
So his doctor tells him he has 3 weeks to live, and he stops making improvements FOR THREE WEEKS. I seriously doubt his house is going to fall into disrepair within 3 weeks or 3 months for that matter. This point is not valid. Within the free market all transactions are VOLUNTARY. In order to get someone to volunteer to make a transaction with you, you MUST provide a good or service that individual wants or needs, and at a price he's willing to pay. Greed makes you a servant to customers.
I don't know what makes you think that a cold greedy and cynical calculation somehow leads to the optimal results for society. In economics there's something called Opportunity Cost. As I said if he dies suddenly, he may (or may not) want to repair the house. But if his doctor tells him he has a terminal illness and he only has 3 months (or weeks) to live, he's definitely not going to spend that time repairing his house. He'd probably do something extremely wasteful to go out with a bang.
monopolies don't have to meet the demand of consumers, they only have to maximize their profits. A truly free market means IP and patents would work the same way as private property. Which means it's yours FOREVER, unless you decide to sell it. But why would you want to sell your monopoly? No contradictions here.
This is the underlying misconception. To you, greed is simply evil. End of story. It's what we hear al the time - we have shining examples of excessive greed in government, business, and with individuals. However, the reality is that there is no such thing as "good vs. evil" - all people are greedy to some extent. Greed and the pursuit of self-interest is inherent in our evolution as a species. To label greed as being a "bad thing" is simply an excuse for your personal belief.
I'm not surprised that someone who's admittedly driven by greed and cynicism would also resort to plain deceit, like you just did. You were unable to defend a single point you've made. Which means that my argument stands: In a free market, if people are primarily motivated by greed they would do whatever they can get away with. Which brings us to the corrupt state of affairs we're in, and to the financial crisis of 2008.
Except of course for the fact that these days patents are time LIMITED, but as long as the patent holds (this is particularly the case in the pharmaceutical industry) there is a natural monopoly. If patents were eternal, there would have been an eternal monopoly. If Bell Labs held eternal patent rights, electronic devices that have transistors in them (ie. practically ALL electronic devices) would have been under the monopoly of AT&T.
@Illyrien Greed is word that has a negative connotation, related to evil, ilegal and imoral issues (e.g. wanting your neighbour's wife). Self Interest, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily have that connotation (e.g. wanting to mary a beautiful woman). We don't associate people aiming to be prosperous and productive as Greedy; we call them FREE. Liberty, and free will, promote good virtues!!!
You've still missed the point. You have a monopoly on YOUR FORMULA, but if someone comes up with another formula to fix the same problem, you now have competition in the market, which brings down prices for consumers. If an entrepreneur in a free market sees potential for profit, he will find a way to bring a product to market, and market forces will work in favor of consumers, as always. Monopolies are fleeting in a real free market. It is government protectionism which makes them last longer.
And what do you propose can stand against that, and prevent it from taking root? The benevolence of a bought politician who's working for big business and unions?
Wow, you sure know how to fill a man's mouth with words he never said. Kind of discredits you. Of course people should have property rights, and of course there should be courts to rule on property rights and damages. Just because you have a patent doesn't mean you're going to have a monopoly on a market. Take viagra for example. For a very short time they were the only player in the game, technically a monopoly, but as soon as entrepreneurs realized opportunity Lavitra and Cialis joined in.
What if you have a patent on the product, or intellectual property? Then by definition you cannot have competitors using that product/intellectual property. Or maybe you don't believe in indefinite intellectual property or indefinite patents. In that case, please explain how these are any different than indefinite rights to any other kind property (hint: they're not).
He doesn't plan to live in that house until he dies. Few people believe they'll live in the same house until they're dead. At some point he does plan to sell it, and when he does, he'll want the best possible price. Try using a little logic and imagination.
Let's see, greed, cynicism, and now conceit. Great values you got there. Clearly I don't know what I'm talking about, I only have a Degree in Economics. You seem to think that a truly free market magically solves all the problems, but that's just not how things work. How does the free market prevent monopolies? How about intellectual property or patents? Or spillover costs? It doesn't. How does a truly free market prevent Goldman Sachs from screwing over their customers?
Look at the quality of your food in the stores. When the goal is getting the highest possible yields and profits this comes at the expense of the food's nutrition content. Vitamins & minerals declined over 20% on many vegetables since 1975. Eggs contain 59% less vitamin A, 20% less iron. When the motivation is greed, you do what you can get away with, and it shows. You're just afraid to look for some reason.
You contradicted yourself. A truly free market, where government cannot regulate patents or intellectual property, would not allow a monopoly to exist due to the nature of unrestricted competition trying to meet the demands of the consumer.
Or maybe you're suggesting here that the free market itself can decide for *how long* you can hold a patent or intellectual property. In that case, can the free market also decide for how long you own any other property? Again, your idea of a free market system (driven by greed) - totally collapses when it's taken to its logical conclusion.
This is why their message hasn't taken much traction over the years. They tried to appropriate words that don't have a positive colloquial connotation, and tried to make them mean what they didn't. Yaron Brook is still to an extent doing this too. Even with words like "selfishness", for example, which colloquially is a negative word, but which also has positive/neutral connotations, communicating it like it's a virtue is a fundamental mistake. Their communication was fundamentally flawed in that sense, and also in the dryness of how they expressed certain ideas. The intellectuals and the less reactionary of mind, may stop to think about what they're saying, and will likely not take them in bad faith if they don't immediately get what they're saying. But the rest of the people might not react that way. That's the fundamental mistake: while their economic vision is on the same page with human nature, their communication isn't. It's not in our nature to not value others -- we'd be an extinct species if that was true, and the fundamental _problem-solving_ core of the free markets wouldn't work reliably either -- it's just in our nature to value ourselves (and our loved ones) over others, as well as to be competitive. As for the word "greed", it just doesn't mean what he's trying to convey. Being greedy isn't being selfish, although selfishness is involved in anything you do (even if you think you're being selfless, you're doing that because YOU would feel bad if you didn't). Greediness is the motivation behind unethical practices, stepping on other people's toes, cheating, stealing, etc; not the motivation that makes you want to win or be successful or wealthy. It's easy to illustrate this with sports or games and videogames: being greedy is the antithesis of playing smart, and it usually doesn't pay off, because playing smart is what you have to do to win. Often players admit to having lost because they were greedy rather than strategic or patient. And playing smart *is* a selfish motivation because it stems from the determination to favor your own victory over everyone else's, but without forfeiting the discipline required to overcome greed. That said, using the word selfishness when the colloquial interpretation isn't your own, is a mistake, unless you always make sure that everyone listening understands that you're using a different interpretation. But that, at the end of the day, is kind of like swimming against the current. You might more easily put your ideas in different terms and have them understood more readily with little explanation and get more people's attention. Keep Occam's Razor in mind. However, he's right in that even the most greedy person, if they haven't indulged in theft or fraud, then their wealth and success can only have been achieved by selling something that made people's lives better.
Ambition is a word that exists for intellectuals. And intellectuals can reject the use of the word greed here as greed is a word that represents unhealthy and unfounded ambition that is detrimental to others.
Ambition is a word that exists for intellectuals. And intellectuals can rebuke the use of the word greed here as the word greed represents a particularly insatiable and ravenous ambition that is detrimental to others. Greed can even but unambitious. In the work Beowulf, for example, we see the dragon and his mighty hoard of gold. The dragon is discribed as greedy but the dragon is contempt to remain in his lair with out the desire to accumulate more, but rather prefers to gaurd the treasure so he can keep it for himself. This goes without saying obviously, but a fire breathing dragon has no need for gold or treasure. So I propose to you that perhaps you, and the man in this video are both misinterpreting the word greed.
@@bossman6798 Sorry, youtube didn't notify me of your reply. Well, like I said, I was running with the colloquial interpretation of what greed is. That interpretation is what most people will more readily lean toward. And that interpretation isn't just that it can be detrimental to others, but also often to one's self. The dragon in stories is usually just a representation of an obstacle that stands between the hero and the object of his desires. I don't remember ever hearing the dragon being described as greedy. It's don't think it's ever meant to represent greed, anyway, and indeed like you said, he has no use for gold. A realistic explanation might point to him liking the smell or the looks of it, or something of that sort.
Your private property also exists by the force and regulation of government. So what are you suggesting? Eliminate government? Total anarchy? Eliminate people's rights to own property (physical, intellectual, or whatever)? You haven't shown how the all mighty free market solves the issue at hand.
The definition of greed is lacking in this video. Pursuing self interest doesn't define greed. Greed I the most derogatory meaning that I think most people identify with the term is hoarding assets that's not rightfully your that is to he gained by any means necessary. That's what most people think greedbis, not Pursuing self interest in the free market.
So while Viagra might have a monopoly on selling VIAGRA, they don't have a monopoly on the boner market. Just like Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the phone market, HP doesn't have a monopoly on the Laptop market, and Oscar Meyer doesn't have a monopoly on the wiener market. If you come up with your own version, you can compete against who ever is already in the market, and competition drives the price down. This is good for consumers.
Also, if you think freedom of speech or the right to bear arms are "natural right" that the Constitution recognizes we already had then clearly you haven't read the Constitution.
If I heard this 5 years ago, I would off turned it off immediately. However, now, understanding liberty and freedom... eventually you understand what factors propagate freedom, liberty, and technology. Greed is just pursuing your own self interest. Of course, anything in excess is dangerous, including greed.
@shaqdaddy11 Conatus. Those who argue against an individual's right to himself and his own agenda are perniciously stoking their own greed, only this time society must acquiesce to "social" or "public" goods (aka the despot's).
Your response is so far from the topic at hand, and so very nonsensical, there really is no response to it. I tell you what ... here's my response: Rutabaga.
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of comprehension. You took what you wanted from my posts. Interesting, you compared yourself to "pedophile"...yet excluded yourself from being compared to a "racist."? Interesting and very revealing of you.
"Greed" is good, in so far as it means enlightened self-interest, -- not narrow self- interest. He's seems to essentially be talking about the former and not the latter. A key word used here is "conserving".
If he really believes greed is good he should have helped Trump and Paul Ryan write there new tax plan that will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit for the next 10 years
If the military only operated this way. Soldiers sent off to a foreign land putting their lives on the line; not because of any ideals of patriotism, freedom or sanctity of life but all because they are there for the money. The military is only fighting because they expect a huge financial profit out of it. Of course soldiers should be compensated for risk of life and limb, but let's take that angle to its extreme. Every army only works for the highest bidder and if you can't afford their services, they will turn and get employed by your enemy. Soldiers are willing to betray their squad mates as soon as they think that the opposing side has a better offer. With friends like that who needs enemies. Altruism and selflessness are extremely vital parts of a functioning society, and unchecked greed can be a major hindrance from anything getting done.
One good thing about RUclips comments sections... You can come back a few years later and delete that😢... Altruism bankrupts a country... While getting nothing done... 35 trillion in debt... And another bridge collapses😢
@TheZoneRanger ...because it's nonsense...? I'll tell you what. I'll give you a nonsense statement, and you give me a reply so you can see how this works: If we flapjack a herpflippy, I think we can avoid the blappenfurpen scenario. Now you reply to what I wrote and try to make sense of it.
The examples you're giving are really absurd, and nothing your average person is going to do, I personally believe it's just projection on your part, but I digress. Go out and find an actual real world example of someone finding out that they are going to die, and then suddenly doing everything they can to screw over and spite everyone around them, as well as to destroy all of their personal property. If you can find ONE example, I would be shocked.
Look, you keep changing the subject, trying to find a topic that you can make a valid point with. So far you've failed. I'm not going to join your short attention span debate. We both know, as well as anyone who's following this discussion, that your education in economics has failed you. You don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you should take up cross word puzzles. I bet you'd be good at that. Good luck.
2:50 rofl, glad someone else mirrors my response; I hate it when you see those politically-charged oil company ads about alternative energy sources and you have an engineer and a random teacher juxtaposed on the issue as if we give a damn about what the teacher by herself has to say on the issue. The actual, intelligent determinant of what energy we use, how we use it, and how much is determined on the market. Those ads smack of Marxist democratic nonsense.
Load of horseshit. All of the example were of people doing their job, it has nothing to do with greed. Greed is seeking greater wealth at the cost of others.
Why were those people doing their jobs? Because they were greedy, just as we all are. Why do I go into work on Monday morning instead of sleeping in? Because I want a paycheck...because I'm greedy. And the fact that I get out of bed and go to that job ends up providing goods and services to my fellow man which they desire. So there again, my greed benefits society.
You don't get the point. People think that taxes and government intervention are the only way to help and that the free market. In reality, it's the free market that delivers most of the good we have, and it would deliver more if government did not take over certain things.
Greed is not good or bad. Greed is merely a fact of the human condition and we should live in a society that has the institutions to best harness that greed for the benefit of all.
I agree. However, Williams is an economist, and we all know that an economist will never become president. Why? Well, economists think too rationally - they would make too many "unpopular" decisions that would be "unfair," even though they would truly help everyone. The funny thing about "fairness" and "equity" is that each person has their own definition of it. As Williams says, "Do-gooders fail to realize that most good is not done in the name of good." Equity for one is force to another.
You need to go to church. Learn a bit about greed there. And pray that God will have mercy on your soul.
@TheZoneRanger I absolutely disagree. How are they different? Is the church not a for profit business?
👏👏👏👏
@@bossman6798 you must be one of those socialist christians?
@@Get_Yo_Life I am simply a man who follows Christ.
I love Walter Williams. That dude is a samurai.
The point is that many people out there attach the word "greed," with its negative definition (as you said), to the actions of people who aren't "greedy." People pursuing their own self-interest isn't negative. Thus, they're not "greedy," unless you view that word with new light. That's the point Williams, and many other economists, try to get across. That was and is the beauty of Adam Smith - people pursuing their own self-interests benefit all of society, not just their personal self.
The word greed means what the word greed means. It is not to be confused with the word ambition. Greed is not good. Greed is selfish ambition, and no perversion of it's definition will change what the word means to those who speak the English language.
God tells us that greed is wrong. I pray that he will show you the light soon, so that your heart can rest free from the sin and the weight of trying to justify that sin.
@@bossman6798 the Bible is mainly talking about covetousness when it addresses greed. I also notice that older Bible’s would use the word covetousness where newer Bible’s use the word greed.
@@Get_Yo_Life The bible uses the word covet also. So no. Clearly the bible distinguishes the two terms. God does not condone greed.
@@Get_Yo_Life you have to be pretty far astray to believe that the Lord or Christ would approve of putting yourself before others.
@@bossman6798 listen to what Walter Williams is saying. The ranchers in Texas put the people in New York first. Not because they love New Yorkers per se, but because they have an incentive to gather as much as they can for their own homes and families.
Greed is not good. But greed is a reality, and in spite of millennia of trying to teach people to suppress it, it's just as strong as ever. We have two choices: we can _harness_ greed and turn it into a force that motivates people to do good (through the free market) or we can pretend we're smart enough to make it magically vanish and let it ruin our society while we pretend we're not just sweeping it under the rug.
Greed isn't good, but neither is it bad.
@@Angrycapitalist Spot on, and as @BladeOfLight16 puts it, it's a reality to be "harnessed". We must respect and understand our nature in order to harness it; suppressing it has always been futile.
Greed is simply an aspiration to gain wealth. The actions used to gain this wealth will define the individual.
Amazing man, I can't believe I'd never heard of him before
Cuz he's a black man.
Ephesians 5: 5
For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person-such a person is an idolater-has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.[a] 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.
“The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge in mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.”
Well said!! 😎
Greed is only harmful when people don't pay for the cost of their action, which is what happens in the government.
Greed is not good. "Ambition" is good. Getting more doing more is driven by "Ambition" not "greed."
This isn't about "good vs evil." You completely missed the point Williams made.
This man can save Teldar Paper
Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness comes to mind after Williams's initial statements.
If everybody cared about them self everybody would be cared for, thought I think everybody should care for the self the most, then care for others
I think you just stated the foundation for Jesus' famous commandment...
Love your neighbor as yourself....
If one doesn't take care of himself and his own, his neighbor probably needs a security system😢
There's always an incentive to make repairs. #1 ... you don't want to live in a heap, right? #2 ... you never know what's going to happen in your life. You might get a great opportunity and need to move very suddenly, and if you do, you're going to want as much money out of your home as possible so that you can buy the best home possibly where you're moving to. #3 ... aside from the value of your home, you also want your home to be SAFE to live in. You don't want your roof to rot and drop boards
this guy is brilliant. That being said, greed is by definition negative. If all these economists and financiers would just replace the word greed, with 'desire,' they would make more sense.
Greed is by definition, an irrational amount of desire, that will actually result in actions that will result in a net loss.
All of the 'sins' are based on ratios. Lust is too much sexual desire. Gluttony is too much hunger. It is all about the correct amount.
I'll be sure to inform the brilliant professor Williams of your concerns next time I see him😁
The Man simply stated the facts of reality...
Sins are defined by The Ten Commandments...
Not the reformed churches😮
And if we remain on track with the video, Proverbs has a thing or two to say about the foolishness of not taking care of your own property.
Greed... A term applied to the *haves*, by the *have nots*..
A word of *accusation*...
Made by those who are *actually* sinning, by coveting someone else's stuff... That's number 10 BTW 👍
An ironic joke by a man that has preached against the welfare state for a long time...
Because of the damage it does.
In a free market, greed is good. In controlled markets, either communist or cronyist, greed does harm. Equality of opportunity matters.
Williams rocks! Read some of his columns; he's a regular contributor to the Conservative Chronicle. Good stuff and easy to understand (just like this speech).
Walter Williams is brilliant
I believe that everything has its good side and its bad side, but if you know how to handle the bad side turning it into something favorable, you have already won
There are 2 ways for a monopoly to exist. ALL of the monopolies in the U.S. are created through regulation and government force.
The other way a monopoly can exist is if one provider can provide at a cost lower than all of his competition. Low prices are good for customers, so this isn't a problem. If the provider uses his position of monopoly to try to increase his price, competitors will join the market and bring the price down again. It's a self correcting mechanism.
rather than from a long disease (when he'd have more time to think what's the greediest thing he can do with the house). Or.. the less likely situation, that he maintains some semblance of humanity and does something beneficial for humanity.
I think we've all seen what unrestrained greed leads to in the financial collapse of 2008. And THAT is some logic for you.
You don't think he want's liberty for himself? By securing liberty for himself, he can't help but provide it for future generations ... but that doesn't mean his motivation is the future.
In a truly free market, If Isaac Newton were greedy he could have had indefinite intellectual property rights to the Principia Mathematica. Which means that anything manufactured afterward that was based on modern physics (ie. probably 99% of everything we have in the modern world) would have been (at least partly) monopolized by Isaac Newton's descendants (had he had any). Luckily, there are some people who are not greedy, and they are responsible for the scientific advancement of humanity.
Walter Williams
It was implicit in his talk, but greed is good only insofar as the institutions of freedom, like private property and markets are available. But yes, when they are available, then greed is without intention the noblest sentiment.
You're taking it too literally. Either that or you missed the point.
The reason "greed" is good - acting in your own self-interest - is because it can benefit third parties and ultimately all of society when self-interests are summed together. The example you gave of a moocher is different because they're free-riding, not creating a positive byproduct for third parties.
As far as the notion of "greed being bad" coming from Christian religion, first you must show its nonexistence prior.
Yall need to use your reason and not just your intelligence! The arguments such as " i don't care about the future generation because it hasn't done anything for me" sounds like something true to say. In fact it is true, as much as the people who say i don't want to take care of my parents when they are old because i haven't asked them to be born" although it may be true it's not reasonable. We human use reason, our intelligence suppose to be used for progressing not destroying the world.
To win this argument, you have to state that greed is good.
you simply state that it is preferable to violence.
Professor Williams has preached against the welfare state for decades...
Greed is a term used by the "less fortunate", to describe the "lucky"...
People have called him a greedy sell out for a long time...
But as he said... He is acting in his own *enlightened self-interest*.... In other words, he's not stupid 😎...
He's educating. 🎉
When your only motivations are greed and cynicism, and you know you're going to die soon, you do whatever you can get away with. This means that you do a shoddy work on the house (with the least amount of investment on your part) before you sell it as if it is in perfect condition. Then you take the money and spend it in the most wasteful way possible.
I don't see anyone coming up with an alternative to the transistor - that was invented in 1902. I also don't see anyone coming up with an alternative to Newton's laws of physics. In a real free market Newton could have claimed his laws of physics to be intellectual property which he could have held right to FOREVER. Despite what you may think, the market cannot magically alter the laws of physics. In a real free market everything you own would have been produced by the Newton Corp. monopoly.
And look at how the market has reacted to it. 20 years ago no one knew what an "organic grocery store" was. Now they pop up all over the place. People are starting to recognize that their food isn't worth what they're paying for it, and they're moving their business to places who provide real food. The market is auto-correcting without the need for government intervention or regulation. When people want a better product, they'll go find it, and someone will provide it because they want the money
So his doctor tells him he has 3 weeks to live, and he stops making improvements FOR THREE WEEKS. I seriously doubt his house is going to fall into disrepair within 3 weeks or 3 months for that matter. This point is not valid.
Within the free market all transactions are VOLUNTARY. In order to get someone to volunteer to make a transaction with you, you MUST provide a good or service that individual wants or needs, and at a price he's willing to pay. Greed makes you a servant to customers.
I don't know what makes you think that a cold greedy and cynical calculation somehow leads to the optimal results for society. In economics there's something called Opportunity Cost. As I said if he dies suddenly, he may (or may not) want to repair the house. But if his doctor tells him he has a terminal illness and he only has 3 months (or weeks) to live, he's definitely not going to spend that time repairing his house. He'd probably do something extremely wasteful to go out with a bang.
@2:44 that white girl is like omg this makes so much sense.
Why bring up color? Why not just 'the girl'? It make sense because it just makes sense.
From reading her face she looks confused. She doesn’t seem to be behind what he is saying.
monopolies don't have to meet the demand of consumers, they only have to maximize their profits. A truly free market means IP and patents would work the same way as private property. Which means it's yours FOREVER, unless you decide to sell it. But why would you want to sell your monopoly?
No contradictions here.
This is the underlying misconception. To you, greed is simply evil. End of story. It's what we hear al the time - we have shining examples of excessive greed in government, business, and with individuals. However, the reality is that there is no such thing as "good vs. evil" - all people are greedy to some extent. Greed and the pursuit of self-interest is inherent in our evolution as a species. To label greed as being a "bad thing" is simply an excuse for your personal belief.
I'm not surprised that someone who's admittedly driven by greed and cynicism would also resort to plain deceit, like you just did. You were unable to defend a single point you've made. Which means that my argument stands: In a free market, if people are primarily motivated by greed they would do whatever they can get away with. Which brings us to the corrupt state of affairs we're in, and to the financial crisis of 2008.
Except of course for the fact that these days patents are time LIMITED, but as long as the patent holds (this is particularly the case in the pharmaceutical industry) there is a natural monopoly. If patents were eternal, there would have been an eternal monopoly.
If Bell Labs held eternal patent rights, electronic devices that have transistors in them (ie. practically ALL electronic devices) would have been under the monopoly of AT&T.
@Illyrien
Greed is word that has a negative connotation, related to evil, ilegal and imoral issues (e.g. wanting your neighbour's wife).
Self Interest, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily have that connotation (e.g. wanting to mary a beautiful woman).
We don't associate people aiming to be prosperous and productive as Greedy; we call them FREE.
Liberty, and free will, promote good virtues!!!
You've still missed the point.
You have a monopoly on YOUR FORMULA, but if someone comes up with another formula to fix the same problem, you now have competition in the market, which brings down prices for consumers. If an entrepreneur in a free market sees potential for profit, he will find a way to bring a product to market, and market forces will work in favor of consumers, as always. Monopolies are fleeting in a real free market. It is government protectionism which makes them last longer.
And what do you propose can stand against that, and prevent it from taking root? The benevolence of a bought politician who's working for big business and unions?
@UzualSuspekt I think the nicest way to put it is that they believe in equality, even if it means people are worse of on average.
I disagree with Walter Williams! Greed is not good. PERIOD. Walter has a narcissistic world view, and he is a prisoner of his own intellect.
Thank God you're not having to live in a communist country 😭... You can be a whole 180° wrong and still survive for a Time😂
No, I cannot. That is why it is so difficult to argue with you...
Either way, it's still a monopoly that can only exist by the force and regulation of government.
Wow, you sure know how to fill a man's mouth with words he never said. Kind of discredits you.
Of course people should have property rights, and of course there should be courts to rule on property rights and damages. Just because you have a patent doesn't mean you're going to have a monopoly on a market. Take viagra for example. For a very short time they were the only player in the game, technically a monopoly, but as soon as entrepreneurs realized opportunity Lavitra and Cialis joined in.
What if you have a patent on the product, or intellectual property? Then by definition you cannot have competitors using that product/intellectual property. Or maybe you don't believe in indefinite intellectual property or indefinite patents. In that case, please explain how these are any different than indefinite rights to any other kind property (hint: they're not).
He doesn't plan to live in that house until he dies. Few people believe they'll live in the same house until they're dead. At some point he does plan to sell it, and when he does, he'll want the best possible price. Try using a little logic and imagination.
Let's see, greed, cynicism, and now conceit. Great values you got there.
Clearly I don't know what I'm talking about, I only have a Degree in Economics.
You seem to think that a truly free market magically solves all the problems, but that's just not how things work.
How does the free market prevent monopolies? How about intellectual property or patents? Or spillover costs? It doesn't.
How does a truly free market prevent Goldman Sachs from screwing over their customers?
keep yer hands off my stack.
Look at the quality of your food in the stores. When the goal is getting the highest possible yields and profits this comes at the expense of the food's nutrition content. Vitamins & minerals declined over 20% on many vegetables since 1975. Eggs contain 59% less vitamin A, 20% less iron.
When the motivation is greed, you do what you can get away with, and it shows. You're just afraid to look for some reason.
Is the whole talk available?
You contradicted yourself.
A truly free market, where government cannot regulate patents or intellectual property, would not allow a monopoly to exist due to the nature of unrestricted competition trying to meet the demands of the consumer.
"Most good is not done in the name of good"......very well put.
It's really isn't......celebrities tell the whole world about their philanthropy, just to make people believe they are good people.
Is there no true altruism? Is it only ever a byproduct of greed?
Or maybe you're suggesting here that the free market itself can decide for *how long* you can hold a patent or intellectual property. In that case, can the free market also decide for how long you own any other property? Again, your idea of a free market system (driven by greed) - totally collapses when it's taken to its logical conclusion.
This is why their message hasn't taken much traction over the years. They tried to appropriate words that don't have a positive colloquial connotation, and tried to make them mean what they didn't. Yaron Brook is still to an extent doing this too. Even with words like "selfishness", for example, which colloquially is a negative word, but which also has positive/neutral connotations, communicating it like it's a virtue is a fundamental mistake.
Their communication was fundamentally flawed in that sense, and also in the dryness of how they expressed certain ideas.
The intellectuals and the less reactionary of mind, may stop to think about what they're saying, and will likely not take them in bad faith if they don't immediately get what they're saying. But the rest of the people might not react that way. That's the fundamental mistake: while their economic vision is on the same page with human nature, their communication isn't. It's not in our nature to not value others -- we'd be an extinct species if that was true, and the fundamental _problem-solving_ core of the free markets wouldn't work reliably either -- it's just in our nature to value ourselves (and our loved ones) over others, as well as to be competitive.
As for the word "greed", it just doesn't mean what he's trying to convey. Being greedy isn't being selfish, although selfishness is involved in anything you do (even if you think you're being selfless, you're doing that because YOU would feel bad if you didn't). Greediness is the motivation behind unethical practices, stepping on other people's toes, cheating, stealing, etc; not the motivation that makes you want to win or be successful or wealthy. It's easy to illustrate this with sports or games and videogames: being greedy is the antithesis of playing smart, and it usually doesn't pay off, because playing smart is what you have to do to win. Often players admit to having lost because they were greedy rather than strategic or patient. And playing smart *is* a selfish motivation because it stems from the determination to favor your own victory over everyone else's, but without forfeiting the discipline required to overcome greed.
That said, using the word selfishness when the colloquial interpretation isn't your own, is a mistake, unless you always make sure that everyone listening understands that you're using a different interpretation. But that, at the end of the day, is kind of like swimming against the current. You might more easily put your ideas in different terms and have them understood more readily with little explanation and get more people's attention. Keep Occam's Razor in mind.
However, he's right in that even the most greedy person, if they haven't indulged in theft or fraud, then their wealth and success can only have been achieved by selling something that made people's lives better.
Ambition is a word that exists for intellectuals. And intellectuals can reject the use of the word greed here as greed is a word that represents unhealthy and unfounded ambition that is detrimental to others.
Ambition is a word that exists for intellectuals. And intellectuals can rebuke the use of the word greed here as the word greed represents a particularly insatiable and ravenous ambition that is detrimental to others.
Greed can even but unambitious. In the work Beowulf, for example, we see the dragon and his mighty hoard of gold. The dragon is discribed as greedy but the dragon is contempt to remain in his lair with out the desire to accumulate more, but rather prefers to gaurd the treasure so he can keep it for himself. This goes without saying obviously, but a fire breathing dragon has no need for gold or treasure.
So I propose to you that perhaps you, and the man in this video are both misinterpreting the word greed.
@@bossman6798 Sorry, youtube didn't notify me of your reply. Well, like I said, I was running with the colloquial interpretation of what greed is. That interpretation is what most people will more readily lean toward. And that interpretation isn't just that it can be detrimental to others, but also often to one's self.
The dragon in stories is usually just a representation of an obstacle that stands between the hero and the object of his desires. I don't remember ever hearing the dragon being described as greedy. It's don't think it's ever meant to represent greed, anyway, and indeed like you said, he has no use for gold. A realistic explanation might point to him liking the smell or the looks of it, or something of that sort.
Drug-lords have attained massive wealth through the sale of things people wanted, but it probably made their lives worse.
Your private property also exists by the force and regulation of government. So what are you suggesting? Eliminate government? Total anarchy? Eliminate people's rights to own property (physical, intellectual, or whatever)? You haven't shown how the all mighty free market solves the issue at hand.
The definition of greed is lacking in this video. Pursuing self interest doesn't define greed. Greed I the most derogatory meaning that I think most people identify with the term is hoarding assets that's not rightfully your that is to he gained by any means necessary. That's what most people think greedbis, not Pursuing self interest in the free market.
So while Viagra might have a monopoly on selling VIAGRA, they don't have a monopoly on the boner market. Just like Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the phone market, HP doesn't have a monopoly on the Laptop market, and Oscar Meyer doesn't have a monopoly on the wiener market. If you come up with your own version, you can compete against who ever is already in the market, and competition drives the price down. This is good for consumers.
Also, if you think freedom of speech or the right to bear arms are "natural right" that the Constitution recognizes we already had then clearly you haven't read the Constitution.
You can't make a reasonable argument against babbling nonsense.
If I heard this 5 years ago, I would off turned it off immediately. However, now, understanding liberty and freedom... eventually you understand what factors propagate freedom, liberty, and technology.
Greed is just pursuing your own self interest.
Of course, anything in excess is dangerous, including greed.
@shaqdaddy11
Conatus. Those who argue against an individual's right to himself and his own agenda are perniciously stoking their own greed, only this time society must acquiesce to "social" or "public" goods (aka the despot's).
Your response is so far from the topic at hand, and so very nonsensical, there really is no response to it.
I tell you what ... here's my response: Rutabaga.
@UzualSuspekt "...satists and progressives..."? You mean like pots and kettles?
What's the difference? :-)
Once again ... your education has failed you. Gosh, this is so sad that our school systems, even at the higher level, are so poor.
@lyricisible Thorns are a defensive mechanism, so yes, depending on the point of view, they're good.
Have you even watched the video? ffs
Thanks for demonstrating your lack of comprehension. You took what you wanted from my posts. Interesting, you compared yourself to "pedophile"...yet excluded yourself from being compared to a "racist."? Interesting and very revealing of you.
"Inequality"
WISE.
"Greed" is good, in so far as it means enlightened self-interest, -- not narrow self-
interest. He's seems to essentially be talking about the former and not the latter.
A key word used here is "conserving".
If he really believes greed is good he should have helped Trump and Paul Ryan write there new tax plan that will add
$1.5 trillion to the deficit for the next 10 years
Carl Page giving ppl back more of their OWN MONEY isnt greedy. Keeping or taking more of it (like the dems want) is greed.
@WTFisGo1ng0n many things appear mad to the terminally ignorant
No.
LMAO at 2:44
Nope stil one of the deadly 7
OK, Boomer.
If the military only operated this way. Soldiers sent off to a foreign land putting their lives on the line; not because of any ideals of patriotism, freedom or sanctity of life but all because they are there for the money. The military is only fighting because they expect a huge financial profit out of it.
Of course soldiers should be compensated for risk of life and limb, but let's take that angle to its extreme. Every army only works for the highest bidder and if you can't afford their services, they will turn and get employed by your enemy. Soldiers are willing to betray their squad mates as soon as they think that the opposing side has a better offer. With friends like that who needs enemies.
Altruism and selflessness are extremely vital parts of a functioning society, and unchecked greed can be a major hindrance from anything getting done.
One good thing about RUclips comments sections... You can come back a few years later and delete that😢...
Altruism bankrupts a country... While getting nothing done...
35 trillion in debt... And another bridge collapses😢
You're making a nonsensical argument.
@TheZoneRanger ...because it's nonsense...? I'll tell you what. I'll give you a nonsense statement, and you give me a reply so you can see how this works: If we flapjack a herpflippy, I think we can avoid the blappenfurpen scenario.
Now you reply to what I wrote and try to make sense of it.
The examples you're giving are really absurd, and nothing your average person is going to do, I personally believe it's just projection on your part, but I digress.
Go out and find an actual real world example of someone finding out that they are going to die, and then suddenly doing everything they can to screw over and spite everyone around them, as well as to destroy all of their personal property. If you can find ONE example, I would be shocked.
Look, you keep changing the subject, trying to find a topic that you can make a valid point with. So far you've failed. I'm not going to join your short attention span debate. We both know, as well as anyone who's following this discussion, that your education in economics has failed you. You don't know what you're talking about.
Maybe you should take up cross word puzzles. I bet you'd be good at that. Good luck.
2:50 rofl, glad someone else mirrors my response; I hate it when you see those politically-charged oil company ads about alternative energy sources and you have an engineer and a random teacher juxtaposed on the issue as if we give a damn about what the teacher by herself has to say on the issue. The actual, intelligent determinant of what energy we use, how we use it, and how much is determined on the market. Those ads smack of Marxist democratic nonsense.
Load of horseshit. All of the example were of people doing their job, it has nothing to do with greed. Greed is seeking greater wealth at the cost of others.
Why were those people doing their jobs? Because they were greedy, just as we all are. Why do I go into work on Monday morning instead of sleeping in? Because I want a paycheck...because I'm greedy. And the fact that I get out of bed and go to that job ends up providing goods and services to my fellow man which they desire. So there again, my greed benefits society.
You don't get the point. People think that taxes and government intervention are the only way to help and that the free market. In reality, it's the free market that delivers most of the good we have, and it would deliver more if government did not take over certain things.
pure socialist ignorance there, no contradictions, because there's no thought involved.
@mattilyons Commie
This is getting really boring really fast. Have fun living in your lonely and delusional world of greed. The rest of humanity knows better. Ciao.
Sounds like a real preacher, televangelist named Clarence Thomas. Goodnight