Greed and Generosity: Where’s the Line Between Earning and Grabbing?

Several ideas to unpack from this episode.

When we say “it is better to give than to receive” this demonstrates our prosocial and cooperative and empathic nature, that we are loved by and love our family and friends, and that we like our wider circle of friends and acquaintances as well. Yet we are also grown up 2 or 3 year old’s (and teenagers) who exhibit elements of selfishness and resistance to sharing “that is MINE!” I think that viewpoint is related to our desire for self preservation, to retain the resources needed to stay alive and as free of pain as possible. So we need to find the right balance between our generous and selfish natures, which also vary with circumstances and perception of our future needs.

Several folks here can expound on this much more knowledgably than I can, but isn’t there also something in Old Testament Jewish guidance that every seven years you are supposed to forgive your debtors their debts? Is that generosity, or reigning in your greed, or something else? Or just a realistic assessment that you probably aren’t going to be repaid and might as well make the best of the situation for your moral betterment, or your virtue signaling as perceived by the rest of society?

Adam Smith: “the invisible hand”. Gordon Geko: “greed is good!” Barak Obama: “at some point you have made enough money.” Each of these has an element of value or wisdom, and is flawed if taken to extremes. I perceive that the reason the market works so well via price signaling is precisely because those prices are visible, not invisible. The hand of the market is openly visible and works best when things remain transparent and undistorted, so that black markets are not needed or formed. Honest sellers and buyers recognize there is an exchange of value occurring in their transaction that is beneficial to both parties, and neither is exploiting the other. So the “hidden” component only refers to all of the other activity taking place prior to the final (physical or digital) face to face encounter. Whether that prior effort is large or small ends up being irrelevant to the final purchase.

Of course, the problem with Obama’s phrasing is he still expects the money producer to continue making money beyond that “enough” point and give the excess to the government in taxes so that he, Obama, can exercise his desires for “community organizing” and other forms of virtue signaling and self aggrandizement. This becomes “good” because it is forced generosity. He ignores the disincentive to produce that excess. Thus Obama’s greed takes the form of social celebrity and “worship” (and POWER!) rather than money [even when he now owns a $15M ocean front property by exploiting his prior political position, which strictly speaking “belongs” to the people who elected him.]
I also have a problem when people in the US say that “taxation is theft”. Since we (in principle) now have taxation with representation*, and nominal consent of the governed, the taxes imposed on us are the result of our own choices and volition. We agree to be taxed in exchange for the goods and services government (or our representatives) choose to provide to us. So there is no. “theft at the point of a gun” if and when we actually have “equality under the law”. All taxpayers face the same legal criteria for compliance and failing to comply impacts the need for greater taxes on those who do pay what they owe (and not a $ more). But distribution of other people’s wealth obtained under the legitimate force of tax law is too often an attempt to achieve “equality” that is just not possible to attain. [And buying votes.] Any Republicans who push for lower taxes without also pushing for reduced spending are just as hypocritical as any Dem/Leftist.[No, lower taxes do not always end up paying for themselves with greater economic growth.] And going into debt that obligates future generations for present day consumption is evil, as well.
*It could be argued that today we have “representation without representation”, given gerrymandering, voter and election fraud, 600K citizens per representative significantly diluting any influence we have over them compared to lobbyists and large donors, etc. … Thinking about that dilution of influence, I just had a thought that maybe we need an intermediate level of government between the state and federal levels. Combine 5 to 10 states into super-states, such that the resulting 5 to 10 super-states are in turn represented at the national governmental level for those issues beyond the super-state capability or purview to address (war, foreign policy, trade, etc.). Most everything else can be handled at this intermediate level. What do you all think about that?

Bill at 12.44: “your work belongs to me, you greedy bastard”. Didn’t we have a nasty brutal vicious civil war for 4 years to settle the opinion that a man’s labor was his to use and apply as he pleased, and that he could not legitimately and morally be under the heel of his slave master, owning that man or his labor? Our Dem/Leftist fellow citizens don’t seem to recognize the hypocrisy in that view vs. their “tax the rich” outlook.

Zo at 14:00, discussing that capitalism helps provide the wealth to each market participant so that they don’t have to rely on tribal or gang or triad allegiances to gain or retain the fruits of their labor. That is an interesting observation, in that it shows the balance between gangs that protect your resources from exploitive government and gangs that are or become criminal because they are in fact the greedy ones exploiting and extorting the citizens when a capitalist market is in fact also working (at least sort of).