You often hear these days how "greed is good" because it drives capitalism. The notion is the rich would retire to remote islands if they couldn't endlessly acquire more wealth than anyone would need in a thousand lifetimes. It is then implied or stated that the economy would stagnate or shrink without the rich doing their thing.
Assuming all of that is true -- and it would be genuinely risky to do so -- then we can ask the question: If greed is good for the rich because it drives the economy, is greed good for the poor because it drives the economy?
After all, about 70% of the economy is consumer spending. So if the poor were to seize the wealth of the rich through taxation, and then spend it, we'd have a booming economy. Certainly a better economy than the rich can create through their own consumer spending.
Put differently, are there any reasons why -- if greed is good because it boosts the economy -- greedy poor people are not just as good as greedy rich people?
I never could get behind the idea that "greed is good." I remember it coming up in the movie
Wall Street, where Gordon Gekko makes his famous speech:
"The point is, ladies and gentleman, 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 of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
Interesting to note that he includes the parenthetical phrase "for lack of a better word." Is there another word to describe what he's saying? Especially when addressing other forms of greed - "greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge."
In the context of the speech he was giving (at a stockholders' meeting), he was pointing out that there were 33 executives at this fictional company all making more than $200,000 a year and that they weren't actually doing anything. He mentioned that the company lost $110 million the previous year, and that the executives had very little of their own money invested in the company they were running. I believe that he was trying to make the point that if these executives had their own money on the line, and if they were more greedy, it would presumably help the company make more money and give bigger dividends to stockholders.
As for greed among the poor and working classes, that may exist as well, but in different forms. I've heard some say that union workers are greedy for going on strike and demanding better wages which may cripple a company. A lot of people blamed the union for the demise of Hostess cupcakes.
The implication in such an argument is that some workers or professions are "worth" more than others. The belief was that the union workers weren't "worth it," at least not as much as the executives of the company making significantly more money.
Likewise, Gekko argued that those executives earning more than $200k per year were also not "worth it," since (from his view) they weren't producing.
Greed is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, so I would figure from a religious or moral viewpoint, greed may not be considered good. But it's also part of being human, just as we feel lust, pride, envy, wrath, etc. from time to time, the same can be said of greed. In moderation, it might not be too harmful overall, although it's likely just as unavoidable as lust.
But it's also a matter of what one is actually "worth." Greed may be good from the standpoint that one deserves rich rewards commensurate to their contribution to society. But sometimes it comes across as some kind of dishonest shell game by con artists and manipulators, and there's a sucker born every minute. That may explain a lot of what's going on.
