Greed

[Wolfgang]

well greed can change people
it is a natural human emotion.
Now greed can go both ways
it can be people arent willing to share, or want more of the share. However, when greed happens it usally has bad results

[Tycoon]

Greed is such an annoying subject.

My friend sometimes gives me some of his food at school. We all do that, kind of sharing our food.

So if he offers me some candy, that doesn't seem greedy. But then people like to say he only offered it so I would like him more, respect him more, it's only in his interests.

[Domino]

Yes, I believe that man always acts in his best interest, but exactly who's self interest should he act in, and why would that make him greedy?

In general, I consider a person greedy when their focus on accumulation actually harms their self-interest. Of course, this is a very fuzzy line, and can be crossed without anyone noticing, depending on for how long a term or range you want to extend your consideration of consequences.

As long as a man produces more than he uses, nobody has the right to call him greedy. The man that invents a process that adds 1% production to the workforce could not spend the money he has saved everyone in two lifetimes, so why is he considered greedy if he gets rich off of it?

Can his do-nothing offspring be considered greedy, once they inherit?

If a person has more money than they can ever spend, does that not simply prevent that money from being spent by someone else, producing a general drag on the economy? A person has produced labor tokens, and now they will sit in a basement for two decades. Call it what you will, but it's not good for anyone (except the do-nothing offspring).

All that, aside, I'm not sure I see how a person's status as net producer accurately reflects the avarice in their soul. Even hobos can be greedy, they're just not good at it.

This is not rationality, it is being irrationaly angry that he did what you did not. What i it you want when you treat the man like a criminal? A handout maybe?

I gotta say, it sounds like you've made your mind up. Is this conversation really worth my time?

The socialists here likely believe a man shoud be paid by effort, not result. If that is true, it should be the idiot that makes the processharder that would be rewarded, since he would increase the effort required for all work...

Does your job allow half-assed efforts? There is a maximum amount of effort that one person can put out, and that is what is expected at most jobs of which I've been made aware. He whose job's effort requirements are reduced will soon find himself with new responsibilities, unless he's one of the few people whose boss doesn't suck (a.k.a, self-employed). Reducing the effort a job requires helps the economy, by making each worker more efficient; in many cases, no one person receives a reward for anything concerning effort.

That said, there are a great many people in today's economy who are already paid without regard to results, and they tend to be higher on the pay-scale: doctors, defense attorneys, ceo's of large corporations, many public servants, etc.