Laziness vs Greed

[Dextroden]

Elon Musk would fit the medieval definition well, or would not fall into the medieval definition of greed. He for the most part exemplifies Nobless Oblige and in general seems to have not "Forsaken all for the sake of avarice."

At least as far as I know Elon Musk hasn't committed some grave sins to gain his wealth.

I don't think that matters anymore. Everyone seems to have forgiven, or atleast forgotten about, anti-trust Bill Gates. And I don't think there are lot of people know who Steve Wozniak is but they certainly remember Steve Jobs.

[Theodarzna]

I don't think that matters anymore. Everyone seems to have forgiven, or atleast forgotten about, anti-trust Bill Gates. And I don't think there are lot of people know who Steve Wozniak is but they certainly remember Steve Jobs.

I don't see Bill Gates as an upstanding or honorable person. Or Steve Jobs really.

[Raskayz]

At least as far as I know Elon Musk hasn't committed some grave sins to gain his wealth.

As much as i like musk i think we should see what he actually does of his status once he get to be the defacto ruler of mars

Wealth accumulation is better with musks but you are still concentrating all the power and direction of progress in one person rather than having unified humanity collectively deciding its path

[Dextroden]

I don't see Bill Gates as an upstanding or honorable person. Or Steve Jobs really.

And that's why I'm torn on "Trust the man to abandon his wealth after what he did to generate it".

[Mistame]

So what you're saying is simply not true, and the internet would actually be better (or at least free) if it wasn't for companies.

Aside from the fact that there's no such thing as "free", with the amount of time, money and resources that have gone into building the modern internet, it simply would not have been possible without for-profit businesses.

I'm also making a difference between profits going to individuals and profits mainly used to develop the company. The latter is not greed.

Neither is the former, at least not inherently. "Greed" requires that wealth is sought without consideration for other factors.

And businesses being absolutely necessary to create innovation is blatantly false.

I suppose you could make internment camps and force people to "innovate", but rational people tend to respond better to incentive. Without the incentive of wealth and prosperity, innovation would occur, at best, at a snail's pace.

[chazus]

That's funny because the internet is a prime example of state funded research that latter got monetized by businesses.
HTTP protocol also is the open source tech that allows us to post right now.
So what you're saying is simply not true, and the internet would actually be better (or at least free) if it wasn't for companies.

Whether or not they'd be better is purely speculation. You can't tell that based off things that didn't happen. You're also saying that the internet is entirely run by HTTP. It's not. Regardless, the 'internet' still needs physical infrastructure. Remind me how many government run phone, internet, or any utilities there are?

Point being, to increase any of these, you need companies. Companies make money to expand and develop more technologies. They aren't just going to go "Welp thats good enough, time to stop innovating and just get money". That's exactly how to shut down a business, and LOSE innovation.

I'm also making a difference between profits going to individuals and profits mainly used to develop the company. The latter is not greed.

So you're saying paying stockholders, the people who literally funded the company in the first place, and ensure that it doesn't go in the toilet, are greedy for the part they've had in it? Once they get paid back, they just go "Ok thanks I'll just go now, I've done my philanthropy". No. It doesn't work that way.

Again, ignorance of how business and industry work.

And businesses being absolutely necessary to create innovation is blatantly false. That is one of the many lies they keep pushing to justify a greed driven behavior.

First off. Who the hell is 'they'? That right there screams agenda.

Secondly, while certainly there are people who can innovate without a business, many innovations, especially on massive scale, require funding. Funding can really only be acquired through business.

Okay, but what would you be willing to do to gain that?

I don't understand the question.

[Theodarzna]

As much as i like musk i think we should see what he actually does of his status once he get to be the defacto ruler of mars

Wealth accumulation is better with musks but you are still concentrating all the power and direction of progress in one person rather than having unified humanity collectively going forward

True, you never know what he might become. The idealistic paragon of virtue today could easily become the villain of tomorrow.

I think there will always be "Great Men," or people who have a will to gain power and influence. I am unsure if Musk is doing it for the sake of Power and Influence or if power and influence are a means to some end. Right now I can only assume Musk is a generally good and honorable man. Elon Musk would have the problem of being famous and that might fall under the sin of vanity.

In the pre-Calvinist context he would be the ideal "wealthied person," and even in a post Calvinist context he still is. The problem is that in a post Calvinist context any greedy and successful person can appear as good when really they are not. In the Medieval Christian world few "great men," existed outside of maybe Kings and Lords and the various popes and bishops. Churches, even spectacular churches do not have the name of the architect attached to them. None of the builders or designers of the Churches are known. Nor the music, indeed the most common music was Choral music, as that was a very communitarian society.

Greed is theologically understood and generally understood as a destructive proclivity, a will to power that forsakes all bonds of loyalty, community, family, or responsibility. Think the Koch brothers whose political aims are purely self serving as they don't want to deal with Climate Change as it might hurt their profits0, or to bash the left, George Soros whose currency manipulations are pernicious.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand the question.

What would you do or not do to gain wealth and power?

[chazus]

What would you do or not do to gain wealth and power?

I think it's both an abstract, and slightly silly question.

What do you define as 'power'? That has a totally massive range of both interpretation and concept. So broad that it almost inherently ought not to be debated without specifying further. Me? I'd like to open a new store for my business, because I enjoy doing what I do. That would certainly give me more authority and 'power' but not because I want 'power'. You sound like you're saying 'power' while shaking an upraised fist.

And wealth? What does that even mean? Everyone's depiction of wealth is different. I'd certainly like to make more money than I do. I'd like to buy another house in time. American dream and all. I'd like a nicer car.

Again, those statements are so unformed that it's hard to define what you're asking, and what answer to give.

[Raskayz]

Aside from the fact that there's no such thing as "free", with the amount of time, money and resources that have gone into building the modern internet, it simply would not have been possible without for-profit businesses.

That is not true and you didn't provide any argument to support that claim.

And for profits businesses often issues patents and IP rights claims that are used to kill potential competition and thus stifle innovation.

I suppose you could make internment camps and force people to "innovate", but rational people tend to respond better to incentive. Without the incentive of wealth and prosperity, innovation would occur, at best, at a snail's pace.

You mean like the US for profit prison system ? But yay let's just make some more red scare and ignore reality !

Estonia -> Internet is a human right and publicly funded. Free wifi everywhere, higher median speed and penetration rate of Europe
USA -> Entirely privatized, monopolies with shitty speeds and crazy prices. Considered several years behind by western standards.

[Theodarzna]

I think it's both an abstract, and slightly silly question.

What do you define as 'power'? That has a totally massive range of both interpretation and concept. So broad that it almost inherently ought not to be debated without specifying further. Me? I'd like to open a new store for my business, because I enjoy doing what I do. That would certainly give me more authority and 'power' but not because I want 'power'. You sound like you're saying 'power' while shaking an upraised fist.

And wealth? What does that even mean? Everyone's depiction of wealth is different. I'd certainly like to make more money than I do. I'd like to buy another house in time. American dream and all. I'd like a nicer car.

Again, those statements are so unformed that it's hard to define what you're asking, and what answer to give.

Then don't answer. I'm not going to twist your arm. You can answer however and *gasp* define your own terms as well. I won't fault you for that.

[TITAN308]

Both of them are "deadly sins" according to christianity.

Then why is society so hard on real/perceived lazy people yet actively promote greed in the form of profit seeking ?
Shouldn't they be both equally reviled ?

One could actually make some good arguments regarding how laziness can be beneficial, like how it often fuels creativity and innovation to reduce efforts.
Greed is harder to defend since it's basically screwing over your peers to stuff your pockets.


It makes no sense to me, especially from religious conservatives, which are usually corporatists.
They should be the promoters of Open Source which is axed on collective work and sharing marketable concepts with everyone, yet those are mostly on the left.

I mean first and foremost the first flaw in all this is that profit seeking != greed.

This same train of thought are the same as people who think the term "price gouging" can basically be used anytime they don't like the price of anything.

[Dextroden]

I mean first and foremost the first flaw in all this is that profit seeking != greed.

This same train of thought are the same as people who think the term "price gouging" can basically be used anytime they don't like the price of anything.

That's what Occupy Wallstreet told me. For profit businesses are terrible.

[Raskayz]

So you're saying paying stockholders, the people who literally funded the company in the first place, and ensure that it doesn't go in the toilet, are greedy for the part they've had in it? Once they get paid back, they just go "Ok thanks I'll just go now, I've done my philanthropy". No. It doesn't work that way.

Again, ignorance of how business and industry work.

Can you please refrain from calling others ignorants when you display such naive beliefs as thinking shareholders somehow are the heroes behind innovation.

Shareholders produce zero value, they move capital. It's literally preying on the true innovators without money that have no other options that concede a part of their future revenue if they want to make their ideas happen.
These people are getting paid because they had money in the first place. Rince, wash repeat, and you get the massive wealth inequality issues of today.
So yes, maybe we should define some limits on shareholders and find a better system to fund creative ideas

[Mistame]

That is not true and you didn't provide any argument to support that claim.

Neither did your statement.

You mean like the US for profit prison system ?

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Stay on track, kiddo.

Estonia -> Internet is a human right and publicly funded. Free wifi everywhere, higher median speed and penetration rate of Europe
USA -> Entirely privatized, monopolies with shitty speeds and crazy prices. Considered several years behind by western standards.

Again, nothing is free. Higher taxes, etc, cover the costs. And the Estonian government more than likely got the hardware and labor from <drum roll> for-profit companies. And without the billions+ spent by private companies to lay hundreds of thousands of miles of cable, all you'd have would be local networks.

[Theodarzna]

Can you please refrain from calling others ignorants when you display such naive beliefs as thinking shareholders somehow are the heroes behind innovation.

Shareholders produce zero value, they move capital. It's literally preying on the true innovators without money that have no other options that concede a part of their future revenue if they want to make their ideas happen.
These people are getting paid because they had money in the first place. Rince, wash repeat, and you get the massive wealth inequality issues of today.
So yes, maybe we should define some limits on shareholders and find a better system to fund creative ideas

I think today shareholders and those who make up the Capitalist class are awash in guilt. Because their "work," isn't work, and generally speaking there is a low opinion of them there is a desire to give them credit for the world.

If I patronage a great painter, the greatest artist this world has ever seen, and he or she makes the greatest painting ever, do I get credit for being the commissioner of the art or does the artist get all the credit?

What if I make profit off of the commissioned art? On some level people feel guilty for essentially sitting at streams of revenue and skimming as they please. Its like a rent seeker, nobody likes the rent seeker, nobody respects the rent seeker, but the rent seeker is rich. But that is ultimately not enough, people want to be adored and celebrated. The Ayn Randian mythos gives us just that. There for hedgefund managers and investment bankers can play act at being the Elon Musks, without being Elon Musk.

[chazus]

Then don't answer. I'm not going to twist your arm. You can answer however and *gasp* define your own terms as well. I won't fault you for that.

Thats what I'm saying. You're asking -me- about something that is a question being applied to everyone. Personally, I'm willing to do a fair bit for wealth, but i have ethics too. Honestly, just working a job I enjoy is good enough.

Can you please refrain from calling others ignorants when you display such naive beliefs as thinking shareholders somehow are the heroes behind innovation.

Shareholders produce zero value, they move capital. It's literally preying on the true innovators without money that have no other options that concede a part of their future revenue if they want to make their ideas happen.
These people are getting paid because they had money in the first place. Rince, wash repeat, and you get the massive wealth inequality issues of today.
So yes, maybe we should define some limits on shareholders

Ignorance is not an insult. Not understanding how something works is not saying someone is stupid or dumb. I'm ignorant of a LOT of things. Everyone is. If you want to toss around wiki quotes, go look up the wiki on ignorance.

That said, I wouldn't call them 'heroes' but they're certainly necessary. We wouldn't have a lot of things we do today without them. Yeah, they move capital, which is needed sometimes. Required. And yeah, some of them don't do much besides that, but again, needed. Many of them do have a stake in the company, and help make decisions. Every company is different with how involved shareholders are.

And don't even try to throw in 'wealth inequality'. You know perfectly well that that problem has very little to do with shareholders of companies.

[Lady Dragonheart]

Being greedy is a universally accepted "good" trait in most western societies. Christianity may condemn it publically, but Christianity is also notorious for being greedy.

[Deleted]

Both of them are "deadly sins" according to christianity.

Then why is society so hard on real/perceived lazy people yet actively promote greed in the form of profit seeking ?
Shouldn't they be both equally reviled ?

One could actually make some good arguments regarding how laziness can be beneficial, like how it often fuels creativity and innovation to reduce efforts.
Greed is harder to defend since it's basically screwing over your peers to stuff your pockets.


It makes no sense to me, especially from religious conservatives, which are usually corporatists.
They should be the promoters of Open Source which is axed on collective work and sharing marketable concepts with everyone, yet those are mostly on the left.

There are very few, true Christians in the world. Very few.
But you've touched upon part on people have come to call the US hypocritical and ignorant.

[Raskayz]

Neither did your statement.

There was one right under the part you quoted, but you conveniently ignored it

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Stay on track, kiddo.

You were red scaring about forced labor internment camps like it was somehow what would happen without businesses. Yet last time i heard of these camps in the west, it was in the business friendly USA and their for profit prisons.

Again, nothing is free. Higher taxes, etc, cover the costs. And the Estonian government more than likely got the hardware and labor from <drum roll> for-profit companies. And without the billions+ spent by private companies to lay hundreds of thousands of miles of cable, all you'd have would be local networks.

So how do you explain USA being more business friendly and less competitive in that regard ?
Also paying slightly more tax for good service vs paying 100$ for 5 Mbs with data caps is a no brainer

[May90]

I do believe in the notion that "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely", in general. It takes an exceptional person to not be seduced by it. Which is why I have always shied away from it, I do not know how I would respond, and what I might do.

I think good examples from a Christian perspective is actually using Tolkien stories. Both Gandalf, and Galadriel wanted, but were also afraid of what they would do, with the ring of power.

I think it is doable, but you need a very principled person, and an advisor that can keep them grounded. From Celtic mythology, Merlin was supposed to be that advisor, but even with that all of his machinations eventually fell apart specifically because he used his power in various ways, and that all came to bite him later.

There is also this factor in how the power was obtained. If the power was obtained in a struggle, then that struggle already disciplines the person a lot, and teaches them to value and appreciate what they've gained as a result - so, unless they are just a bad person to begin with, obtained power might be used wisely by them, without corrupting them.

While getting power for free or easily can break an unhardened mind. Suddenly they can do a lot they've always wanted to do, and there don't seem to be any immediate repercussions! I suppose all absolute monarchs inheriting the throne, happening to not have been prepared properly for their upcoming duty, had to face this problem in the past.