I just finished watching both Wall Street movies that explore the dangers and evils of capitalism in this country, while still maintaining some degree of humanity within both films. According to Gordon Gekko, greed is not only good, but it's the one asset that keeps our economy going. How Gordon does business isn't exactly legal when it comes to the stock market, as he uses a lot illegal insider sources, and uses low ball tactics to get what he wants. What I would like to ask you all is this. How many businessmen do you think are like Gordon Gekko? If so, do you agree that greed is good? please explain your answer.
No, greed isn't good.
Capitalism is about opportunity, not necessarily greed. Some men turn that opportunity into greedy actions, that's all.
Being greedy is often at the expense of others, in which case, it isn't a good thing. But couldn't one make the argument that if a person has extra goods/money/etc. and is keeping those things to his/her self that they are being greedy? If you have extraneous capital that you don't need (i.e. every rich person ever) then you are being (to a certain degree) greedy. You could give up what you don't require to survive to help those around you, but most of us (me included) don't do this. I think we are all a little bit greedy.
I have to admit that I did not see the "second" Wall Street Movie...
Mmmm, in answer to you question, How many businessmen do you think are like Gordon Gekko?
Shall I start with the President and work my way down Capital Hill!
IS Greed Good...yes, it's what keeps this Country going and gives everyone the same opportunity to earn a living as it trickles down to us peons!
Ethical capitalism (greed): good
Unethical capitalism (greed): bad
When Gekko made his comments it was in support of his attempted takeover of Teldar Paper. The fact is he was lambasting the VP's for making too much money and yet at the same time preaching the mantra of Greed is Good. Sounds to me like it was a soundbite that had no good context. Is Greed good for Teldar Paper? For the shareholders? For Gekko?
The shareholders did not know that Gekko was a liar and a cheat so his speech was deceptive.
In the end I say greed is not good because greed means a thirst for more than you need. It is unhealthy for the world because it reasonableness and good faith are subordinated to victory at all costs. I do not believe there is a healthy form of greed.
I believe there are many Gekkos in the world. You see it all the time in the way they drive; the way they speak; the way the interact. The clue is in one word:
really? so if i killed a mouse for fun and decided to eat it, it wouldn't be bad? wow, thanks misha. now, where are those mice at?
It's either a joke or way too nuanced for me... try the lynching of blacks in the past for starters....
Nah, it is not.
Killing babies is bad, right?
What if somebody killed baby Shicklgruber back in the beginning of the 20th century?
I will disagree with Misha but actually end up coming to the same conclusion.
There is "good" and "bad" but for most things, it's usually impossible to say which is which.
Take any social issue you like. Would society as a whole be better off if one side or the other had their druthers on that issue? Is unhappiness of individuals important in deciding what "better off" means? If one person is unhappy, does it matter? Ten? Ten million?
I come down against greed. I can't like myself if I take much more than I need. But I can't carry that to its logical conclusion and give away everything to bring myself to parity with the poor - not even the relatively wealthy poor!
I tend not to like people who are greedier than I am. I assume those who are markedly less greedy would tend to dislike me for the same reasons. Fun for everyone, right?
I can't agree with the statement that nothing is good or bad. Not at all.
I would like to take a moment to say thanks to everyone that participated in this forum. To be honest, i always think that anything in life can be either good or evil, as it really depends on the person using it. sure, capitalism is a great opportunity for the average joe to rise up and claim some fame for himself/herself, but it's also a way for the rich to get richer and screw over the little guy if we're not careful. It really depends on the person using the system. However, thanks everyone for commenting, as i think you all have brought up some great points on this issue thus far.
GREED, meaning excessive acquisativeness (sp) is terrible! It is destructive and harms people, society and the economy too. If you call constructive competitive capitalism working the way it was meant to work greed - then that's your problem. And it is true that capitalism without any built-in bounds and regulations runs amuck. People who don't know when to stop acquiring and harm others in order to get more and more are greedy and terrible and need to be stopped.
And I'm not a big fan of capitalism the way we do it in America because it is very hard to stop the process toward greed and fabulous wealth that is so unnecessary while others can't make it while working 3 jobs. I think I've said it before elsewhere, that we do ourselves a big disservice when we are afraid of some socialism in our social mix in order to balance the excess, and so many in America are very afraid of anything vaguely socialistic after decades of propaganda about "reds" and "communism" and the cold war. It doesn't seem we'll ever get over that and that gives alot of a@@holes the green light to be greedy and wave the flag while doing it.
Socialism is just a matter of degree. To me the government should be a traffic cop. I think we should fund the SEC to the same relative levels that we fund the defense department. I am much more afraid of losing my nest egg than I am of dying in a terrorist attack yet we insist on having a Rolls Royce for an army while allowing our Volkswagon SEC to run low on oil.
I don't want the government to fund sloth; I don't want the government to be Madison Avenue; I want the government to set clear guidelines and pursue law breakers with vigor.
Yeah, but you have to remember with a bureaucratic society that we have now and the way that our capitalistic society is set up, it's easier said than done. I'd be bold to say that I think corporation have way more power over this country than any of our politicians do. Think about it, if a billionaire businessman like Trump or Bill Gates decided to take their money to another country, over regulations they didn't like in the usa, then that would financially cripple our country, and all they would have to do is sell it to their investors, who like themselves, only care about profits and how much money they can make. Wheras in politics, there's so much bureaucracy that even if they did set up definitive rules and regulations to curtail any type of underhanded cheating on the stock market of any kind, that you know corporations would still find a loop hole around it. Not saying your wrong, as I do think we need to do a better job of monitoring ourselves, but it's alot easier said than done though.
So true - easier said than done. Existing laws make it illegal to trade the way half the big brokers do it every day of the week (in all the markets, not just American) also, we have laws that are supposed to prevent monopolies, but there are several, thinly veiled but still there, like the huge energy conglomerates that drain us. That's exactly what I mean by the "way we do it" here in America and the way we teach other nations to follow our example in exchange for all kinds of concessions. Then when we want to create a simple thing like healthcare for all of us, we get booed out and labelled "liberal commie socialist bleeding hearts"! So how do we create some checks and balances to counteract the huge drain our corporations make on our workers? You tell me, because as I see it happening now our population is only too eager to listen to the TV media salespeople and act on what they say is true while ignoring what our own eyes and ears tell us is happening to our relatives, friends, ourselves - you can't make it here anymore! (unless you're a 30-year corporate bunny)
you might be right mega. you might be right. i'm not sure if i agree about socialism though, as im still weary about it myself. however, at the rate we're going, i think our country is heading towards a socialist society whether we want it to or not.
I don't know if I'm understanding Misha the way he intended his statement, but it seems to me that whether something is good or bad depends on one's point of view. It's not an inherent quality of the thing or situation.
Stevennix eating a mouse might be good for Steven (if he's hungry and likes the taste of mouse) but bad for the mouse. Lots of folks think hamburgers are good, but they're not so good for the cows.
Is honesty good or bad?
I think most of us would say that honesty is good most of the time. But there are exceptions. You're in the store buying your honey a surprise when your cell phone rings and said honey asks you what you're doing. Do you answer honestly and spoil the surprise or tell a white lie so the surprise will still work?
When does our focus on our own self-interest (which we all have to some extent) help us and when does it hurt us?
Maybe Misha is being sarcastic and is casting aspersions to the old saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." It may be true in some instances but there are many things that happen that are just plain bad from any perspective and I have no problem with that absolutist statement on my part.
Yep, that's about right how I see it. Over the years I found that replacing the maxim "it is good" with "i like it" and "it is bad" with "I don't like it" gives me much more clear and reasonable perspective, especially in multi-cultural environments like Hubpages.
Some people obviously think differently. And, while I personally don't like the practice, I don't pretend to know better how a particular event looks on the great scale of things.
To put it simply in this bad and good tussle.The Chinese have always had the answer with Yin and Yang.There must be balance in the world for it to continue functioning correctly.
Without many of the things we deem as wrong or bad occurring to offset the good then our very axis would be tilted.
This turns into an infinite thought process when you consider all possible scenarios that could occur with a tilt in either direction.
Yes in a nutshell I am saying that everything being all kumbaya my lord and holding hands worldwide could be just as catastrophic to our well being as the other extreme of total war and chaos.
wow, that's has to be the most politically correct answer, I've heard on this forum. thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
It just occurred to me, and I wanted to record it before it slipped away again, that there are two types of Capitalism; Theoretical and Practical (Duh!) What I also noticed is that the endless debates about capitalism between the Right and the Left go on and on, into infinity without each...
by Elliott_T 11 years ago
I'm a Capitalist - what that means to me is that the closest thing to an ideal economy we can achieve is one where the government has almost no interference in the private business sector whatsoever. I think you can put Capitalism into one word: Freedom. The freedom to innovate, grow, succeed, or...
by We Conservatives 12 years ago
* The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke. * Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke. * Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to...
by TruthDebater 11 years ago
Does Capitalism create equal opportunity for all or just for the elite? The same with socialism, does it create equal opportunity for all or only those affiliated with government? Is both capitalism and socialism simply illusions making false claims of equal opportunity while those in power and...
by ga anderson 22 months ago
Peterstreep posted a thought about today's capitalism being different, (and the implication was that it is more dangerous), than the capitalism of the early 20th Century. Here is what he said:On the basics, I disagree, I think it is the same game, just with different players and boundaries. But in...
by Peeples 8 years ago
What if the rich just gave without it being "taken" from them?What impact would it have on the USA if people who were rich just gave like this all on their own?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|