Extreme Wealth

2,613 Views | 60 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Dad-O-Lot
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Of the 7 deadly sins, lust seems to get more than its fair share of attention. So, I'd like to discuss greed. And more specifically, the morality of processing extreme wealth. I think that it would be interesting to hear different perspectives regarding individuals that possess wealth in the billions and who very clearly have more money hoarded than they could ever need or spend.

With a little discipline, I think we can avoid politics. And I think we can even avoid discussing the morality wealth redistribution or questions about whether government should even be involved.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To me, there's a bigger moral weight to how one generates that resource and what one does with the authority than the money itself.

Ie, I think what Zuckerberg does as the head of a social media platform weighs more than what his 121B net worth does.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think having a lot of money has a hard link to greed. I suspect there are a lot of poor, greedy people. Seems like a bit of begging the question.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lust seems to be the only one that is easily recognizable by everyone, it is the low hanging fruit. The other sins creep up on your more stealthily.

Greed is harder to spot, and even extreme wealth controlled by one person doesn't mean they are greedy. Not that I like him much, he may be greedier than any of them, but consider a oversimplified lab theory take on Warren Buffett. He's worth billions, but lives relatively modestly. He's a talented investor/businessman, and because he does what he does, we have cheaper/better/more accessible insurance, energy, furniture, ice cream, etc. His wealth is as high as it is because he grew companies into something that people want and willingly give of their own effort to obtain.

If he stopped doing all of this when he had half as much wealth and spent the rest of his life giving it all away, would the world be a more moral place with DQ franchises that never opened, furniture that was never bought because it was too expensive, widows impoverished because life insurance was inaccessible, etc.? Buffett's wealth could simplistically considered to be entirely confined to enterprises that employ millions, serve billions that come to them willingly and literally build and operate the communities that we live in. What keeps people like him doing all that without any possibility of changing his lifestyle, who knows, but I would suspect he feels like successful businesses are a morally good thing and the wealth that comes along with it is just an artifact. You can only take his wealth away if you take away control of his companies, and if you do that, you destroy value and make the world a worse place.

Modern morality seems to equate the simultaneous presence of wealth and poverty as evidence of greed, I don't see it that way. Reconciling greed and envy is a bit of moral calculus that I find interesting.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

I don't think having a lot of money has a hard link to greed. I suspect there are a lot of poor, greedy people. Seems like a bit of begging the question.

While there are lots of poor, greedy people, I would argue that no one worth over a billion dollars gets there without greed. And if don't agree, I think its fair to remove my comment about greed. I think there is still a lot you could offer the discussion if you think the question should be reframed a little differently.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It seems an error of conflating quantity with quality. If you make an argument for a billionaire to shed assets or risk being greedy on quantity alone, you can surely make a case for a millionaire. And likewise a person with 100k in assets compared to someone living in extreme poverty. No?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This seems like a long way of writing "the ends justify the means"...which I don't agree with on a moral level.

it's great that buffet was a successful capitalist, but part of that success means that someone lost the food on their table.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Going even more theoretical than Theoretical Buffett...

If I had $1 million dollars and gave it to 1000 extremely poor people, that would meet their needs for a month. If I took that $1 million and opened a business that employed 25 people that sustained itself and met the needs of the people that worked there, I would have displaced more poverty in four years than I did giving it away. If I earned a profit and opened more such businesses, well, off you go.

If I convert it to gold coins and swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck, I'm an *******, but even if I just stick it in the bank, the world has access to capital that will find its most valued use. Let people have freedom of choice and retain rights to what they earn and that's about as good as you can do. Basic needs can and should be met, but you can't even do that with pure cash handouts.

It's almost like, you know, we'll always have the poor.

chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
diehard03 said:

This seems like a long way of writing "the ends justify the means"...which I don't agree with on a moral level.

it's great that buffet was a successful capitalist, but part of that success means that someone lost the food on their table.

I disagree. If someone figures out a way to do what I do better, faster, cheaper, etc., I'm the one taking away from others if the other guy is not permitted to do what I do better than me.

Should you be required to pay Jim's hardware store $20 for a hammer that Amazon could deliver to your door for $12 so that Jim can pay for a separate, less efficient supply chain?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What? No, no - it's not a zero sum game. People making wealth doesn't rob others.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

What? No, no - it's not a zero sum game. People making wealth doesn't rob others.

It's not zero sum but it' still a competitive environment that creates winners and losers.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
diehard03 said:

Quote:

What? No, no - it's not a zero sum game. People making wealth doesn't rob others.

It's not zero sum but it' still a competitive environment that creates winners and losers.
Losing sucks, to be sure, but if there is a moral framework in which there are no winners or losers, I haven't run across it.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I disagree. If someone figures out a way to do what I do better, faster, cheaper, etc., I'm the one taking away from others if the other guy is not permitted to do what I do better than me.

Should you be required to pay Jim's hardware store $20 for a hammer that Amazon could deliver to your door for $12 so that Jim can pay for a separate, less efficient supply chain?

Sure, but you've carved out something that specifically tries to avoid the moral implications.

what about Jim's quality hammer sourced ethically vs a cheap hammer made from subsuppliers using exploitive practices? What about the idea that the consumer may benefit greater in the longer run from Jim's hammers because you have buy 3 amazon hammers to do the same amount of work?

Now, the pure capitalist in me says that then Jim's business will increase because it's a better solution to the customer's needs...or Jim learns that no one needs to do the work of his hammer and he's overengineered to the needs of the customer. But, usually Jim has to lose everything to learn that.

On top of that, maybe Jim has the better hammer, but goes out of business because Amazon goes on a market campaign that convinces people that the $12 hammer is better than Jim's. Or they lobby for legislation that drives Jim's hammer to $25.

This is why I don't agree with the ends justifying the means.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Money in itself, is just a tool. I also agree with posters below that state 'how you earned it counts.'

The billionaire class in the western world, is historically speaking, benign. Yes they have power and influence - duh, but before the Dutch East India Company's foundation the only 'billionaires' were ruling families of countries. And their money was used despotically more times than not.

The modern idea of a billionaire jet-setting around the world, minding to business needs, and being a consumer not a ruler - is just that, modern. The idea that some billionaires would give away their money is radical. We live in the most generous times of wealth because we live in a time of great societal wealth. Charles Feeney is the 'broke' billionaire who inspired the Giving Pledge. His story is a great read.

Solomon himself was blessed by God with wealth beyond his imagination. He was judged at the end of the day not by the money he had, but what he did with it and his character. We will too.

I don't think having money is inherently wrong. Its counterproductive for a society to tear down those who attain wealth. It eventually leads to everyone living in squalor. But I don't think the ultra-wealthy should be lionized for their bank accounts either. To those much has been given, much is expected.

If you gained a billion dollars, there is still a way to live that Jesus one day tells you, 'Well done my good and faithful servant.'
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
diehard03 said:

Quote:

I disagree. If someone figures out a way to do what I do better, faster, cheaper, etc., I'm the one taking away from others if the other guy is not permitted to do what I do better than me.

Should you be required to pay Jim's hardware store $20 for a hammer that Amazon could deliver to your door for $12 so that Jim can pay for a separate, less efficient supply chain?

Sure, but you've carved out something that specifically tries to avoid the moral implications.

what about Jim's quality hammer sourced ethically vs a cheap hammer made from subsuppliers using exploitive practices? What about the idea that the consumer may benefit greater in the longer run from Jim's hammers because you have buy 3 amazon hammers to do the same amount of work?

Now, the pure capitalist in me says that then Jim's business will increase because it's a better solution to the customer's needs...or Jim learns that no one needs to do the work of his hammer and he's overengineered to the needs of the customer. But, usually Jim has to lose everything to learn that.

On top of that, maybe Jim has the better hammer, but goes out of business because Amazon goes on a market campaign that convinces people that the $12 hammer is better than Jim's. Or they lobby for legislation that drives Jim's hammer to $25.

This is why I don't agree with the ends justifying the means.
That's a lot of hypotheticals, I was assuming the exact same product.

I wouldn't want to buy Uighur labor hammers from Jim or anyone else, but the difference between losing everything to learn a lesson and avoiding the problem altogether is the essence of successful business. It's hard, it takes experience, skill and discipline. People with more experience, skill and discipline are going to be more successful than those without it, but the second they get objectively "greedy" and skim more than they should for their own benefit and not their customers, the next sharp business will take it away from them if the market is truly free.

What if Jim only gives that $1,000 to the local Little League every year so that you'll shop with him instead of ordering from Amazon, and that loyalty buys him a new boat every few years instead of funding a pension owns Amazon stock? Neither is morally superior. You may know know Jim and like him personally, but you gave up a dessert with your kid for your part of Jim's boat when you bought that hammer and the hammer manufacturer had to raise its prices because its pension is underfunded.

Forcing any other outcome that isn't voluntary does end up being zero sum.

c-jags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
diehard03 said:


it's great that buffet was a successful capitalist, but part of that success means that someone lost the food on their table.


This. I work in sales and what I sell is not a luxury in my industry, it's necessity. They're buying from me or somebody else.

Every sale I make is food off of somebody else's table. That's the nature of the world, but how I come by my money needs to be honest and I need to sleep well knowing I did the best for my customers and didn't screw somebody else out of business.

It can and has been lucrative, but I don't want to value money so much that I conduct business in an unchristlike manner. When I pursue the money or the win more than my love for fellow man or obedience to Christ, that becomes greed in my mind.
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
c-jags said:

diehard03 said:


it's great that buffet was a successful capitalist, but part of that success means that someone lost the food on their table.


This. I work in sales and what I sell is not a luxury in my industry, it's necessity. They're buying from me or somebody else.

Every sale I make is food off of somebody else's table. That's the nature of the world, but how I come by my money needs to be honest and I need to sleep well knowing I did the best for my customers and didn't screw somebody else out of business.

It can and has been lucrative, but I don't want to value money so much that I conduct business in an unchristlike manner. When I pursue the money or the win more than my love for fellow man or obedience to Christ, that becomes greed in my mind.

Food on any table is food out of someone else's farm. They grew it in the first place so that they could get paid. It had to get there via trade, somehow. We can provide for the necessities of life for those with nothing to trade and we can encourage attitudes and behaviors that will help people develop something of value in themselves that can then serve the needs of their fellow man. Those that meet those needs should be encouraged to do so more, those that can't need to find something else to do.

I have no patience for deceitful businessmen, but competition for scarce business is not inherently deceitful though it often can be. Stifling competition is more often deceitful in my observation.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
c-jags said:

diehard03 said:


it's great that buffet was a successful capitalist, but part of that success means that someone lost the food on their table.


This. I work in sales and what I sell is not a luxury in my industry, it's necessity. They're buying from me or somebody else.

Every sale I make is food off of somebody else's table. That's the nature of the world, but how I come by my money needs to be honest and I need to sleep well knowing I did the best for my customers and didn't screw somebody else out of business.

It can and has been lucrative, but I don't want to value money so much that I conduct business in an unchristlike manner. When I pursue the money or the win more than my love for fellow man or obedience to Christ, that becomes greed in my mind.
Right, but you're thinking about one single trade where you have to fight to be competitive.

Think about how many times throughout the week that you're the customer benefiting from someone else being competitive in their business practices.

This is the power of capitalism. You get access to goods and services that put you on the same quality of life as ancient kings.

If the market isn't deciding the winners and losers, then it has to be an authority larger than the marketplace that is - a government.

Thats not to say there isn't room for regulation, but I would rather be in a society that lets me try to compete and win compared to one that is dictated from the government.



Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

It seems an error of conflating quantity with quality. If you make an argument for a billionaire to shed assets or risk being greedy on quantity alone, you can surely make a case for a millionaire. And likewise a person with 100k in assets compared to someone living in extreme poverty. No?


You can certainly. Greed is and has always been a matter of degree. Never a binary thing. We each value money and we each are willing to make compromises to get it.

The reason to bring up billionaires is simply to examine the extreme degree of the times. In that I think it's worthwhile.

My problem isn't with the degrees it's that to undermine billionaires you seemingly have to undermine private ownership of things of extreme value, like company stock. Which in turn would mean a forfeit of control of a company you built.

In this way I don't think billionaires are necessarily more greedy than millionaires.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

If you gained a billion dollars, there is still a way to live that Jesus one day tells you, 'Well done my good and faithful servant.


There is a way, but I think there is a rather famous red letter quote about how hard it is
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kurt vonnegut said:

Zobel said:

I don't think having a lot of money has a hard link to greed. I suspect there are a lot of poor, greedy people. Seems like a bit of begging the question.

While there are lots of poor, greedy people, I would argue that no one worth over a billion dollars gets there without greed. And if don't agree, I think its fair to remove my comment about greed. I think there is still a lot you could offer the discussion if you think the question should be reframed a little differently.


The you may not understand investing.
Example: mutual funds invest in companies which operate what would qualify under our laws as "sweatshops" in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. Alternative: employees of those sweatshops starve or sell themselves into prostitution without employment.

Investing is about putting people to work and providing needed goods and services. No one disputes that self-interest plays into the equation but at my stage of life, with needs taken care of because of decades of investing and saving, I am looking to benefit worthy organizations and charities upon my passing while insuring family is provided for.

I would much rather have that kind of wealth creation than allow politicians to use the wealth to squander in buying political favor.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

Quote:

If you gained a billion dollars, there is still a way to live that Jesus one day tells you, 'Well done my good and faithful servant.


There is a way, but I think there is a rather famous red letter quote about how hard it is
Tomorrows headline: "Billionaire launches engineering team to find new ways to chop camel up into very small bits. Also hiring philosopher and historian to find out just how large a sewing needle can be made before it becomes redefined into sword with decorative hole"
c-jags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
one MEEN Ag said:

c-jags said:

diehard03 said:


it's great that buffet was a successful capitalist, but part of that success means that someone lost the food on their table.


This. I work in sales and what I sell is not a luxury in my industry, it's necessity. They're buying from me or somebody else.

Every sale I make is food off of somebody else's table. That's the nature of the world, but how I come by my money needs to be honest and I need to sleep well knowing I did the best for my customers and didn't screw somebody else out of business.

It can and has been lucrative, but I don't want to value money so much that I conduct business in an unchristlike manner. When I pursue the money or the win more than my love for fellow man or obedience to Christ, that becomes greed in my mind.
Right, but you're thinking about one single trade where you have to fight to be competitive.

Think about how many times throughout the week that you're the customer benefiting from someone else being competitive in their business practices.

This is the power of capitalism. You get access to goods and services that put you on the same quality of life as ancient kings.

If the market isn't deciding the winners and losers, then it has to be an authority larger than the marketplace that is - a government.

Thats not to say there isn't room for regulation, but I would rather be in a society that lets me try to compete and win compared to one that is dictated from the government.






Right. I'm really really free market and want to let the world do business as it seems fit.

But then things like Payday Loans existing, the story Tucker Carlson ran about the Cabelas/Bass Pro merger, and the recent news story about all the big capital firms buying up all housing inventory and taking away the ability for first time home owners from entering the market obviously trigger some emotional and moral responses where you realize that capitalism and free markets run rampant can be evil.

The problem is that there are a lot of things I see as shrewd but still honest business dealings, that others view as evil and greedy. I see payday loans and capital buying up whole neighborhoods as evil, but other christians would say that it's just capitalizing on available business and investments.

I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong, but good people can have different moral codes coming from the same place.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I have no patience for deceitful businessmen, but competition for scarce business is not inherently deceitful though it often can be. Stifling competition is more often deceitful in my observation.

Where do you draw the line between stifling competition and good business? These guys are often the big stack players at the poker table. Everything they do causes ripples downstream.

This is where I was going. when you start addressing the morality of it all, lots of things come into question. it's not as simple as comparing same product for 2 different stores.
craigernaught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
An excellent book on the subject. Highly, highly recommended.


https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Wealth-History-Christian-Significance/dp/1579109357
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
c-jags said:

one MEEN Ag said:

c-jags said:

diehard03 said:


it's great that buffet was a successful capitalist, but part of that success means that someone lost the food on their table.


This. I work in sales and what I sell is not a luxury in my industry, it's necessity. They're buying from me or somebody else.

Every sale I make is food off of somebody else's table. That's the nature of the world, but how I come by my money needs to be honest and I need to sleep well knowing I did the best for my customers and didn't screw somebody else out of business.

It can and has been lucrative, but I don't want to value money so much that I conduct business in an unchristlike manner. When I pursue the money or the win more than my love for fellow man or obedience to Christ, that becomes greed in my mind.
Right, but you're thinking about one single trade where you have to fight to be competitive.

Think about how many times throughout the week that you're the customer benefiting from someone else being competitive in their business practices.

This is the power of capitalism. You get access to goods and services that put you on the same quality of life as ancient kings.

If the market isn't deciding the winners and losers, then it has to be an authority larger than the marketplace that is - a government.

Thats not to say there isn't room for regulation, but I would rather be in a society that lets me try to compete and win compared to one that is dictated from the government.






Right. I'm really really free market and want to let the world do business as it seems fit.

But then things like Payday Loans existing, the story Tucker Carlson ran about the Cabelas/Bass Pro merger, and the recent news story about all the big capital firms buying up all housing inventory and taking away the ability for first time home owners from entering the market obviously trigger some emotional and moral responses where you realize that capitalism and free markets run rampant can be evil.

The problem is that there are a lot of things I see as shrewd but still honest business dealings, that others view as evil and greedy. I see payday loans and capital buying up whole neighborhoods as evil, but other christians would say that it's just capitalizing on available business and investments.

I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong, but good people can have different moral codes coming from the same place.

Some religions barred collecting interest altogether, and have since relaxed that proscription somewhat. Getting to the practical answers of cost and benefit is the hard part when you deal with these things and why moralizing about sins of the flesh is so much easier.

Nearly every practical sin involves short term gain for a longer term harm. If everyone understands costs and benefits and enters into a transaction willingly, I'm in favor of it. Discerning what is a real benefit and understanding what actual costs are can and is corrupted frequently.



chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
diehard03 said:

Quote:

I have no patience for deceitful businessmen, but competition for scarce business is not inherently deceitful though it often can be. Stifling competition is more often deceitful in my observation.

Where do you draw the line between stifling competition and good business? These guys are often the big stack players at the poker table. Everything they do causes ripples downstream.

This is where I was going. when you start addressing the morality of it all, lots of things come into question. it's not as simple as comparing same product for 2 different stores.

Certainly not simple. I'd draw the line at using force, government or otherwise, to keep competition down.

The only other way, if you're not adding honest value is to use amassed wealth to sell at a loss until your competition is bankrupt. You're worse off for doing it, and you'll continue to be worse off unless you raise prices back up and someone else will undercut you again and you yourself will eventually lose whatever you gained unless you are actually doing it better/cheaper. Squashing the little guy out of spite doesn't get you market share that you can exploit long term.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

Zobel said:

It seems an error of conflating quantity with quality. If you make an argument for a billionaire to shed assets or risk being greedy on quantity alone, you can surely make a case for a millionaire. And likewise a person with 100k in assets compared to someone living in extreme poverty. No?


You can certainly. Greed is and has always been a matter of degree. Never a binary thing. We each value money and we each are willing to make compromises to get it.

The reason to bring up billionaires is simply to examine the extreme degree of the times. In that I think it's worthwhile.

My problem isn't with the degrees it's that to undermine billionaires you seemingly have to undermine private ownership of things of extreme value, like company stock. Which in turn would mean a forfeit of control of a company you built.

In this way I don't think billionaires are necessarily more greedy than millionaires.

Excellent, this response makes a lot of sense to me.

edit . . . . as does some of the other posts. Thanks for indulging me in this thread.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A lot of these things all harken back to a moral society being underlying foundation of 'good' in monetary policy. And when pushed to its limits, it looks like morality causes people to leave money on the table that more unscrupulous individuals will swoop in.

If capitalism is a morally neutral tool in the short run, does implementing it slowly turn its users away from morality and towards dollars? a la like the one ring to rule them all. It eventually corrupts men's hearts. Do other monetary policies have the same ills or even worse ills?



diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Certainly not simple. I'd draw the line at using force, government or otherwise, to keep competition down.

and now we are at where theory meets reality. Most medium/large businesses engage in these behaviors, legally. So what now on the moral side?
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
diehard03 said:

Quote:

Certainly not simple. I'd draw the line at using force, government or otherwise, to keep competition down.

and now we are at where theory meets reality. Most medium/large businesses engage in these behaviors, legally. So what now on the moral side?
I agree, change the laws. Again, not simple, probably impossible. We live in an immoral world.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think two different topics need to be teased out:
1. Personal virtue: As individual Christians we need to work on reducing our own greed. We should attempt to slowly get better, to live as simply as possible and avoid luxuries. Avoid debt, help people with time and money.

We should look different than your "average Joe" because we should have different priorities and aims in life.

2. Societal level: Is a capitalist society corrupt? In many ways, yes. We have developed a consumer mentality and view the world through the lens of production and consumption. The way we rank countries is based on gross product.

But until a better system comes along that is the best way to organize society given the realities of free-ridership and incentives when moving to a group bigger than a tribe of 120 people.

Traditional Christian morality/ethics do help temper the excesses of consumer society, but in case anyone here hasn't noticed, that's exactly what has been pushed out of the public sphere for decades now.

That leaves us with ethics now boiling down to how to allocate 'stuff' (this group stole stuff, this group needs more stuff, we're killing the planet with this stuff, we need different stuff, etc.)
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Right. I'm really really free market and want to let the world do business as it seems fit.

But then things like Payday Loans existing, the story Tucker Carlson ran about the Cabelas/Bass Pro merger, and the recent news story about all the big capital firms buying up all housing inventory and taking away the ability for first time home owners from entering the market obviously trigger some emotional and moral responses where you realize that capitalism and free markets run rampant can be evil.

The problem is that there are a lot of things I see as shrewd but still honest business dealings, that others view as evil and greedy. I see payday loans and capital buying up whole neighborhoods as evil, but other christians would say that it's just capitalizing on available business and investments.

I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong, but good people can have different moral codes coming from the same place.
Why is a person or group of people buying multiple houses evil???

Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, it's impossible to talk in generalities.

Is someone who buys a Lexus greedy? What if it's used? What if it was bought for safety features, or reliability?

Is someone who has multiple houses greedy? What if they show hospitality and share them with friends and family? What if they rent them out to vacationers at a much better value than the local hotel? What if they employ 5 locals who are then able to support their children and pay medical bills because of it?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What if they represent a pension fund supporting millions of retirees and they're ensuring they can pay their checks?
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.