Never vote Republican, no matter what.

If I were to tell you one day that the maximum amount of money that you will ever make in a years time is $30,000, would you be motivated to do the best at your job?

Greed is good. Greed works.

You mention "consumerism" that came about at the turn of the century. People in history have always wanted things. The kings and queens in Europe wanted things. The caveman (once he learned what things were) wanted more and more. This is not an American construct. This is a human construct and has been around since the dawn of man. People will always have things, people will always want things.

It has always been this way and WILL always be this way.

And only vote Democrat some of the time.
This thread's for the unorthodox views of theose who feel that the established parties have failed us. I am at work and have to leave now. Ya'll behave til I git back, hear?

Quote:

You mention "consumerism" that came about at the turn of the century. People in history have always wanted things. The kings and queens in Europe wanted things. The caveman (once he learned what things were) wanted more and more. This is not an American construct. This is a human construct and has been around since the dawn of man. People will always have things, people will always want things.

It has always been this way and WILL always be this way.

Even so (and it's a gross oversimplification, but fair enough at the root of it), it does not follow that it should always be so, nor that we should do nothing to mitigate the negative effects of unbridled greed. There has always been murder; it does not follow that we should do nothing about it. There has always been rape; it does not follow that we should do nothing about it. For all the havoc that our big brains have wreaked, they also enable us to examine our courses of action and alter them.

As a society we place a very high premium on entertainment, but we have high expectations of our entertainers.

Much to challenge here. Let me begin immediately...
True. It doesn't follow that it should be this way, but it also doesn't follow that it should not.

People having things and people wanting things is not a definition of greed.

People wanting more than others have is not a definition of greed.

The problem arises when it comes time to actually define greed, because in so doing one must define what an individual needs or deserves, and then define what degree of acquisition beyond these levels is excessive.
Indeed. Under the formulation above it is tough to imagine 'greed' having any meaning at all. Which gets us pretty close to Gordon Gekkohood "Greed is good". There is the sensical Aristotelian differentiatin between needs and wants, but that's not a differentiation likely to gain much cheering in a society accustomed to unfettered comsumption and profits.


As long as the acquisition of wealth is through legal means there is a danger in attempting to define what is too much.
"Danger" perhaps only in relation to prior notions. Rich Romans had slaves hike up to the top of local mountains during summer to fetch snow which was used to cool their beverages. A Czar liked oranges, so had fifty square acres covered in glass (when glass was rather more rare and expensive) to facilitate a personal orchard. Europe has a much decreased problem with air pollutants and petroleum consumption through much smaller vehicles and a much higher percentage of diesel engines. The 'legal' criterion is both local and arbitrary, not necessarily rational.

We can all shake our heads at the seeming inequity of sports and film stars receiving multi-millions while teachers are paid comparative pittances, but as saintfanbrian points out, this inequity exists because we not only willingly allow it, we encourage it.

As a society we place a very high premium on entertainment, but we have high expectations of our entertainers.
I'm not sure that's it. What is to be expected of The Spice Girls? One can say that somehow these sorts of folks/activities do gain big dollars, but quality isn't necessarily the fundamental aspect of such gain.

A journeyman shortstop in the Majors may make millions, but he is without question, a rare and exceptional athlete. The biggest "bum" on a playing field is a quantum leap above the average person in terms of athletic skills.

As a society we place a very high premium on education, but we have very low expectations of our teachers. The worst teacher in a school system is not a gifted educator. The best teacher might not even be.

If it were more difficult to become and remain a teacher, teachers would be able to command higher salaries. It is not, and so they are not.
This is a big discussion, but you're heading in the wrong direction. In the US and Canada, from the earliest periods, educators have never been paid well nor valued very highly. The reason women were so frequently hired to teach was simply because the communities could get away with paying them less than males. Educational institutions have always been regarded with a mix of sentitments, and commonly held to be a destructive influence which might/would make citizens effeminate, intellectual, anti-church, anti-tradition and impractical. The anti-intellectual traditions in America are perhaps most clearly evidenced in the history of education.

When we attempt to cap the rewards a person may earn through some arbitrary decision on what is too much, we run the risk of capping creativity and initiative.
Maybe. On the other hand, we could look at the trend over the last two decades in CEO income/performance and question this assumption.

We often lose sight of the fact that while Bill Gates has earned what can easily seem to be a ridiculous amount of money, his efforts have generated multiples of his fortune in jobs throughout the country.

We also lose sight of the fact that people like Bill Gates contribute enormous amounts to charity.
But how common is this? What percentage of the very wealthy contribute and how many out of charitable sensibilities rather than for income tax benefits? And of course it has only been in the last decade that Bill loosened up his notoriously tight purse.

Not everyone with enormous fortunes is a bloated hedonist with extravagant tastes and perverse desires.

For those bloated hedonists who do live among us, the chances are excellent that their greed will, in one way or another, be their downfall.
Interesting. You relate 'greed' to 'bloated hedonism'.

A totally free market is too risky, but so too are attempts to redistribute wealth.
I'd be happy in Norway.[/[/color]quote]