• FrankGSterleJr
    96
    “The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms — greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind …”

    “It’s not a question of enough, pal. It’s a zero sum game — somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn’t lost or made; it’s simply transferred — from one perception to another. Like magic.”

    —the morbidly greedy and corrupt bank-financier Gordon Gekko’s reply to his increasingly exasperated young stockbroker protégé Bud Fox’s blunt question: When will it all be enough money for his mentor? (Wall Street, 1987)


    ____________


    Human greed — in particular that of the very profitable corporation — is basically as reliable as general relativity, though in a purely human-nature sense. The unlimited-profit objective/nature is somehow irresistible. It brings to mind the allegorical fox stung by the instinct-abiding scorpion while ferrying it across the river, leaving both to drown.

    Corporate officers will shrug their shoulders and defensively say their job is to protect shareholders’ bottom-line interests. The shareholders, meanwhile, shrug their shoulders while defensively stating that they just collect the dividends and that the corporate officers are the ones to make the moral and ethical decisions.

    The more that they make, all the more they want — nay, need! — to make next quarterly. It’s never enough, yet the corporate news-media, which make up virtually all of Western mainstream news media, will implicitly or explicitly celebrate their successful greed [a.k.a. ‘stock market gains’].

    As for consequential greed, there notably was the pharmaceutical industry knowingly pushing a new opiate that was very profitable and just as addictive — an ethical and moral crime for which they got off relatively lightly considering the resulting immense suffering and overdose death numbers.

    And there were Boeing’s two quite-preventable 737 Max jetliner-crash atrocities, together horrifically killing all 346 people onboard.

    And there was significant corporate greed-based neglect that resulted in numerous Covid-19 illnesses and deaths of vulnerable elderly people in for-profit long-term care homes. However, that neglect was around long before the crisis, although the actual extent was made horrifically clear only after the pandemic really hit.

    Maximizing profits by risking the health or lives of product consumers will likely always be a significant part of the nature of the big business beast. Therefore, families likely still have reason to worry over their loved-ones being left vulnerable by measures taken by some long-term care-home businesses to maximize profits.

    Western business mentality and, by extension, collective society allowed the well-being of our oldest family members to be decided by corporate profit-margin measures. And governments dared not intervene, perhaps fearing being labelled as anti-business in our avidly capitalist culture. …

    As for potent corporate manipulation of government oversight bodies that are supposed to protect consumers’ wellbeing but instead put big business interests first, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada are prime examples of such compromisation.

    In the case of Health Canada, it allowed novelty-flavored vaping products to be fully marketed — even on corner stores’ candy counters — without conclusive independent scientific proof that the product, as claimed by the tobacco industry, would not seriously harm consumers but rather just help nicotine addicts wean themselves off of the more carcinogenic cigarette means of nicotine deliverance.

    A few years before that, Health Canada had sat on its own research results that indicated seatbelts on buses would save lives and reduce injury; it wanted even more proof of safety through seatbelts before ordering big bus manufacturers to install them in every bus.

    Also noteworthy is that over the last 18 years or so, Health Canada has dramatically diverted a large portion of its resources from consumers’ health/wellbeing and onto the pharmaceutical industry’s business interests.

    Health Canada places about four times more of its resources, such as staffing and funding, toward getting new drugs onto the market than it does on consumers’ safety, the latter which includes monitoring and recording adverse effects caused by the drugs.
  • Tarskian
    658
    One particular term comes to mind: regulatory capture

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

    In politics, regulatory capture (also called agency capture) is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group.
    ...
    Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all. A captured regulator is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government.

    There is no problem in the world that the government won't make worse.
  • frank
    16k

    Note that the quote at the beginning of your post is not supposed to be expressing the view of a CEO. Gordon Gekko was Wall Street. This is a totally different kind of profit-making. The financial sector essentially skims money off the top of transactions associated with human needs, like crops, oil, meat, etc. They don't involve themselves in any of that other than to finance buy-outs. Corporations aren't central to the American economy. Wall St. is. GM will be allowed to fail. JPMorgan Chase won't.

    This means that if you're a CEO, you've been charged with keeping a business afloat in an environment where the US government is not your ally. You have to compete with foreign businesses who are supported by their governments and have better labor markets. You probably inherited a model where most of the business is off-shore. You're not really an American business. You're global.

    Healthcare is very different story. We can't exactly replace American workers with Indonesians there. In the US, the trend is toward fusion. We're headed toward a time when there are no independent local hospitals. They're all owned by entities who operate across large regions. This allows them to take control of the cost of medications. I actually like the way it's working.
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    And yet, while we blame businesses, we often times do not blame people who work for them. I mean the rank and file. You see, many basic workers are greedy too, and can be convinced that increased wages mean worthy people will lose jobs. Or that regulation means less profit for the company, and therefore a lower paycheck. Or that wealth is a measure of 'hard work', and you don't want your 'hard work' to be diminished by outside forces either.

    And its not that these things aren't true. Its that greed forces a myopic view point on "my self-benefit only", instead of thinking about the broader picture and economy. The resistance to fix the issue of greed could easily be overcome if it were just a few people at the top. But its a large mass of greedy rank and file people who are the real problem.
  • Outlander
    2.2k
    Ah, greed. Where to begin. There's the old saying: "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway." In relation to modern economic systems, it's probably worth bearing in mind the fact most all things in life are a gamble, some in more ways than others. Since that much is fairly self-evident, we'll come back to that later.

    So, what is greed, really? Scholars, theistic and otherwise, seem to purport "the desire (or perhaps tendency or habitual nature) to obtain more than what one needs." Often with the implied nature of crass/brashness and lack of empathy toward one's fellow man being present, to the point one might have even learned to enjoy doing so simply for the feeling or emotion associated with the act and not what is gained by the act as a result.

    I think that's a fairly solid and universally-agreeable (reasonable) starting point. There's a few questions that can be immediately ascertained from such a claim. Who defines what one "needs", after all? Surely the self, societal norms, and what not? When I go grocery shopping I buy more food than I will eat in one setting, more than I will eat in one day, more than I need in one week, sometimes longer. In fact, considering the desire and belief I hold to live and enjoy a long life, I need basically everything in the entire store! At least, it wouldn't go to waste, if expiration were not a factor.

    In short, I think it's an established vice for a reason that men become blinded in gain and success so much to the point it becomes detrimental to what's best for a society if not unchecked. So this is where a moral deviation could occur. Best illustrated by the answer to the following question: why do people do things? Because they have to. The farmer who tends to his crops or the mother who tends to her young doesn't do so because it's some "idealistic dream" one has always held or desired to participate in, not typically, at least. But rather because, one must for existential reasons crucial to one's survival. So it seems, to me at least, greed can be used interchangeably with desire. And desire can not only be ill-formed but also categorized as beneficial or detrimental, both to one's self and of course to a larger society.

    As far as it's relation to business goes, that's why we have regulation and a free market. Prevents, say, a mechanic from doing a poor job (not fixing the problem, using subpar materials) and getting away with doing so long-term. Or from charging ridiculous amounts for something that in this modern day and age is so crucial to the bare existential survival of most. Basically there's an argument or avenue of discussion in relation to corporate business where "maximizing efficiency" and "greed" can be inappropriately equated to one another or erroneously used in reference. Say I believe the government over-regulates and has become a detriment to efficiency and innovation, I won't make a single dime more than adhering and living to this truth or not, I do it because I think it's best for society or at least the company, so I do it. "Greed", per se, simply wasn't present or a factor in such a scenario.

    I'm not quite sure if any of this was or will lead to the direction you desired this discussion to result in? Perhaps your preference is your own greed.. not automatically of negative benefit, let alone intent. Just my take on the matter.
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    2.9k


    When will it all be enough money for his mentor?

    Reminds me of all of Kierkegaard's language re subjectivities attraction to the infinite (good). There is something to the idea that desires never come to rest in the merely finite (Kierkegaard, Nicholas of Cusa speaks a lot about this too).
  • BC
    13.6k
    As for consequential greedFrankGSterleJr

    When is greed not consequential? The love of money (cupiditas) is the root of all evil (radix malorum). Or we could say, the unending search for financial growth opportunities is a big root, if not the tap root of evil.

    One big profitable pollution case is in my back yard and in your blood stream: 3M is/was a leading manufacturer of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) which are used in a myriad of products--Teflon for example, and fire fighting foams) and which do not readily break down in the environment. The PFAS products were profitable; people got paid for making them; the profits were distributed among stockholders, including employee profit sharing; the wastes from PFAS production were externalized -- dumped in land fills. All par for the course.

    Evidence appeared by the 1970s that PFAS accumulated in our bodies (and in other animals). As a general rule, industrial chemicals should not be released to bio-accumulate. Never mind. They were and they did.

    Now, 50 some years after first signs of bio-toxity started to be found, PFAS is found pole to pole, around the world, just about everywhere. It doesn't degrade, so every molecule released circulates in the environment forever, aka a long time. Should you worry?

    It is perhaps too late; 'the cat is out of the bag' and has been out for quite some time. Its various biological effects (like its resemblance to hormones) are happening.

    Perhaps 3M will pay out huge sums in penalties and will stop making the product. That would be considered justice, but no amount of penalties will call the chemicals back. The same can be said for many toxic chemicals (in pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.) that are sprayed all over the place.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment