Selfishness vs. Selflessness

Obama's first order of business will be to get his stimulus plan approved by Congress and signed into law. Its current form is $825bn, including $275bn of tax cuts and $550bn of "infrastructure" spending.

And over the past several weeks, I've seen a number of emails and been privy to some conversations where people have been strategizing how to get some of that money for their pet project. That's exactly the wrong approach. It's like we are pigs eating from a trough. The US is going to be totally screwed if this $550bn is spent on everyone's pet projects. It has to be spent on the projects that will deliver the biggest bang for the buck in terms of future economic activity.

I'm not that thrilled about the $250bn of tax cuts because I don't think they'll do much to stimulate economic activity, but I realize why they are in the plan. First, because Obama promised them in his campaign. And second, because it's key to getting the Republicans, both the Republicans in Washington and the Republicans on Main Street, on board.

Deciding how we spend the $550bn is really hard because it needs to be spent on projects that are ready to go now, not in 3-5 years, and most importantly, it needs to be spent on super high return on investment projects that will make this country a stronger economic player in the years to come.

And so when I see people plotting on how they can get their hands on some of that money, it makes me mad. It's time for America to be a little more selfless. We've seen what the greed/me first approach has resulted in. And it sucks. We have to put our own individual needs and desires aside just a little bit and think about what the best projects are.

I realize that it's a good idea to allow everyone to throw out their ideas and suggestions. I'm all for that. But when people are plotting about how they can "spin" their pet project as "infrastructure" spending, it's gone too far. And we know that Congress is susceptible to being lobbied successfully by people, institutions, cities, states, and corporations. So I'm quite worried that this $550bn is not going to get spent in the right ways because it's seen as a big pot of money to get your hands on.

Maybe Obama and his team are good enough and principled enough to sift through all the requests for funds and filter out the pork. I sure hope so. But it would help a lot if everyone involved in the process of spending this $550bn would just take a step back and ask themselves if they are really acting in the best interests of our country or in their own self interests. A little selflessness right now could go a long way to improving our situation.

Comments

[Alphameister:]

On Jan 19 01:32 PM Yamu wrote:

> I'm hoping that the US does well
> as I love its history and the values it stands for but there's been
> a noticeable shift in culture that could lead to its downfall.

Amen, Yamu! I believe there has never been a more noble country than the one we have inherited. And like you, I am an optimistic, glass-half-full guy inclined to focus on the positives. But we have become a society devoted to instant gratification. We want it all and we want it now. Our children choose to study political science or art history where there are no right or wrong answers rather than the more demanding studies of science and engineering. While the Founding Fathers wanted to protect our right to PURSUE happiness, our current politicians assure us that we have a right to instant happiness and it will flow to us if only we vote them into office. In the private economy, those who focus only on the short term eventually suffer the consequences of failure. In government, those who ignore long-term problems in order to ensure their re-election are overwhelmingly re-elected notwithstanding widespread contempt for Congress as an institution. Elect the scoundrel who delivers the goodies even though he is part of the long-term disaster that looms increasingly large. The pettiest mugger and thief has the same redistributionist philosophy as Obama; he just values the greater efficiency of eliminating the governmental middle-man. The Founding Fathers foresaw the risks and would not be surprised at the socialist nation we have become.

Jan 19 02:50 PM

[Firat Ünlü:]

I'd also like to add why the left in principle is in favour of more government spending. Income equality. They know that the brunt of more and more taxes will have to be born by the rich so even if the additional tax money is wasted they will still have achieved one of their main ideological aims; wealth redistribution.
I agree that one of the reasons for the downfall is lack of willingness to accept that there indeed is right and wrong. Only recently we had a debate during a foreign policy lecture and our lector insisted that there was no right or wrong belief, that each person was right in his own way.
Tell that a general who is responsible for the lives of his men and whose only source of judgement is his reasoning.
Such thinking goes through all parts of society, most visibly in sports where that lack of cutting edge is brutally exposed.
When it comes to reality we need to accept that A is A (Atlas Shrugged's chapters come to mind). How much stick did Samuel Huntington get for his work? How many people went on the streets protesting for dictators and terrorists? Who, if not America, can reliably protect Western values?
At the moment I am living in Europe but as someone in his 20's I realize that I need to leave this continent as the environment is not favourable towards entrepreneurs, it's weird, but after watching TV or reading the newspapers for a while you start to feel bad for wanting to achieve something and make money. People have become to snobby and neglected the part of wealth creation that involves getting things done.
Self-interst is totally fine but most people don't understand the concept of money and how it is transferred.

Jan 19 03:15 PM

[Firat Ünlü:]

Infrastructure: There's only so many roads and bridges that are necessary which means that a normal intake of taxes should easily be able to cover those expenditures.

Education: Fine in principle but how exactly is it spent? The books have been written, if you're willing to put in the time and mental work you can learn anything from science to languages to economics on your own.
I'm sorry if that goes against the mantra that 'learning should always be fun', it's as if today's students think that enjoyable learning is a right whilst sitting on a desk and reading a book is not even an option anymore, even though it's a priviledge.

Manufacturing: How can the government affect manufacturing apart from providing its people with adequate ressources to increase human capital and by providing adequate legislature and regulations?


On Jan 19 01:56 PM enahs_20 wrote:

> The answer is obvious... spend the money on real wealth creation. Infrastructure, education, manufacturing... yes,

Jan 19 03:24 PM

[CLH:]

Fred---Written by a religious man and religion doesnt work.. Greed is universal. There are 2 kinds of people the greedy and liars.

Jan 19 03:31 PM

[User 265729:]

This reminds me...

I need to pull out that copy of the DVD, "Wall Street" and watch it again.

Remember Mike Douglas? -- Greed is good.

Jan 19 04:33 PM

[Uday Subbar...:]

Great article. A great amount of investment has to go for our schools for our children. The current binary system is broken 100%. (either public or private).

It has to be multiple levels.
Public Schools for parents making less than some$.
Govt. aided schools for parents making this much$.
Private schools are open to any one and parents pay for it.

We are stepping in to 21st century with 20th century school system whereas rest of the world is moved fwd.

Jan 19 05:49 PM

[Leftfield:]

I believe a reminder bears repeating that TARP and the Fed's and Treasury's bailout expenses total about $2 trillion so far. That equals the total national debt until about 1982. All done without accountability.

Somehow our $1trillion/year spending on our overseas military is fed to a mostly gullible public by portraying events anywhere on the globe as something that affects us importantly that we must coerce to "our" solutions. But the bailouts are distant and otherworldly enough, the figures high enough, to escape much serious scrutiny by the general public. (Witness the lack of serious debate and the voting in of incumbents, November).

Seems the public is trained by bad education and the oligarkic lapdog media plus a tendency to trust authority figures by default in actual practice. Plus not believing the true vileness I see in the most powerful classes who can pull of such a breathtaking outrage.

We've just started the new era but we've already handed over unaccountable trillions. And handed future generations the worst deal ever, over the last few decades. Selflessness would be new here.

Jan 19 06:21 PM

[The Proclaimer:]

"Socialism cannot compete" Attempts to call me a Socialist, Tread lightly! You sound like someone who would try to discredit one by rallying a misinformed mob to assist him. I am one that would rather act by exercising my FREEDOM to do so. You are either social phobic or one that discredits in order to advance your self serving cause, a cause that obviously does NOT respect others. I chose to exercise my FREEDOM to do what is right for MY Country. DO YOU? IF you have been following my blogs you may have a different opinion of me. You CURRENTLY have the freedom to invest as you wish, continue to invest selfishly and we all will lose that freedom!

Socialism cannot compete!
537 Comments

Jan 19 01:39 PM
Country before self...sounds kinda like a communist view of the individual -- exists mainly for the good of the state. When you kill the concept of the intrinsic dignity of the individual, and the rights that flow from that, you kill all chance of democracy and even orderly society in general. It inevitably becomes the usage of the human person as merely a producer.


On Jan 19 09:33 AM The Proclaimer wrote:

> Reading your article reminded me of a message that I have for all.
> We ALL need to focus on doing what is best for OUR country BEFORE
> we consider what is best for ourselves or clientele. Those who justify
> their choices by saying that they have a higher responsibility to
> ANY OTHER entity are only giving into greed and corruption.

>
>
> We need to get back to thinking GOD, Country, Family and then self
> IN THAT ORDER. This was the Philosophy of OUR Country's Founding
> Fathers! Need I say more?

Jan 19 06:31 PM

[The Proclaimer:]

What that you say Snidly? Curses foiled again. LOL

Jan 19 07:29 PM

[jacflash:]

Wait... a NYC-based venture capitalist is lecturing us on selflessness? Seriously?

Jan 19 07:34 PM

[MikeG:]

It's impossible to spend $550 billion of someone else's money the "right" way. how about we stop robbing future generations of their money, isn't this really taxation without representation? check out Hayek's "Road to Serfdom", and serfdom is exactly where we're headed if we keep handing our economic freedom over to the government, as the author of this essay seems to be okay with.

Jan 19 07:54 PM

[E.D. Hart:]

Ayn Rand and Adam Smith made a lot of good points, and are no doubt required reading. But they were themselves somewhat naive.

Heard of the prisoners dilemma? Its takes its name from game theory but applies to many situations where each individual pursuing their own interests results in the overall worst situation for everyone.

What about conscription? If you've ever been drafted into the military, you know that it may be very bad for you individually, but is required for the greater good of the nation.

If you've ever played team sports you've no doubt "taken one for the team" Greedy players don't get very far.

What about the tragedy of the commons? Each person greedily maximizing their own selfish interest results in the decline of the commons (or atmosphere, or ocean, or pasture, etc.)

Sure, greed accomplishes some great things, but it didn't win WWII, or put our men on the moon.

We celebrate MLK day, not for his greed but for his wisdom, and selflessness.

Greed is an absolute good? This is naivete itself.

Jan 19 08:27 PM

[E.D. Hart:]

A great fallacy of our time is that the left favors spending and the right does not.

This is patently false if youve been awake and reading the last 8 years.

The right favors certain types of spending over others, and the left favors certain types of spending over others.

I hope there is no one out there that still believes that conservatives are about small deficits (deficits don't matter Cheney should disabuse you of that notion, or that Democrats are big spenders (Clinton gave us a surplus).

The parties are not that different--both favor big spending. Lets admit that. Only libertarians are reading from a different script.

Jan 19 08:57 PM

[{5U}:]

Don't count on it. Pelosi, Reid and Dodd are as crooked as they get. They will be running the ship in Congress. I would like to be wrong on this but the nation is scared and too much power is concentrated in a select few. And remember, the Cult of Obama was created by the most brilliant and expensive marketing campaign of all time.

The same people who voted for Bush and bought houses they could not afford have no flip flopped to root for Obama. People care about their wallets first. And they want to believe, albeit it maybe blind faith. Capitalism is all about creative destruction.

As a trader, Hope is never a strategy. The change that is really needed is for companies to fail and to have market forces dictate the right price of assets, not the government which is fueled by lobbyists that pay the politicans with one hand in hopes of being bailed out with the other.

Jan 20 12:45 AM

[DiscerningWord:]

What are you talking about. Americans work exceptionally hard for their after-taxed wages and returns on investment. Its time for politicians to do what's best ofr America and not themselves. I remember the quick and admirable headlines right after 9-11 and the Hurricanes in America and every tragedy around the world since oh....the past 100-plus years that Americans do do the right things a lot. We keep other nations afloat and defend people we don't even know and have nothing in common with. There is a heart in America that beats mightilty...that's why so many people want to come here and become citizens or go to school here and then go back and do whatever it is they do outside America. We have an admirable freedom and care for humans that no one else has. We work very hard for our families and to do the right things. Tought we all fall short every day in word, deed, action, or inaction, the people of America are very different form their political leaders who take, take, adn take and then take more. Always blaming something other than themselvers. Its time for America to get back to the Constitution, BIll of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and it reliance on the one true God in whom we trust. If you don't want that.....then good luck to ya.

Jan 20 01:05 AM

[Alphameister:]

Whatever we celebrate about MLK, it was not his selflessness. His greed was for fame, influence and the adulation of others, an addictive combination that also happened to bring him a high level of material comfort as well. As for your other "refutations" of the value of self-interest, some tend to suggest that you've not understood Adam Smith at all while others suggest you've discovered the concept of enlightened self-interest. Conscription was always an evil within a free society; some would say a necessary evil but I disagree.


On Jan 19 08:27 PM E.D. Hart wrote:

> Ayn Rand and Adam Smith made a lot of good points, and are no doubt
> required reading. But they were themselves somewhat naive.
>
> Heard of the prisoners dilemma? Its takes its name from game theory
> but applies to many situations where each individual pursuing their
> own interests results in the overall worst situation for everyone.
>
>
> What about conscription? If you've ever been drafted into the military,
> you know that it may be very bad for you individually, but is required
> for the greater good of the nation.
>
> If you've ever played team sports you've no doubt "taken one for
> the team" Greedy players don't get very far.
>
> What about the tragedy of the commons? Each person greedily maximizing
> their own selfish interest results in the decline of the commons
> (or atmosphere, or ocean, or pasture, etc.)
>
> Sure, greed accomplishes some great things, but it didn't win WWII,
> or put our men on the moon.
>
> We celebrate MLK day, not for his greed but for his wisdom, and selflessness.
>
>
> Greed is an absolute good? This is naivete itself.

Jan 20 07:56 AM

[Chris B:]

Government used to be America's source of competitive advantage in the world: the reason why we succeeded and became dominant in the 20th century while other countries stagnated or imploded.

-It provided the best, most comprehensive educational system in the world. The movement to expand and improve universal education preceded the shift from an agrarian economy to the most innovative and productive industrial economy on earth.

-It created effective laws and regulations that protected consumers and investors. This encouraged economic activity and investment (both domestic and international) by creating a rule-of-law environment.

-It subsidized science, which led to US dominance in physics, engineering, aerospace, medicine, public health, communications, electronics, agriculture, basic sciences, transportation, and many other areas. Improvements to the US quality of life soon followed.

-It built or assisted in the building of the world's best infrastructure, which increased the speed of commerce while reducing the costs. Interstate highways, airports, railroads, ports, schools, utilities, and flood control paid unappreciated dividends for years, and still do.

-It created the social safety nets that we take for granted today: the FDIC, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and others. These fall-backs gave individuals the ability to be entrepreneurial without having to worry about homelessness and destitution.

Lately, the government has failed in most of these areas, as resources have been increasingly diverted to pork projects and lobbyists' objectives. Taxpayers look at what they are getting for their money and conclude that they receive very little. What's your ROI for the $1+Trillion Iraq war for which you or your kids will owe $30k? This lack of ROI has led many observers to conclude that "government is the problem." However, if government just became EFFECTIVE again at accomplishing its CORE functions, most of us would happily pay taxes in exchange for the world's highest standard of living (an award that we have lost in recent years). An awareness of how we acheived global economic supremecy is key to figuring out how to acheive it again.

On the other hand, there is no historical argument that bailouts of failing companies laid the foundation for economic growth. The Japanese example begs to differ.

Jan 20 01:15 PM

[Chris B:]

That's funny, I thought conservatives considered soldiers to be heroes. After all, soldiers put country before self when they go into battle. Are they communists? Is boot camp an expression of "intrinsic dignity" and selfish individualism? Tell that to the drill sergeant, I double dog dare you!

Also try telling it to all the firefighters, police officers, nurses, and teachers who you consider to be pinkos for pursing careers that contribute to the greater good rather than to their own wallets.


On Jan 19 01:39 PM Socialism cannot compete! wrote:

> Country before self...sounds kinda like a communist view of the individual
> -- exists mainly for the good of the state. When you kill the concept
> of the intrinsic dignity of the individual, and the rights that flow
> from that, you kill all chance of democracy and even orderly society
> in general. It inevitably becomes the usage of the human person as
> merely a producer.

Jan 20 01:25 PM

[sether:]

You are contradicting yourself again. Are you a fan of Rand and her ideas or not?
Isn't self interest the opposite of "love"? the term Love implies at a minimum, some sort of benevolent interest in at least one other human; or humanity at large, the masses, one would hope.
So we need to get over ourselves, and Ayn Rand, before we move on to the John Lennon? All you need is love.
Is this like the dialectic motion toward communism where we have to let capitalism run its course and then communism will spontaneously erupt?
You cannot be a Libertarian (or a republican) and a Hippie at the same time.



On Jan 19 10:31 AM Alphameister wrote:

> Yes, I've read the books, understood them, assessed their strengths
> and their weaknesses. It's obvious you cannot make the same claim.
> Rand was not a happy person because money was, to her, the primary
> measure of success. At least she understood that it is the genius
> of the "lone wolf" that creates wealth and not the labor of the masses.
> If her book, "The Virtue of Selfishness" had been changed to "The
> Virtue of Enlightened Self Interest," (with appropriate changes to
> the text), it would have been a much more helpful tome that would
> have generated a lot less animosity toward her and her ideas. We
> can and should learn from Rand, then move beyond her to make love
> our highest value and the world will be a much better place.
>

Jan 20 04:49 PM

[E.D. Hart:]

"Whatever we celebrate about MLK, it was not his selflessness. His greed was for fame, influence and the adulation of others, an addictive combination that also happened to bring him a high level of material comfort as well. As for your other "refutations" of the value of self-interest, some tend to suggest that you've not understood Adam Smith at all while others suggest you've discovered the concept of enlightened self-interest. Conscription was always an evil within a free society; some would say a necessary evil but I disagree."

What about those who volunteer? Are they misled?

According to some, it is not possible to be selfless. According to them, everything we do is enlightened because, in some way it may benefit us.

True ethical altruism doesn't exist, (some evolutionary biologists tell us), only bc we can trace the roots of altrusim to genetics, and find that helping behavior always ends up helping the helper as well through ensuring the helpers genetic fitness.

Humans, although animals, have the capacity to choose their behavior, in some measure.

Can you admit that it is possible to choose selfish behavior? Can you admit that it is possible to choose relatively selfless behavior (that in part may also benefit the self). ?

Clearly, running back into a building to save burning victims is a relatively selfless behavior (even though their may be a benefit to the self).

Perhaps you misunderstood the purpose of my post: it was to refute the notion that greed (which is different than self interest) is an absolute good.

It was also to show that enlightened self interest may, at times, damage society when taken to its logical extremes. (Garrett Hardin).

Adam Smith, based on his writings in The Theory of Moral Sentiments would agree that human society required more than the enlightened self interest to operate sustainably.

Smith critically examined the moral thinking of the time and suggested that conscience arises from social relationships.His aim in the work is to explain the source of mankind's ability to form moral judgments, in spite of man's natural inclinations toward self-interest. Smith proposes a theory of sympathy in which the act of observing others makes people aware of themselves and the morality of their own behavior. Haakonssen writes that in Smith's theory, "Society is ... the mirror in which one catches sight of oneself, morally speaking."(wikipedia)

Greenspan has admitted that he was ideologically in error in some measure in the extremes that that markets were allowed to reach, in the lack of oversight.

Adam Smith himself abjurred the Monopoly for its detrimental effects on society.

Every free nation has men and women in arms to defend the homeland. Some of these people volunteer to serve, such as in our country. Do they benefit? Sure. But their selfish actions are necessary to the freedom of the republic.

My point is that unreflective, orthodox, Greenspan/Randian/Smit... morality has been found wanting . It has led to excesses and errors, damage, and to t the loss of wealth of nations. The invisible hand of Smith, the heroic ideals of Rand, the excessively unregulated free markets of Greenspan are only part of the story.

Read Garret Hardin and the Tragedy of the Commons for the other half.

Jan 20 06:59 PM