More on Greed, Regulation, Lehman, The Financial Industry [View article]
Good point about definition. I will take that up directly in a post on Goldman. My answer to that here is that I don't want the government to define what is excessive and what is not excessive in finance, sports, music, television or anywhere else.
This is one reason I take a 'neutral' stance on the greed issue. My definition of excess may be vastly different than someone else's. I will say in this post on Goldman that there are other ways to attack so-called excessive compensation.
On Oct 16 06:55 AM chap08 wrote:
> Edward, I agree with you and what Roger Bootle had to say in your > previous post. I disagree with the Austrians. As Bootle said: > > "These people are dangerous. The idea of letting the financial system > implode and then waiting for the market to bring spontaneous, healthy > revival out of the wreckage might read well on the pages of a book, > but in the real world it would bring human misery on a gigantic scale. > In today's society, people simply will not tolerate it. If that is > what the market system is about then they will have none of it; and > rightly so." > > Of course "people ... having none of it" is what has happened a number > of times in history. It's called socialist, or national socialist > revolution. I'd prefer that didn't happen here. As you said "a perfectly > free market is a fiction". It is a fiction from the pages of the > same book that Bootle was talking about. Consequently, we need regulation. > > > As for greed, I believe that you need to do more thinking. I happen > to agree that "greed is not good" but the statement is NOT self evident. > The problem lies in defining "excessive", as in "excessive wealth". > What is excessive? What is too much? Does Warren Buffett have more > wealth than he needs? Of course he does. So why don't people think > of him as greedy? Is America greedy - do we have an excess of material > wealth? Does the rest of the world get by on less? Do our system > and society promote greed but call it something else? I'm not sure > that there are definitive answers.
More on Greed, Regulation, Lehman, The Financial Industry [View article]
This is one reason I take a 'neutral' stance on the greed issue. My definition of excess may be vastly different than someone else's. I will say in this post on Goldman that there are other ways to attack so-called excessive compensation.
On Oct 16 06:55 AM chap08 wrote:
> Edward, I agree with you and what Roger Bootle had to say in your
> previous post. I disagree with the Austrians. As Bootle said:
>
> "These people are dangerous. The idea of letting the financial system
> implode and then waiting for the market to bring spontaneous, healthy
> revival out of the wreckage might read well on the pages of a book,
> but in the real world it would bring human misery on a gigantic scale.
> In today's society, people simply will not tolerate it. If that is
> what the market system is about then they will have none of it; and
> rightly so."
>
> Of course "people ... having none of it" is what has happened a number
> of times in history. It's called socialist, or national socialist
> revolution. I'd prefer that didn't happen here. As you said "a perfectly
> free market is a fiction". It is a fiction from the pages of the
> same book that Bootle was talking about. Consequently, we need regulation.
>
>
> As for greed, I believe that you need to do more thinking. I happen
> to agree that "greed is not good" but the statement is NOT self evident.
> The problem lies in defining "excessive", as in "excessive wealth".
> What is excessive? What is too much? Does Warren Buffett have more
> wealth than he needs? Of course he does. So why don't people think
> of him as greedy? Is America greedy - do we have an excess of material
> wealth? Does the rest of the world get by on less? Do our system
> and society promote greed but call it something else? I'm not sure
> that there are definitive answers.