Greed Is Good (In the Appropriate Context)

It seems that some of my libertarian friends have been miffed recently by liberal allegations that they're greedy. Insofar as I wanted to make the allegation stick, I would argue that rightwing pundits and so forth are greedy not because they stand to reap enormous personal financial benefits from their pro-rich-people political agenda, but because they stand to reap relatively enormous personal financial benefits from their willingness to argue the pro-rich-people line. There's more money to be made in the field of conservative political activism and propaganda work, because the right's activist institutions are better-financed.

That said, I would strongly, strongly, strongly caution liberals against making non-greediness some kind of core political virtue. There's a certain strand of self-regard, a shortsighted meanness of spirit and neglect of public purpose, that's incompatible with the spirit of modern egalitarian liberalism, but mostly the whole point of the enterprise is to convince people that liberalism will make you better off. It won't, of course, make literally everyone better off, but the pitch is that the vast majority of people would benefit from living in a society with high quality public services, adequate environmental protections, a foreign policy focused on international cooperation, and a healthy regard for individual autonomy.

Comments

Re:" their willingness to argue the pro-rich-people line."

The 2004 copy of Writers Market I have says writing freelance for Reason($300-2000) pays much better then writing freelance for the Nation ($225-300).

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | October 24, 2007 8:18 AM

Re:" their willingness to argue the pro-rich-people line."

The 2004 copy of Writers Market I have says writing freelance for Reason($300-2000) pays much better then writing freelance for the Nation ($225-300).

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | October 24, 2007 8:18 AM

I don't know; various dictionary definitions of greed (as well as our everyday understanding of the concept) include descriptions such as "excessive", "overwhelming", and "uncontrolled" desire for something. It seems possible to take a stand against greed without being against ordinary self-advancement. Of course, that's not to say that some conservatives might not attack a strawman version of being anti-greedy, the way Ayn Rand attacks altruism.

Posted by RSA | October 24, 2007 8:23 AM

What's interesting about the above complaints is that they get all worked up about using personal or private values/virtues to adjudicate public/political policy dilemmas. The language of goods and the language of rights are, of course, supposed to be kept distinct...except until you have to justify the language of rights, and then things get a good bit trickier. The libertarian option at this point is to just keep denying that rights have any kind of real normative quality ... and that we're not saying anything normative when we point this out.

Posted by berger | October 24, 2007 8:26 AM

"high quality public services, adequate environmental protections, a foreign policy focused on international cooperation, and a healthy regard for individual autonomy" -- sounds like a decent libertarian creed to me. Of course we differ on what public services to provide (define quality), what personal freedoms we should continue to have, inexpensive and effective stragegies for national self-defence, and cost-effective protections for the environment.

Your pro-rich writer argument suffers from an "excluded middle" fallacy -- I imagine NYT writers are generally well-paid vis a vis their peers (simply using NYT as a liberal bastion)? Atlantic Monthly writers?

Posted by mike c | October 24, 2007 8:38 AM

"...high quality public services, adequate environmental protections, a foreign policy focused on international cooperation, and a healthy regard for individual autonomy."

That sounds like a pretty decent Official Platform for a political party. Might be able to get some votes saying those four things over and over again. Except instead of the fourth one, the candidate should just say "freedom," which I think still polss pretty well.

Posted by sam | October 24, 2007 8:38 AM

There's a certain strand of self-regard, a shortsighted meanness of spirit and neglect of public purpose, that's incompatible with the spirit of modern egalitarian liberalism . . . .

Are you trying to raise the level of your discourse to that of Henry David Thoreau? Are we having some anxiety of influence? Dude, it's The Atlantic blogs. It's okay. Just write what you want to say.

Posted by rm | October 24, 2007 8:43 AM

Well, liberalism isn't going to make me (upper middle-class white guy near retirement) better off. I expect, broadly speaking, that my retirement and health 'entitlements' will decline and that, here in Maryland, my taxes will go up. With liberalism I can, at least, hope that benefits will decline in a gradual and manageable fashion, rather than in the sudden and catastrophic fashion that is the signature of the Bush administration.

Posted by MattF | October 24, 2007 8:53 AM

Greed is bad (but don't say it out loud)

You are arguing that liberals should not say that greed is a vice. Your point is that, while few people have Ivan Boesky levels of greed, most people would like to have more money and it is bad politics to insult most people.

This does not mean that greed is good (in the appropriate context) it means "We should say that greed is good in the appropriate context." which is a different statement from your title.

I don't think people can make something a virtue, political or otherwise. I think either non-greediness is a virtue or it is not (notice I believe in ontologically objective moral truth).
In particular, non greediness is a virtue ceteris paribus. I personally am to lazy to be greedy. This is not virtue, just another vice. People who are industrious and thrifty but not greedy are virtuous. The three traits can be reconciled with a budget constraint because they give money away.

All arguments that greed is good in some contexts are consistent with giving the proceeds away (Brad as usual wrote this better).

I would have to lie to say that the ideal person is greedy. I would be willing to lie for the cause, but since no one cares what I think, I'll just say greed is bad.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | October 24, 2007 9:01 AM

There's a certain strand of self-regard, a shortsighted meanness of spirit and neglect of public purpose, that's incompatible with the spirit of modern egalitarian liberalism

Isn't this what most people mean when they accuse those on the right of selfishness, etc.? It sure seems to be. So...you agree. OK, then.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 24, 2007 9:21 AM

Greed is fine, the problem is the incredibly lopsided level of power, incentives.

Suppose 70-80% of the workforce is unionized - greedy talented pundits desperately trying to be noticed by the Mother Jones' editorial board and Public Citizen's executives; no one cares about the NYT and Cato and no one even know what the NRO and AEI are. That would've been nice. Well, perhaps in some parallel universe...

Posted by abb1 | October 24, 2007 9:30 AM

What drives people nuts is the Christian type of rightwinger who argue that greed is good. If Christ is correct than Ayn Rand most assuredly isn't.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 24, 2007 9:32 AM

"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." Samuel Johnson

Posted by beowulf | October 24, 2007 9:34 AM

The problem here is the downranking of greed. Putting in the same boat working hard to try and get ahead, and say..scheduling your workforce for just under full-time hours in order to deny them benefits....

These things just are not the same.

Posted by Karmakin | October 24, 2007 9:37 AM

Is it really the year 2007???? Feels a tad like Marx's London and Lenin's Switzerland? Or even Trotsky's Mexico ;-)

Why do I still get the impression people on the LEFT mix up the destination and the journey???

You want to feed your family.. How do you go about it? Do you use fertilizer because your goal is to grow quickly? Will you use pesticides because you know that insects will attack?

Or do you trust the ecosystem that it will adjust as it wants to live without direct intervention at every step? That if there are too many insects - more birds will come given a little patience? That the plants will grow without short-term fertilizer because the soil will not erode?

Greed has nothing to do with it. Fairness has nothing to do with it. Everyone wants to feed his/her family and live among people who are well off (and are not needlessly suffering). Greed is a human nature variable and can be found in Jesus, Marx, yes even Stalin and Mother Theresa... At the same time - compassion is also part of human nature - even the pope has some of it, etc? Those traits have existed in mammals long before humans came along and claimed that we need a statist government (or worse - the church) to facilitate goodness and control the evil parts human nature? This is obscene and blasphemous. Why can vampire bats be social and charitable without any force?

We do not need policies that are statist and hence uneconomical in order to prove our good intentions. If we wanted to help the poor sustainably and in the long-run - we need policies that are aligned with natural laws? We do not need to bankrupt us or to have us killed like Jesus to make a point - social policies should not be about signaling and cheap votes?

On a personal level - I understand that one can pinpoint tendencies among the parties. I love that Malcolm X has called liberals foxes. They do not show their teeth as openly as the conservatives. No - they smile at you but their appetite is the same?

Both farmers - the natural, organic ecological one (libertarian) and the industrial interventionist farmers (liberals and conservatives) - have the same goals and therefore the same greed!

organic natural farming vs industrial interventionist farming

will literally be the main discussion for decades to come...! Both have the same goals and destinations but the journey is quite different.

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 24, 2007 9:51 AM

It always amuses me--and to some extent--scares me, that the Right and the religious fundies who they are and who support them tend to espouse and promote many of the 'seven deadly sins.' Greed is one of them, adultery another (of course, none of these are specific to the Right, but they certainly seem to reach the highest levels of hypocrisy regarding them). I also find it quite odd that their bumperstickers (and, here in the South, the weekly text placed on baptist signs outside churches) proclaim the 'power of pride,' usually alongside or designed with the American flag--as if that is not yet another 'deadly sin.'

Posted by terraformer | October 24, 2007 9:52 AM

the Right and the religious fundies who they are and who support them tend to espouse and promote many of the 'seven deadly sins.'

Apparently recent advances in our thinking have rendered the seven sins no longer deadly. They're the seven just-a-flesh-wound sins, or perhaps the seven minor-injury sins.

Posted by RSA | October 24, 2007 10:58 AM

"Well, liberalism isn't going to make me (upper middle-class white guy near retirement) better off."

Liberal government will make sure you get your social security. The right-wingers have been trying for years to loot the extra social security payments you've been making for last 20 years in order to pay for own retirement, and they may do it yet. They've already made sure that if your social security isn't looted, your children will have to pay higher taxes in order to pay for the tax cuts for the filthy rich. If you don't understand this you're not paying attention.

Posted by bloix | October 24, 2007 11:32 AM

"There's more money to be made in the field of conservative political activism and propaganda work, because the right's activist institutions are better-financed."

Is this really true? And if so, why? There seems to be no shortage of liberal-to-leftwing billionaires: George Soros, Warren Buffett, the guy who founded CNN (whose name escapes me right now), Don Williams's favorite Haim Saban, etc.

Posted by Juan | October 24, 2007 11:39 AM

Soros ponies up lots of money, but Buffet's not exactly a political activist. Ted Turner (CNN) is a libertarian.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 24, 2007 11:42 AM

I don't know about Sanchez, but McArdle earned her wealth the old-fashioned way. Via familia.

If libertarians are just greedy f-ers, I have no problem with them. But the ones who pretend they're virtuous just because they have money are the lowest form of life.

Posted by Donold Trumpp | October 24, 2007 12:56 PM

Is this really true? And if so, why? There seems to be no shortage of liberal-to-leftwing billionaires: George Soros, Warren Buffett, the guy who founded CNN (whose name escapes me right now), Don Williams's favorite Haim Saban, etc.

I think the problem is with your "etc." Who else is there? Apart from Soros, are any of these people actually giving significant money to liberal causes? Whereas, there's tons of foundation and corporate money out there for the ambitious conservative pundit. The biggest differencemakers aren't individual rich folks like Scaife, but large companies, which have a lot more money at their disposal.

Posted by Chilly | October 24, 2007 2:26 PM