History-Greed theory (long)

[All Systems Go]

I was sitting here reading a book and I came up with this idea so I wrote it down. Some parts if not most are very general in their outlook. Due to a lack of time and current motivation I have left it to the good people of GD forum to pick over this and to point out any of the flaws with this idea.

The driving force behind history is greed. People always, whether rightly or wrongly want more. Ironically it is through greed that people will become equal in stature. The people just below the most powerful people will always want that little extra power. How they get that power depends on the individual(s) involved, but it requires both the economic and mental situation to be correct.
If you can convince the person above you to give you extra power, either financially or politically or whatever else you crave, by convincing him that it will not diminish his power or that he will still have the final say you are one step close to stripping all authority from him. Eventually the original man with power will be reduced to simply a figurehead. He may have a lot of money and prestige but his real influence will be gone. This will only happen though if the person receiving the power is deceitful and greedy without showing it. He will in turn give someone he trusts a position of power, if he ever loses the trust he will get rid of him. The basic idea is like shaking a mans hand whilst you steal his wallet. This process is carried all the way down to the lowest rabble. Somewhere down the line this influence becomes negligible so people act like they have power whenever they can, at home, or work even though they have no actual rank over the other people.
This line of thinking shows that history is like a pile of people. Each person scrambles over one another to get to the top of the pile before eventually being pulled back down again. But in these times of shareholders the situation becomes much harder to consolidate this power unless you have the ability to buy 51% of the shares. Assuming this is not possible in our example the structure remains internally stable. The only way it can collapse is by an attack from the outside in the form of another business. But seeing as the general interest of all businesses is to make the maximum short term profits possible the system is simply being replaced by another version of the same thing. We have now, like at every other single point in human history have reached cross-roads.
While living conditions are increasing the gap between rich and poor is increasing much faster. The only reason our living conditions seem to be increasing ad we, in general can afford more stuff is because it is being made cheaply in third world countries. Eventually these countries will rebel/stand up for themselves and if this happens then our general standard of living will significantly decrease. Prices will skyrocket and people will not be able to afford as much stuff. Wages don't really rise, prices fall through exploitation.
Back to the matter at hand, if the third world countries don't find a way out of their situation (which they will and must do eventually) then history is not going to go very far unless we do something. Initially individuals could go for power, and this is still true today. However, to get rid of the pile of people and have them all standing in a line people need to get organised.
People can talk and plan things and make attempts to change the system but what is needed is continuity. For pretty much each generation tries to make a change and regardless of the results the methods are forgotten. So each attempt starts from scratch. In this world where factories can be opened anywhere in the world the only way is to attempt to create some form of global trade union group. I'm not suggesting one trade union for everyone in the world but more a voluntary collective of trade unions which are able to operate independently without a leading group. This would not be easy. It would have to slowly develop over time like everything in history. Unions set up in the local area, with modern technology communication between these groups would simple. If each company works to join forces with the trade unions for every other branch of the company in the country the owners would be under far more pressure. This could then eventually and slowly spread around the world until all businesses have unions and the people have a genuine form of power over their place of work and as a direct result, have more power over political matters.
This is how history and the development of a more free society will continue to evolve.
This theory has an underlying principle that this can only occur by appealing to people’s greed. By organising and stopping jobs being moved to the third world, the regimes would become less attractive to the rest of the world and the people living there would become more desperate. Civil unrest would increase and the people (assuming there is no outside influence towards the tyrannical regime) would revolt. Hopefully the new regime will not be tyrannical and useless, if so a new revolution would eventually take place.
There are only two problems that spring to mind
1) Appealing to greed is eventually going to throw the stability of this system out when all other things become more or less equal. I am unsure how to achieve the eradication of this greed but if I knew then I'd be rich.
2) This process can never end and requires constant interaction between the people. A leader would simply cause everyone else to become lazy and unattested and eventually all the same systems would rise up again as a direct result of point 1.

This is my theory, my story and the culmination of everything I have read up to this moment. If this is an actual theory which has already been written I would be interested to know what it is called.

[Nodrog]

What precisely do you mean by "greed" - are you simply defining it as 'wanting more than you have'? Surely there is a fundamental difference between a warlord who wishes to conquer the world by killing all who oppose him, and a peasant who wishes to improve his life through determination and hard-work. "Greed" is a pseudo-concept which attempts to annihilate this type of distinction, by lumping incommensurable scenarios together under one label.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What precisely do you mean by "greed" - are you simply defining it as 'wanting more than you have'? Surely there is a fundamental difference between a warlord who wishes to conquer the world by killing all who oppose him, and a peasant who wishes to improve his life through determination and hard-work.

Yes I do. Yes there is.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

1) Appealing to greed is eventually going to throw the stability of this system out when all other things become more or less equal. I am unsure how to achieve the eradication of this greed but if I knew then I'd be rich.

No. Greed is a natural drive. Like Nodrog said, it is a drive to better yourself and it depends on that level of extremity of one if it's gonna be one's success or doom. Lands and countries were discovered because of the drive that food attracts and of greed of ownership and expansion. We survive because of this and any drive that's this controlling, channeled in a productive way (in which productivity, is also another natural drive), will make the world a better place everytime. If we weren't designed to cultivate a feeling of greed then we would still be rubbing wood into stone to make fire.

2) This process can never end and requires constant interaction between the people. A leader would simply cause everyone else to become lazy and unattested and eventually all the same systems would rise up again as a direct result of point 1.

A trading community under one leader is never going to happen. All trading are, in many ways, privatized bound by contracts and agreements, but uses a public community name to suggest to the mass of their activity, etc. A perfect world, with no wars and no natural calamities and the such, with the same system of trading the world is under operation with, will boost the economy (even after variables and consumer actions of diminishing profits and returns) only upwards which tells us that the system we have now, works.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Self interest would be a better term, however whilst one could make an economic case for that, it is clear that it is not the only motivational force behind human behaviour. Also greed is not a simply choice, one might defer on a higher paying job in order to fulfil something else, is that more or less greedy? Is having children greedy?

I'm using it as quite a broad term. By showing people how doing something can benefit them you are appealing to their self-interest/greed/making their lives better or whatever else you want to call it.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Wouldn't greed lead to a more unequal society as the most greedy take advantage of the less greedy.

I'm not advocating greed, simply the expolitation of greed.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

"Wages don't really rise, prices fall through exploitation." This statment seems to imply that the people earning the wages aren't the same people being exploited.

People in the UK are being exploited to a lesser degree than those working in sweatshops in Aisa, but people are still being exploited. People here are buying poorer quality goods. the top range items are still out of reach of a lot of people and the people who own the factories are making bigger profits.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

There seems to be a sort of vague Marxist element to this theory and I can only suggest that you read Marx and possibly some Hayek and see if that enlightens you any further.

I was reading an introduction to Marx for my coursework when I decided to write this actually.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Wanting basic amenities can hardly be counted as greed but clearly there is a certain element of human necessity in precuring them.

People generally always want more, that is the point. People generally want as much money as possible to get all the things they want. It's a gradual transition. When people get the basics then they generally want more, and then more. there is always something people want.

[queball]

"Finite resources, infinite wants"?

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

No. Greed is a natural drive. Like Nodrog said, it is a drive to better yourself and it depends on that level of extremity of one if it's gonna be one's success or doom. Lands and countries were discovered because of the drive that food attracts and of greed of ownership and expansion. We survive because of this and any drive that's this controlling, channeled in a productive way (in which productivity, is also another natural drive), will make the world a better place everytime. If we weren't designed to cultivate a feeling of greed then we would still be rubbing wood into stone to make fire.

Removing greed would not remove curiosity.

Originally Posted by demiGOD

A perfect world, with no wars and no natural calamities and the such, with the same system of trading the world is under operation with, will boost the economy (even after variables and consumer actions of diminishing profits and returns) only upwards which tells us that the system we have now, works.

Who does it work for?
Who does it work against?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Its probably quite hard work killing all who oppose you, especially if you wanted to conquer the world. I imagine it would take a fair degree of determination as well.

The difference is that one involves the creation of value, whereas the other involves the forcible expropriation of the value others have created. The man who, out of 'greed', builds something for himself is not comparable to the man who 'greedily' steals from others, and the two scenarios have nothing in common other than the unfortunate fact that the English language has evoloved to a point where they are both labelled similarly. The fact that you can talk about different things using the same word doesnt necessitate that they have anything in common, and this is a prime instance.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Is greed somethign which connects us to animals or seperates us from nature?

I'd say that both animals and humans operate under self-interest. The only difference being that ours can be rational self-interest.

In relation to the original topic I'd point out that "greed" is not necessarily materialistic (this is where i'd agree with nod on the incommensurable scenarios bit).

[Dante Hicks]

Greed is a largely meaningless term.

If we were to try and use it sensibly I would try and define it as "the irrational (or semi-rational) desire to have more than you need where such a desire is overwhelmingly destructive to other ends (either individually or socially)".

Wanting more than you have is not greed. We wouldn't have advanced far as a species / civilisation if that wasn't a natural drive. Having a small hut and wanting a larger hut does not seem to be "greedy". Having one apple and wanting another one afterwards also does not strike me as greed. Wanting eight billion apples would strike me as eccentric if there were infinite apples to choose from, or if you could obtain apples at will, but it might be greedy if there were only eight billion apples in the world.

I suppose more generally you could say greed is the addiction to accumulation.

[mist]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'd say that both animals and humans operate under self-interest. The only difference being that ours can be rational self-interest.

depends how you define rational. "i'm hungry. time to get something to eat" seems fairly rational and i'd imagine animals undergo a similar thought process at some level.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Is greed somethign which connects us to animals or seperates us from nature?

Is the drive to improve things the same as greed?

Does higher productivity make the world a better place every time? Deforestation, nuclear waste and stockpiles of nuclear weapons suggest otherwise.

"A perfect world, with no wars and no natural calamities and the such, with the same system of trading the world is under operation with, will boost the economy (even after variables and consumer actions of diminishing profits and returns) only upwards which tells us that the system we have now, works."

Do you even read what you write?

the market and the economy's distinguishing factors are, on a very basic view, are consumers and their habits/actions, supply and productivity, labor, and the relationship of each.. natural calamities and wars, etc. are although indirectly proportional to consumer actions, are not a constant variable, thus the drastic changes in the market everytime these happen

as to your other questions, greed is a basic instinct that drives an individual towards a better atmosphere - higher productivity makes the world a better place all the time at the same time, the use of natural resources are controlled under effective systems implemented by the governments of the world, the handling of nuclear wastes are under effective programs and are used by all nuclear reactors for power generation only - and nuclear weapons do not contribute to productivity, so, no..

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Removing greed would not remove curiosity.

i agree, but the original purpose of the discovery of lands was expansion, surely that was not driven by curiosity.

Who does it work for?
Who does it work against?

works for the improvement of value of virtually everything consumed, and against ofc, the opposite..

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by mist

depends how you define rational. "i'm hungry. time to get something to eat" seems fairly rational and i'd imagine animals undergo a similar thought process at some level.

There's no real evidence to suggest that animals are conscious in a way comparable to humans, and it doesnt really make sense to talk about rationality outside of the domain of self-conscious entities.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

i agree, but the original purpose of the discovery of lands was expansion, surely that was not driven by curiosity.

But surely as a supposed intelligent species we can find better reasons to develop things. Other practical reasons such as increasing efficiency.

Originally Posted by demiGOD

works for the improvement of value of virtually everything consumed, and against ofc, the opposite..

But not neccessarily the people.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Greed is a largely meaningless term.

If we were to try and use it sensibly I would try and define it as "the irrational (or semi-rational) desire to have more than you need where such a desire is overwhelmingly destructive to other ends (either individually or socially)".

Wanting more than you have is not greed. We wouldn't have advanced far as a species / civilisation if that wasn't a natural drive. Having a small hut and wanting a larger hut does not seem to be "greedy". Having one apple and wanting another one afterwards also does not strike me as greed. Wanting eight billion apples would strike me as eccentric if there were infinite apples to choose from, or if you could obtain apples at will, but it might be greedy if there were only eight billion apples in the world.

I suppose more generally you could say greed is the addiction to accumulation.

Maybe I should have said 'by appealing to peoples general desire to better their own situation', but did write this pretty quickly. After you reach a certain point wanting more can be seen as greedy. Having a £50 billion personal fortune and wanting more could be considered greedy. Earning £15000 a year and wanting more is not neccesarily greedy but it is more of this type of person I am referring to. the difference between these two people may simply be ability or oppertunity. this is where the problem lies. If this scenario was achieved where things were more or less equal and people were not being exploited there would always be those who want more than they 'earned'. this is probably why I used the word greed, the end result would require the eradication of greed, at least in the extreme form

[Yahwe]

the guiding force of your races history is fear.

from fear stems everything else.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Maybe I should have said 'by appealing to peoples general desire to better their own situation', but did write this pretty quickly. After you reach a certain point wanting more can be seen as greedy. Having a £50 billion personal fortune and wanting more could be considered greedy. Earning £15000 a year and wanting more is not neccesarily greedy but it is more of this type of person I am referring to. the difference between these two people may simply be ability or oppertunity. this is where the problem lies. If this scenario was achieved where things were more or less equal and people were not being exploited there would always be those who want more than they 'earned'. this is probably why I used the word greed, the end result would require the eradication of greed, at least in the extreme form

contentment is never going to be achieved by anyone for our bodies are designed to want more - FACT

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mist

depends how you define rational. "i'm hungry. time to get something to eat" seems fairly rational and i'd imagine animals undergo a similar thought process at some level.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

There's no real evidence to suggest that animals are conscious in a way comparable to humans, and it doesnt really make sense to talk about rationality outside of the domain of self-conscious entities.

The entire point about the difference is that animals operate off instinct.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

But surely as a supposed intelligent species we can find better reasons to develop things. Other practical reasons such as increasing efficiency.

i agree with this statement - we're not discovering lands anymore..

But not neccessarily the people.

why wouldnt it? i would assume that the general mass would want products with better values and services at very affordable prices, am i right?

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

why wouldnt it? i would assume that the general mass would want products with better values and services at very affordable prices, am i right?

Yes they do, but when goods are produced in third world sweatshops for pittence it's not exactly helping everyone is it?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Yes they do, but when goods are produced in third world sweatshops for pittence it's not exactly helping everyone is it?

don't fool yourelf.

a cow would eat you and all you cared about if it could.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Greed is a largely meaningless term.

I suppose more generally you could say greed is the addiction to accumulation.

'Addiction' implies that greed is an impulse that is out of our control. On the contrary, greed is a selfish desire and is necessarily a rational one, in my opinion.

[Tis]

With some of the kinks worked out, its called Utilitarianism.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

'Addiction' implies that greed is an impulse that is out of our control.

That implies addiction is beyond our control, which is tosh. You can beat addictions. It's just hard.

I am saying that some people have a strong psychological dependence on accumulating more things. Where getting is more important than having and having is more important than using (or appreciating). It doesn't just happen to the rich, there is the old cliché of elderly people who are so used to saving that they die of hypothermia out of reluctance to turn the heating on (this wouldn't normally be termed 'greed', but it's the same sort of mindset).

I would be reluctant to say the greed was a rational choice (in the strictest sense) because people seem to behave very irrationally because of greed.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That implies addiction is beyond our control, which is tosh. You can beat addictions. It's just hard.

True, but becoming addicted is an uncontrollable thing. You can't, say, not get addicted to cocaine.

I am saying that some people have a strong psychological dependence on accumulating more things. Where getting is more important than having and having is more important than using (or appreciating). It doesn't just happen to the rich, there is the old cliché of elderly people who are so used to saving that they die of hypothermia out of reluctance to turn the heating on (this wouldn't normally be termed 'greed', but it's the same sort of mindset).

This may or may not be true, but I think it dulls the moral sense and implications of the word.
Greed is an inherently immoral thing:

greed

• noun intense and selfish desire for food, wealth, or power (Concise Oxford)*.

I would be reluctant to say the greed was a rational choice (in the strictest sense) because people seem to behave very irrationally because of greed.

I do not see have behaving irrationally deems the initial choice irrational.


*Interestingly, dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=greed) define greed merely as an 'excessive desire to gain', which perhaps matches your definition.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Boogster

True, but becoming addicted is an uncontrollable thing. You can't, say, not get addicted to cocaine.
.

I've managed pretty well.

[Boogster]

Maybe the analogy was a poor one, maybe Nodrog is superhuman; in any case, I stick to my theory.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Maybe the analogy was a poor one, maybe Nodrog is superhuman; in any case, I stick to my theory.

You should join Plato and fight reality.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Yes they do, but when goods are produced in third world sweatshops for pittence it's not exactly helping everyone is it?

wow... youre almost gearing to the path of communism..

whats wrong with cheap labor? 3rd world countries are 3rd world countries because of various things, but with the most obvious, is because of limited natural resources, an unstable government and an odd mixture of both - and to be utilizing cheap labor is good for a global market - because although its cheap labor, labor gets paid (mostly) abundantly in relation to their cost of living (example: 1$/hour labor is cheap labor, but $1 can buy a week's worth of food).. and - at the same time, an asset to production because production was utilized at a cheap rate..

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

True, but becoming addicted is an uncontrollable thing.

No it's not. Ignoring drugs analogies (which are ropey at best) take something like gambling. It is quite possible to gamble semi-regularly or regularly and not be "addicted". Similarly, it is possible to get new things every day, or earn new money but still not be addicted to this process.

The addiction thing was more an analogy on my behalf but to carry it forward a moment : there are people who are more likely to get addicted to gambling or drugs or sex or whatever. This might be brain chemistry or upbringing or some combination. But it seems natural to assume that "desire to accumulate" varies in a similar fashion in people, and for some people becomes almost like an addiction.

Greed is an inherently immoral thing

This is just the words game as most of these debates are. One lot of people will say "greed is bad" and another lot will say "greed is good" and then we'll all mess around redefining words until greed to one lot of people means "getting enough food to feed your starving family" and to another lot means "raping small children and eating their bones". And then both lots of people will think the other lot are evil for supporting/opposing greed and we'll get no-where.

The dictionary is unsuitable for these type of discussions because we are probing deeper than a quick definition. I'd say the dictionary definition is highly lacking, even when talking about every day usage. If I have an "intense desire" for food because I am hungry, it'd be silly to say I'm "greedy" wouldn't it? Or if that is greed then I'm definitely not saying greed is bad.

Similarly, an intense demand for food because you need to buy food (or pay your rent, or whatever) would not be classed as greed by most users of the English language.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

wow... youre almost gearing to the path of communism..

whats wrong with cheap labor? 3rd world countries are 3rd world countries because of various things, but with the most obvious, is because of limited natural resources, an unstable government and an odd mixture of both - and to be utilizing cheap labor is good for a global market

Define global markert, which part of the globe are you referring to in particular?

Originally Posted by demiGOD

- because although its cheap labor, labor gets paid (mostly) abundantly in relation to their cost of living (example: 1$/hour labor is cheap labor, but $1 can buy a week's worth of food)

Until they can find a country with less wages and longer hours. Even if you accept that they pay enough for a weeks food, their general standard of living would be considered abysmal and their working conditions are terrible. It is the minimal standards they can get away with paying the people, until they can find somewhere else to exploit. the fact that in some countries people are being paid enough to be able to eat every day is generaly a side effect. these companies would use slave labour if they could get away with it.

Originally Posted by demiGOD

.. and - at the same time, an asset to production because production was utilized at a cheap rate..

So it helps the people who aren't being as badly exploited. Plus it is taking away jobs from those where the companies are originally based.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Define global markert, which part of the globe are you referring to in particular?

you know, world trade, import-export type shit.. you never noticed that made in taiwan etched on your battery-powered dildo? ( ) - any establishment where their laws in which they are governed do not restrict, and would allow trading with another establishment of another country

Until they can find a country with less wages and longer hours. Even if you accept that they pay enough for a weeks food, their general standard of living would be considered abysmal and their working conditions are terrible. It is the minimal standards they can get away with paying the people, until they can find somewhere else to exploit. the fact that in some countries people are being paid enough to be able to eat every day is generaly a side effect. these companies would use slave labour if they could get away with it.

well its not 'slave labor' because they're taxed and follow minimum wage laws and restrictions - most 3rd world country based companies, and we dont have control over this, just dont care about their payroll and are more concerned about their receivables and profit until they lose their manpower, when this happens, their employees' quality of working environment becomes a priority just enough until they achieve their minimum allowed labor to meet an aimed profit, and so on and so forth, it is a vicious production cycle that 3rd world country based companies deal with - also a poor country's standard of living, although gets a bunch of help from other nations, is mostly an independent struggle of their own govt..

So it helps the people who aren't being as badly exploited. Plus it is taking away jobs from those where the companies are originally based.

well.. sometimes you have to lose something to put you in a more profitable situation

[JonnyBGood]

Last year my economics lecturer used to have rants against people misusing the word exploitation. He said that it's ridiculous to talk about exploitation if you're offering someone an opportunity and not forcing them to do anything.


Which frankly confused the hell out of me because usually he was so left Marx was about 4 miles to his right.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Last year my economics lecturer used to have rants against people misusing the word exploitation. He said that it's ridiculous to talk about exploitation if you're offering someone an opportunity and not forcing them to do anything.


Which frankly confused the hell out of me because usually he was so left Marx was about 4 miles to his right.

In 'common' (non-technical use) it's perfectly ok to talk about exploiting in this manner, although I wouldnt myself due to the negative connotations the word has picked up.

2 entries found for exploitation..
ex·ploi·ta·tion P Pronunciation Key (ksploi-tshn)
n.
The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.
Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.

The relevant question is, of course, "why is exploitation wrong?"



Within Marxism itself it means something different, and like all technical terms, its validity stands and falls with the theory of which it is part. If you accept the labour theory of value and other fundamental tenets of Marxism, it makes sense to talk about people being 'exploited' despite consenting to the act in question (since this consent is largely a product of false consciousness, and the 'opportunity' you are offering them only serves to distract them from the inherent problems of the capitalist system blah blah blah). Since Marxism is nonsense however, most accusations of exploitation are silly.

[Assassin]

Damn when you said long you really meant it