I Love Greed
What human motivation gets the most wonderful things done? It's really a silly question, because the answer is so simple. It turns out that it's human greed that gets the most wonderful things done. When I say greed, I am not talking about fraud, theft, dishonesty, lobbying for special privileges from government or other forms of despicable behavior. I'm talking about people trying to get as much as they can for themselves. Let's look at it.
This winter, Texas ranchers may have to fight the cold of night, perhaps blizzards, to run down, feed and care for stray cattle. They make the personal sacrifice of caring for their animals to ensure that New Yorkers can enjoy beef. Last summer, Idaho potato farmers toiled in blazing sun, in dust and dirt, and maybe being bitten by insects to ensure that New Yorkers had potatoes to go with their beef.
Here's my question: Do you think that Texas ranchers and Idaho potato farmers make these personal sacrifices because they love or care about the well-being of New Yorkers? The fact is whether they like New Yorkers or not, they make sure that New Yorkers are supplied with beef and potatoes every day of the week. Why? It's because ranchers and farmers want more for themselves. In a free market system, in order for one to get more for himself, he must serve his fellow man. This is precisely what Adam Smith, the father of economics, meant when he said in his classic "An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (1776), "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." By the way, how much beef and potatoes do you think New Yorkers would enjoy if it all depended upon the politically correct notions of human love and kindness? Personally, I'd grieve for New Yorkers. Some have suggested that instead of greed, I use "enlightened self-interest." That's OK, but I prefer greed.
Free market capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to the rise of capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving one's fellow man. Capitalists seek to discover what people want and then produce it as efficiently as possible. Free market capitalism is ruthless in its profit and loss discipline. This explains much of the hostility toward free market capitalism; some of it is held by businessmen. Smith recognized this hostility when he said, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." He was hinting at government-backed crony capitalism, which has come to characterize much of today's businesses.
Free market capitalism has other enemies — mostly among the intellectual elite and political tyrants. These are people who believe that they have superior wisdom to the masses and that God has ordained them to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Of course, they have what they consider to be good reasons for restricting liberty, but every tyrant who has ever lived has had what he considered good reason for restricting liberty. A tyrant's agenda calls for the attenuation or the elimination of the market and what is implied by it — voluntary exchange. Tyrants do not trust that people acting voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they should do. They want to replace the market with economic planning and regulation.
The Wall Street occupiers and their media and political allies are not against the principle of crony capitalism, bailouts and government special privileges and intervention. They share the same hostility to free market capitalism and peaceable voluntary exchange as tyrants. What they really want is congressional permission to share in the booty from looting their fellow man.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
14 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Mr. Williams,
Yes, the rancher and farmer toil to create the materials for that NY meal. This is a good and noble thing. But keep in mind that there is another side to the story. When the feedlot owners pours antibiotics into the feed of those cows he is also following the dictates of "greed". "Greed" does not encourage the feedlot owner to consider the risk to the commons; that such use of antibiotics will inevitably give rise to 'super bugs" that destroy the effectiveness of medical antibiotics, that the use of such antibiotics may even kill some of his customers through the loss of antibiotic effectiveness or, even more directly, through the creation of nasty variations of e-coli. "Greed" does not encourage the Idaho potato farmer to consider the future water needs of the region when he mines enough water from the regional aquifer to cover his land in several feet of water a year - vastly more than is returned to the aquifer by nature in the form of rainfall; when he pours vast amounts of chemicals into his soil to create more potatoes at the expense of the future health of the soil and the water quality down gradient in the watershed. "Greed" ensures that almost all of the profit from the beef purchased in NY goes to the few companies that control the slaughterhouses, not the rancher. "Greed" has changed the work of butchering the cows from well paid work performed by professional butchers to assembly line work performed by poorly paid illegal aliens.
.
Yes, Mr. Williams, "greed" can be a good thing, but "greed" must be tempered by social control, as in, horror of horrors to a right-winger such as yourself, government regulation. It just might be that restricting the liberty of the farmer to mine unlimited amounts ancient water for short term gain at the expense of future generations is a good thing. It just might be that restricting the liberty of the feedlot to destroy the effectiveness of antibiotics is a good thing.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Sun Jan 1, 2012 10:11 AM
|
|
|
|
Clarification on the first line of the previous comment:
Yes the rancher and farmer toil to create the materials for that NY meal. And they profit from doing so, in part, at least, from the toils of the NY eaters of of beef and potatoes. This is a good and noble thing.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Mark
Sun Jan 1, 2012 12:50 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr. Williams has it right. Greed can be good. And I might add that according to the philosopher Al Gini "Lust is a virtue". Of course one has to be willing to learn more about economics and philosophy to understand the bigger picture behind the words of these wise men.
There is an abundance of natural resources and plenty to go around. However in re to quality of life...
The disservice that the greedy do to others is unacceptable. Much more emphasis needs to be placed on psychology and healthy ways of simply 'being'.
Wherever there is greed (squeaky wheels taking all they can get for themselves) one can also look at the bigger picture and see the unaggressive "enablers". If the greedy would simply turn around and be generous toward those who enabled them... ...rather than tooting their own horn, sharing the horn of plenty.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Common Tater
Sun Jan 1, 2012 3:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Mark
No sources, is this only a personal opinion. If you think beef is poisoned, then don't eat beef.
Comment: #4
Posted by: richwill
Tue Jan 3, 2012 2:11 AM
|
|
|
|
There is a place for government in most things; the problem is that once government gets started in anything it feels the need to take over. The politicians and bureaucrats feel the need to tell us, then force us, to do what they think we need to do. “Social control” is government telling us what we damn well better do. When the good folks in government do decide to corral businesses into working a certain way it isn't for our betterment it is for their (the politicians/bureaucrats) betterment. They pick their favorites and try to lean the markets in that direction so they can reap benefits (campaign contributions, outright bribes or cushy jobs when they are out of their government positions). It's no coincidence that nearly all in congress are millionaires. It's no coincidence that they leave congress far better off than when they went in. Look at some of the things these people have done including the recent headlines of insider trading by members of congress. No, I'll trust the markets before I trust congress (or “social control”). They, government, have a place and they need to be kept in that place. I can say no to businesses that treat me poorly but one can only concede to government's demands, there is no saying no to government.
The assembly lines for butchers are part of the efficiency that makes meat cheaper for us to buy, without them most people would have to eat an awful lot less meat and pay an awful lot more for it. What is the complaint? Someone lost their job? It happens every month, 6 plus million loose their jobs every single month, 6 plus million get jobs every single month, on balance we have a net add (or decline) of jobs every single month. That's life. People make the decisions and society is better for it. Government makes the decisions and people suffer for it, ask the folks that lived under the old Soviet regime. Even the wonderful China model is coming apart at the seams.
There is a place for government and it is a very small, limited and enumerated place. The rest is up to us. If we don't keep it that way, we will wish we had.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Ed Boyle
Tue Jan 3, 2012 10:48 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Williams,
I created on the of the most important inventions in Silicon Valley in the 1980's. I didn't do it out of greed. I did it because I was driven to create. Money was not a factor.
I have a thought question for you. Why do people have children? They are an economic burden. There's no guarantee of economic return in having children.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Brad Kitson
Tue Jan 3, 2012 5:37 PM
|
|
|
|
richwill,
I eat meat, usually not from cows "finished" at feed lots. Primary consideration is that the product is healthier for both me and the commons, secondary consideration is that it may be safer. I choose to pay the added cost of responsibly produced beef and not to export the cost of my beef habits to the commons in the from of supporting antibiotic misuse. My simply avoiding beef, as you suggest, does not address the issue of the destruction of the commons. (Okay, a purist would point out that eating any beef is environmentally harmful. I am not a purist.) If I went totally vegie, I would still be at risk from the nasty e-coli bugs created by "greedy" feedlot owners' unconscionable miss-use of antibiotics. I would still be at considerable risk, as we all are, from the rapidly fading effectiveness of antibiotics. News flash: There is little in the pipeline to replace the current first-line antibiotics. MANY bugs are now only responsive to one or two antibiotics.
Ed,
A citizen lost a job to an illegal immigrant. The job has been turned into a repetitive motion injury hell-hole that citizens will not work in. When visiting China, I rapidly gained an appreciation for those nasty job-killing clean air regulations we have in the US. I hope your vision of a "very small, limited and enumerated place" for government does not include replacing our job-killing clean air with the people-killing air I experienced in the newest capitalist paradise.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Mark
Wed Jan 4, 2012 12:30 AM
|
|
|
|
You don't understand capitalism and free markets.
Comment: #8
Posted by: TruthInAction
Wed Jan 4, 2012 3:19 AM
|
|
|
|
"Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving one's fellow man."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Very good.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
Comment: #9
Posted by: JGISD
Wed Jan 4, 2012 4:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Detractors of capitalism typically use pollution, child labor, or contaminated products as props to create a straw man argument against the merits of capitalism. They simply ignore the concept of a free market deciding what products are acceptable to sell and consume, while further ignoring the notion that man has learned from past mistakes and is capable of using reason to conduct business. Do bad men operate businesses? Of course, and when they break they laws they are discovered and punished. However, the belief that all businesses and manufacturers will pollute the planet's ecosystem if allowed is simply asinine. Furthermore, the belief in government and that it is the arbitrator of all things proper and good is pure foolishness.
I suggest to those who want to defend a centralized economic system (statism), such as a mixed economy, socialism, or communism, go ahead and make a moral argument on the merits of such a system, or systems. Explain how it is moral for pressure groups to wield power over the individual in a mixed economy. Explain the merits of public ownership over private. Defend the rights of the so-called majority over those of the smallest minority, the individual.
Ultimately, mankind is faced with two choices: capitalism or statism. Capitalism holds that man's life is his to live. Statism holds that man's life belongs to the state.
Comment: #10
Posted by: jeffdotcooper
Thu Jan 5, 2012 6:13 AM
|
|
|
|
Mark, you actually prove my point. With the old Soviet Union and with China the government had/has complete control and brutally exercises that control and yet they have some of the worst pollution. When the government has control they don't do what is right they do what they want, which is to enrich themselves and their cronies. They make business regulations that favor the companies/industries they champion (please read ample stories about Solyndra and other favored companies).
Sarbanes/Oxley, supposed to protect us from the boogeyman and yet the boogeyman came and businesses that would list on our stock exchanges chose to list elsewhere. After the collapse of 2008 Democrats passed laws to protect us from that ever happening again. We were told these laws would never help because they didn't address the root causes and would drive up costs but detractors were pushed aside and now we have MF Global (should have been named WTF Global). As a point of curiosity why isn't Corzine under indictment? Now we see that we are still exposed but now have increased costs that are passed on to consumers, but at least the bureaucrats still have their jobs and can keep making more regulations.
Keep government small, it's easier to watch and put back in its place when it tries to get out of line.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Ed Boyle
Thu Jan 5, 2012 6:56 AM
|
|
|
|
Williams makes an effort to say that he does not support cheating or swindleing to acheive ones goals. He's just giving us a basic perspective on ideas that are under attack by our current government. Some people are taking this out of context. I'm sure Walter does not want to eat any tainted meat. This does not seem to me like such a controversial article, more like an econ 101 outline.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Thu Jan 5, 2012 9:41 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Mark
Mark - you forget that the antibiotics are being used as a requirement of compliance to government regulation.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Normal Person
Mon Jan 9, 2012 12:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Mark
It is true that greed is bad also because can damage he consumers in the intent of maximizing earnings. At the same time there are other choices as the market keep its freedom from government regulations. It is us that have to educate ourselves and make the best choices. If we just stop buying that kind of food, guess what is going to happen; we are going to dictate to them what we want. But if we keep consuming their food, then we can't complaint.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Rafael
Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Author’s Podcast
|
