Sternly worded admonishments of too much greed. Hand-wringing about too little greed. Threats of bold taxes to punish greed. Worries of taxes demotivating the greedy. It takes a lot to make a lot -- we pursue the American Dream.
Greed is Good. Greed is the American Way. Greed made America and by God, Greed will save it! Native Americans, African Americans, women and children once treated like property not so very long ago and Mother Nature herself might disagree, but why let history and reality get in the way of free enterprise dogma?
And so the dog and pony show goes. The topic of greed is rarely qualified nor quantified...
While we have been vividly reminded during this past year of the tendency, capability and outright stupidity of individual humans to be attracted to power and wealth, it is imperative that we rally ourselves to objectively address a topic that confronts our very nature -- Greed. Most humans are greedy, some more than others. Very few would refuse to accept a million dollars in compensation, or two million, or ten.... We might buy our friends and family presents with our wealth, maybe not. Might throw a lot of green to charities, maybe not, but regardless, it's all about self-interest when it comes to individual compensation.
But where does the sanctity of the individual intersect the bounds of social contracts?
Should unlimited wealth income be allowed to exist in society? Is it nonsensical to contend that an individual owes relatively little to those who helped in ways large and small to gain the "individuals" wealth?
A somewhat recent rec'd dKos diary implied that considering compensation caps is somehow akin to communism, followed by an unconsciously ironic plea to make sure that government takes a much bigger percentage of the spoils of the high wage earners. Even OPOL has opined that he just wants to make sure that government gets its fair share of the obscene amounts of income that the highest and mightiest of the FreeMarketeers make. If some person makes 250M$ more or less in a year(!), just make sure a bunch of that goes back to the government for reallocation. For most Democrats it seems that greed is okay as long as "we" can get our share through government programs and initiatives.
- - - - - - -
Consider the notion of equitability as applied to the notion of compensation --
Where is the desired balance of power between those who produce and those who manage production?
In libertarian philosophy, there is NO designed balance, you get what you get and move along if you're not getting what you want; it is a given that the "weak" will be exploited and c'est la vie. Most (remaining) Republicans and a few "Democrats" buy into this.
Most Democrats, on the other hand, fall into some continuum of favoring taxation and minimum wage limits to take some of the edge off of the natural tendency for individuals to maximize their own incomes and wealth. Tax revenues from the high incomes are used to help provide basic services for the less affluent with mixed results. Progressives also favor unions to help with this issue, to fight for a better level of compensation for all workers. But neither taxes or unions address the fundamental question:
Is there a moral balance of economic power, an upper end of wealth gathering that shouldn't be crossed in a healthy society?
What do you think? Can greed be managed? Should it be?