>>"Specifically, in order for Bob to qualify as a rational actor, he must act in such a way as to maximize his benefit, where his benefit is defined in objectiv

>>"Specifically, in order for Bob to qualify as a rational actor, he must act in such a way as to maximize his benefit, where his benefit is defined in objective terms of monetary value. i.e., "I like having flowers in my yard" does not qualify as a benefit" > If that truly is the definition of rational, then sorry, economics is sorely mistaken. You're too kind - if that's the definition of "rational" that economics uses, economics is fundamentally useless. > That said, I have problems following the "envy driven vs greed driven" argument. My apologies. "Greed" is concern with what you have. "Envy" is concern with what other people have. A greedy person will do something that benefits himself regardless of whether it benefits others. An envious person will not do something that benefits himself if he thinks that other people get too much benefit from that thing.