4 ms·
No, greed is a necessary component. Because under capitalism both parties don't execute the trade, rationally at least, unless both are greedily better off. W
by ty6853 1y ago
No, greed is a necessary component. Because under capitalism both parties don't execute the trade, rationally at least, unless both are greedily better off.
Without greed it goes from a positive sum system to a destructive system because you no longer have the parties being better off from the transaction. From a cursory standpoint that might be ok (the economy won't implode if some small fraction does this like a minority of commercial activity being charity functions) but you basically lose most the information conveyed in prices and cost causing complete loss of productive allocation and it is an economic implosion.
- isoprophlex 1y agoDo note that nothing in this system incentivizes behaviour that creates societies that could last, say, several hundred years.
- robertlagrant 1y agoYou're mischaracterising "not wanting to overpay" and "getting something you need in return for what you have in excess" as "greed". It's a pointless conversation if you're willing to do that. You're just changing definitions before arguing them.
- ty6853 1y agoI will allow for sake of argument then trading for needs to be excepted. Under your definition it would also implode, just not fully destruct.
- robertlagrant 1y agoTrading for wants is no different to trading for needs from a capitalism perspective. It just removes the need for a central bureaucracy that decides what counts as a need.