There is a worrying opposition to self-interest and wealth-building in America

[Avocado]

This is anecdotal, but it seems in my experience that the dominant cultural narrative in America is that money doesn’t buy happiness, greed is bad, and the needs of the many outweigh the few. I’ve been listening for the counterarguments to be made, but there seems to be nobody arguing for greed and selfishness. I am mostly listening to younger people, but even so, this is a major shift from how our society has been running for at least the past 70 years.

The good of the one could potentially be lost in favor of the good of the many, which will severely hamper individual drive and individual rights. Innovation will come to a halt.

If what I see is true, we are in for worrying times, indeed.

 

[Agent Washington]

Uh, how do I unsubscribe?

 

[Lark]

Really?

I'd say the election of Trump indicates precisely the opposite, the US is the country of Ayn Rand (for the atheists) and Prosperity Gospel (for the believers) so I'd say the opposite is true to what you're saying.

Personally, although I've done a lot of thinking about this topic, I dont see these hard and fast dichotomies between, say self-interest and altruism or social imperatives or priorities, for a long time there's been a bias in one direction and its only slowly correcting itself, very, very slightly.

Just remember that in its day plenty of people condemned the creation of sewers, water that wasnt drawn from the well in your background and street lighting, all public goods which are difficult to commodify as rival brands like cola, as outrageous collectivism injurious politically, culturally and spiritually. Now that's a long way from discussions about health, schooling, policing, corrections, social and community services which most proponents of a more ideologically entrenched individualism are likely to condemn.

Greed is sort of a pathological thing, its not the same as self-interest, most of the advocacy of altruism within all the world faiths and moral traditions IS self interested, the old Jewish maxim about loving others as you love yourself requires that you love your self first, its only one example.

 

[Avocado]

Really?

I'd say the election of Trump indicates precisely the opposite, the US is the country of Ayn Rand (for the atheists) and Prosperity Gospel (for the believers) so I'd say the opposite is true to what you're saying.

Personally, although I've done a lot of thinking about this topic, I dont see these hard and fast dichotomies between, say self-interest and altruism or social imperatives or priorities, for a long time there's been a bias in one direction and its only slowly correcting itself, very, very slightly.

Just remember that in its day plenty of people condemned the creation of sewers, water that wasnt drawn from the well in your background and street lighting, all public goods which are difficult to commodify as rival brands like cola, as outrageous collectivism injurious politically, culturally and spiritually. Now that's a long way from discussions about health, schooling, policing, corrections, social and community services which most proponents of a more ideologically entrenched individualism are likely to condemn.

Greed is sort of a pathological thing, its not the same as self-interest, most of the advocacy of altruism within all the world faiths and moral traditions IS self interested, the old Jewish maxim about loving others as you love yourself requires that you love your self first, its only one example.

Good point.

My observation, however, is the reaction against people like Trump by our younger members of society (especially those under 20) is so spirited there may be an overcorrection in the near future. Also, there are a lot of indications young people are overly idealistic concerning how much the can live on.
[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] have you not seen an overcorrection in today’s youth culture?

 

[Lark]

Good point.

My observation, however, is the reaction against people like Trump by our younger members of society (especially those under 20) is so spirited there may be an overcorrection in the near future. Also, there are a lot of indications young people are overly idealistic concerning how much the can live on.
[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] have you not seen an overcorrection in today’s youth culture?

No, I dont think its an over correction, to be honest, reading the political periodicals and ideological news sheets of the rich I've considered them to be too idealistic about how little taxation they think they should pay and how little the rest of the population should live on while they enjoy the existing distribution of wealth which excludes all those people. Or maybe they are included as servants or trafficked neo-slave commodities but you get the idea.

OK, that's a little extreme, maybe, but just to be clear, I think that the average well functioning capitalist society, I'm not talking remotely socialist here, is going to require public education, policing and utilities, which will require a mixed economy in terms of ownership, providers/suppliers, this already exists in the sectors which there is a real consensus about their necessity, such as security. If there's been a concerning idealistic militancy its been in the shape of a very, very, very long right wing renaissance which fantasies about the days before welfare states, universal taxation and public expenditures.

That sort of entrenched opinion is spiritually/intellectually corrosive because when it eventually comes a cropper or is fundamentally challenged, with someone such as the bankers crisis, its difficult for the key pundits reviewing what has happened to do so.

Its when you get what I think is frankly craziness, such like the idea that economies are prone to crisis in the same fashion that natural disasters or acts of God happen, no one is responsible, its impossible to predict, its random and you better just buy insurance or have insurance, such as being "too big to fail".

Economics still maintains the pretense of being a science and I dont know any other sciences that behave like that.

That's before you even get into any of the odd subcultures or trends within economics like theonomics (God made it so) or happinomics (money does not make people happy lets replace it with prozac) stuff like that.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

We do live in a culture of greed. I'm not sure how healthy it is.

At the same time, some people have a way of sanctimoniously frowning upon those who achieve success.

 

[Avocado]

No, I dont think its an over correction, to be honest, reading the political periodicals and ideological news sheets of the rich I've considered them to be too idealistic about how little taxation they think they should pay and how little the rest of the population should live on while they enjoy the existing distribution of wealth which excludes all those people. Or maybe they are included as servants or trafficked neo-slave commodities but you get the idea.

OK, that's a little extreme, maybe, but just to be clear, I think that the average well functioning capitalist society, I'm not talking remotely socialist here, is going to require public education, policing and utilities, which will require a mixed economy in terms of ownership, providers/suppliers, this already exists in the sectors which there is a real consensus about their necessity, such as security. If there's been a concerning idealistic militancy its been in the shape of a very, very, very long right wing renaissance which fantasies about the days before welfare states, universal taxation and public expenditures.

That sort of entrenched opinion is spiritually/intellectually corrosive because when it eventually comes a cropper or is fundamentally challenged, with someone such as the bankers crisis, its difficult for the key pundits reviewing what has happened to do so.

Its when you get what I think is frankly craziness, such like the idea that economies are prone to crisis in the same fashion that natural disasters or acts of God happen, no one is responsible, its impossible to predict, its random and you better just buy insurance or have insurance, such as being "too big to fail".

Economics still maintains the pretense of being a science and I dont know any other sciences that behave like that.

That's before you even get into any of the odd subcultures or trends within economics like theonomics (God made it so) or happinomics (money does not make people happy lets replace it with prozac) stuff like that.

I’m just going with what you said here. It seems accurate.

Of course, then there is the issue of large protests at SOME college campuses against unlimited free speech. Even if somebody is being an offensive boor, shouldn’t they have that right?

 

[Lark]

I’m just going with what you said here. It seems accurate.

Of course, then there is the issue of large protests at SOME college campuses against unlimited free speech. Even if somebody is being an offensive boor, shouldn’t they have that right?

I think that's a different issue, I also think its the sort of thing that no matter how significant it is its likely to have already prompted its equal and opposite tendency. I do think those sorts of protests can prompt a race to the bottom in terms of identity politics. I've talked about that already, as much as I care to in fact. I do think that the LGBT movement in particular has been a problem, its not what it once was, its got a highly ideological character and at the very least reflects a shocking democratic deficit. It has lead to the emergence of the alt right which I think is full of a lot of toxic masculinity and a lot of other stuff besides.

A lot of its got the character of gangs too, maybe its what gangs look like in a much, much more middle class context, anyway, to the majority of people it'll be something they arent interested in and dont want to be interested in. Campuses ought to be places that people go to study and that ought to be the main priority for people there, this sort of thing and commercialisation of university study into a sort of academic theme park threaten higher education altogether.

 

[Avocado]

I think that's a different issue, I also think its the sort of thing that no matter how significant it is its likely to have already prompted its equal and opposite tendency. I do think those sorts of protests can prompt a race to the bottom in terms of identity politics. I've talked about that already, as much as I care to in fact. I do think that the LGBT movement in particular has been a problem, its not what it once was, its got a highly ideological character and at the very least reflects a shocking democratic deficit. It has lead to the emergence of the alt right which I think is full of a lot of toxic masculinity and a lot of other stuff besides.

A lot of its got the character of gangs too, maybe its what gangs look like in a much, much more middle class context, anyway, to the majority of people it'll be something they arent interested in and dont want to be interested in. Campuses ought to be places that people go to study and that ought to be the main priority for people there, this sort of thing and commercialisation of university study into a sort of academic theme park threaten higher education altogether.

Do you see things settling out one day?

 

[Lark]

Do you see things settling out one day?

I dont think they are as unsettled as the right wing media circus suggests they are at the moment.

 

[rav3n]

The last time that income disparity has risen to the present level was just prior to the Great Depression.

 

[Avocado]

The last time that income disparity has risen to the present level was just prior to the Great Depression.

Exactly, the mega rich are telling poor people “money doesn’t buy happiness” hoping the poor won’t try to get some of what the rich have.

 

[rav3n]

Exactly, the mega rich are telling poor people “money doesn’t buy happiness” hoping the poor won’t try to get some of what the rich have.

But money doesn't buy happiness. That said, people need sufficient money to live a reasonable existence and presently, the current gross level of income disparity doesn't address this.

Consider this from a pragmatic perspective. How many dishwashers can the 1% buy? How many dishwashers can the 99% buy? Now spread this out to all necessities and non-necessities. Consumption drives economies and if only 1% can afford to consume most, the economy fails.

 

[EJCC]

This is anecdotal, but it seems in my experience that the dominant cultural narrative in America is that money doesn’t buy happiness, greed is bad, and the needs of the many outweigh the few. I’ve been listening for the counterarguments to be made, but there seems to be nobody arguing for greed and selfishness. I am mostly listening to younger people, but even so, this is a major shift from how our society has been running for at least the past 70 years.

The good of the one could potentially be lost in favor of the good of the many, which will severely hamper individual drive and individual rights. Innovation will come to a halt.

If what I see is true, we are in for worrying times, indeed.

Finally a return to Christian morality.

I’m not concerned.

 

[Snow as White]

I guess I'm confused since in ur OP u seem concerned about the idea of greed going away. Then later make a statement seemingly against greed.

It seems to be that every generation has that start of optimism and idealism that gets crushed under the weight of humanity's nature and history all wrapped into one as the generational cohort ages.

I mean, look at the baby boomer's and their "make love not war" era and vietnam war protests, and gen x's angsty "i won't work for the man, man". and yet the status quo flowed right on through the river of both countries.

 

[Poki]

You cant help people up if your down. Put self first. Those who do this efficiently can help others the most.

 

[Avocado]

But money doesn't buy happiness. That said, people need sufficient money to live a reasonable existence and presently, the current gross level of income disparity doesn't address this.

Consider this from a pragmatic perspective. How many dishwashers can the 1% buy? How many dishwashers can the 99% buy? Now spread this out to all necessities and non-necessities. Consumption drives economies and if only 1% can afford to consume most, the economy fails.

Think about what you just said. Money buys the prerequisites for happiness, it just so happens about half of people don’t make enough to get those prerequisites.

 

[rav3n]

Think about what you just said. Money buys the prerequisites for happiness, it just so happens about half of people don’t make enough to get those prerequisites.

I don't need to think about it since that was already expressed in my post.

 

[Snow as White]

Think about what you just said. Money buys the prerequisites for happiness, it just so happens about half of people don’t make enough to get those prerequisites.

Advertising: money buys happiness, here! buy some happiness today with this new product!

reality: happiness comes from within.

so what makes me wonder is if what you are really getting at is purchasing security via money, which is more possible.

but, as everything too, does pass... even that's ephemeral.

 

[Lark]

Exactly, the mega rich are telling poor people “money doesn’t buy happiness” hoping the poor won’t try to get some of what the rich have.

I think that money can bring happiness but after a point it just brings more money.

Its the law of diminishing returns in economics, JS Mill and a bunch of others wrote about it at one time or another. A lot of those writers are a good read.