essay of greed is good

Greed Is Good: A 300-Year History of a Dangerous Idea

Not long ago, the pursuit of commercial self-interest was largely reviled. How did we come to accept it?

Among MBA students, few words provoke greater consternation than “greed.” Wonder aloud in a classroom whether some practice might fairly be described as greedy , and students don’t know whether to stick up for the Invisible Hand or seek absolution. Most, by turns, do a little of both.

Such reactions shouldn’t be surprising. Greed has always been the hobgoblin of capitalism, the mischief it makes a canker on the faith of capitalists. These students' troubled consciences are not the result of doubts about the efficacy of free markets, but of the centuries of moral reform that was required to make those markets as free as they are.

We sometimes forget that the pursuit of commercial self-interest was largely reviled until just a few centuries ago. “A man who is a merchant can seldom if ever please God,” St. Jerome said, expressing the prevailing belief in Christendom about the relative worthiness of a life devoted to trade. The choice to enter business didn’t necessarily deprive one of salvation, but it certainly hazarded his soul. “If thou wilt needs damn thyself, do it a more delicate way then drowning,” Iago tells a lovesick Rodrigo. “Make all the money thou canst.”

The problem of money-making was not only that it favored earthly delights over divine obligations. It also enflamed the tendency to prefer our own needs over those of the people around us and, more worrisome still, to recklessly trade their best interests for our own base satisfaction. St. Thomas Aquinas, who ranked greed among the seven deadly sins, warned that trade which aimed at no other purpose than expanding one’s wealth was “justly reprehensible” for “it serves the desire for profit which knows no limit.”

It was not until the mischievous moralist Bernard Mandeville that someone attempted to gloss greed as anything other than a shameful motive. A name now largely lost to history, Mandeville became a foil for 18th-century philosophy when, in 1705, he first proposed his infamous equation: Private vices yield public benefits. It came as part of The Fable of the Bees , an allegorical poem that described a thriving beehive where dark intentions keep the wheels of commerce turning. The outrage Mandeville stoked had less to do with this causal explanation than with the assertion that only by such means could a nation grow wealthy and strong. As he contended (with characteristic bluntness) in the conclusion to the Fable :

T’ enjoy the World’s Conveniences, Be fam’d in War, yet live in Ease, Without great Vices, is a vain EUTOPIA seated in the Brain.

Philosophers lined up to take their shots at Mandeville, whose moral paradox seemed so appalling precisely because it could not be so easily dismissed. The most notable among them was Adam Smith, the founding father of modern economics, who struggled to distinguish the mainspring of his system from the one Mandeville proposed.

Consider how Smith describes the selfish landowner, of whom he says the “proverb, that the eye is larger than the belly, never was more fully verified.” Looking out over his fields, in his imagination, he “consumes himself the whole harvest.” The belly, however, is not so obliging. The greedy landlord may engorge himself without making a dent in his crop, and he is “obliged to distribute” the rest in payment to all those who help supply his “economy of greatness.”

This is Smith’s Invisible Hand at work. It is counterintuitive force for good that, on first glance, seems not especially different from Mandeville’s contention that private vices yield public benefits. Smith was sensitive to this fact—Bernard Mandeville did not exactly make for good company—and he struggled to create distance between them.

He did this in two ways. First, Smith emphasized the moral distinction between primary aims and secondary effects. The Fable of the Bees never explicitly claimed that vice was good in itself , merely that it was advantageous—a subtle distinction that created confusion for Mandeville’s readers which the author, a cynic through and through, made little effort to dispel.

Smith, by contrast, made abundantly clear that, as a matter of moral assessment, one should distinguish between the intentions of an actor and the broader effects of his actions. Recall the greedy landlord. Yes, the primary aims of his daily labors—vanity, sway, self-indulgence—are far from admirable. But in spite of this fact, his efforts still have the effect of distributing widely “the necessaries of life” such that, “without intending it, without knowing it,” he, and others like him, “advance the interest of society.” This is another way of saying, for Smith, the moral logic of free markets was a law of unintended consequences. The Invisible Hand gives what a greedy landlord takes.

The second move Smith made was to effectively redefine “Greed.” Mandeville—and for that matter, the Church Fathers before him—spoke in such a way that any self-interested pursuit seemed morally suspect. Smith, for his part, refused to go along. He acknowledged that pursuing our interests often entails getting what we want from other people, but he maintained that not all of these pursuits, morally speaking, were equal. We get what we want in a complex commercial society—indeed, we get to have a complex commercial society—not because we seize things outright, but because we pursue them in a way that acknowledges legal and cultural constraints. That is how we distinguish the merchant from the mugger. Both pursue their own interests, but only one does so in a manner that confers legitimacy on the gains.

Greed, as such, became an acquisitive exercise that fell on the wrong side of this divide. Some of these activities, like the mugger’s, were fairly prohibited, but those of, say, the mean-spirited merchant were checked by censure and disgrace. These forces did not eradicate selfishness, but by the moral distinction they maintained, they helped establish a new ideal of the upstanding businessman.

That ideal was famously embodied by Smith’s friend, Benjamin Franklin. In his Autobiography , Franklin presented himself as the epitome of a new American Dream, a man who emerged from “Poverty & Obscurity” to attain “a State of Affluence & some Degree of Reputation in the World.” Franklin found nothing to be ashamed of in riches and repute, provided they were turned toward some broader purpose. His success allowed him to retire from the printing business at 42 so that he might spend the balance of his life on initiatives—civic, scientific, philanthropic—that all enhanced the common good.

The example of Franklin, and those like him, gave reason for optimism to those who understood the mixed blessing of free -markets. “Whenever we get a glimpse of the economic man, he is not selfish,” the great English economist Alfred Marshall wrote toward the end of the 19th century. “On the contrary, he is generally hard at work saving capital chiefly for the benefit of others.” By “others,” Marshall principally meant the members of one’s family, but he was also making a larger point about how our “self-interest” can expand and evolve when we have achieved financial security. The “love of money,” he declared, encompasses “an infinite variety of motives,” which “include many of the highest, the most refined, and the most unselfish elements of our nature.”

Then again, they also include lesser elements. Andrew Carnegie might have proclaimed that it was the responsibility of a rich man to act as “agent and trustee for his poorer brethren,” but the steel magnate’s beneficence was backstopped by cheap labor, dangerous working conditions, and swift action to break strikes. Besides, the active redistribution of wealth was something of a side-story (and a subversive one at that) to the moral logic of free markets. The Invisible Hand worked not by appealing to the altruism of exceptionally rich men, but by turning an antisocial instinct like greed into an unwitting civil servant.

Still, by the early 20th century, some believed his services might safely be dismissed. Reflecting on the extraordinary rate of development in Europe and the United States, John Maynard Keynes suggested that “the economic problem” (which he classed as the “struggle for subsistence”) might actually be “solved” by 2030. Then, Keynes said, we might “dare” to assess the “love of money” at its “true value,” which, for those who couldn’t wait, he described as “a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.” In other words, at last, we could afford to shift our attention from the advantages of greed and to disadvantages of greedy people.

Keynes’s views were extreme, but only in expression. Substantively, everyone agreed with him that greed was still a vice and a rather vicious one at that. A. Lawrence Lowell, the President of Harvard University, called “a motive above personal profit” among businessmen a prerequisite for establishing Harvard Business School, while its first dean, Edwin Francis Gay, told a prospective faculty hire that the pedagogy of his institution did not include “teaching young men to be ‘moneymakers.’”

As a lingering distaste for the profit-motive combined with continued economic development, the assumption began to wane that self-interested pursuits were the organizing force of a modern economy. Keynes pointed to this when he extolled the “tendency of big enterprise to socialize itself,” a phenomenon by which enlightened middle-managers—guided by science, reason, and administrative esprit du corps—would at last supplant the animism of the Invisible Hand. If “the corporate system is to survive,” Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means wrote in the conclusion to their seminal study of the modern American corporation, “the ‘control’ of the great corporation should develop into a purely neutral technocracy, balancing a variety of claims by various groups in the community and assigning to each a portion of the income stream on the basis of public policy rather than private cupidity.”

Berle and Means wrote these lines in 1932. In hindsight, they don’t seem exactly prescient. As a matter of economic science, the revolt against managerial capitalism, and the reevaluation of greed, took shape after the Second World War, led by efforts of the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter and, later on, the architects of Agency Theory. Against Keynes, Schumpeter presented a new vision of capitalism as “Creative Destruction.” The “relevant problem” for economists, he said, was not how capitalism “administers existing structures” (the purview of the middle-manager) but “how it creates and destroys them,” an anarchic activity undertaken by Schumpeter’s hero, the entrepreneur.

As an icon for capitalism, the pugnacious individualism of the entrepreneur was entirely at odds with the vision of Berle and Means. According to Schumpeter, what drove an economy was headlong innovation, not careful administration. This was the hallmark of entrepreneurial activity, the courageous effort of an inspired mind, not the fruit of corporate collaboration.

An appeal to “private cupidity” was not the only way of eliciting such inspiration, but it was certainly the most obvious. It was also favored by the enthusiasts of Agency Theory, who began filling the ranks of business schools and economics departments in the ‘60s and ‘70s. They eschewed the common cause of managerial capitalism as an endorsement of soft socialism, an inducement to fuzzy thinking, and a recipe for corporate decay. Instead, they portrayed the company as a collection of self-serving individuals whose interests could be aligned with those of shareholders only by appeals to Keynes’s semi-pathological propensity: the love of money. Thus, the rise of stock options, performance pay, and other compensatory strategies that aimed to spark innovation in the executive suite. For the most part, the moral arguments called upon to support these recommendations took a familiar form. Greedy behavior could be tolerated, even encouraged, but only if it eliminated worse offenses: starvation, exposure, idiocy.

But choosing a lesser evil at the expense of a greater one is merely an exercise in good judgment. It does nothing to change the nature of what is chosen, and when a nation no longer fears, first and foremost, the pangs of abject misery, it may be said that greed has largely served its social purpose. An affluent people might fairly turn their attention to the ugly behavior greed encourages and to the social and political perils of extreme inequality. They may have good reason, in short, to restrain the Invisible Hand.

Accordingly, in recent decades, a new line of argument has opened in the moral defense of greed, a change that was augured and embodied above all others by Ayn Rand. Rand understood that, when someone defended greed by an appeal to the common good, he was also conceding that greed could be checked by it. As the moral foundation for free markets, such an argument was entirely unacceptable to Rand, who took aim at it in her 1965 essay What is Capitalism?

“Implicitly, uncritically, and by default, political economy accepted as its axioms the fundamental tenets of collectivism,” she declared in a sweeping indictment of the Invisible Hand tradition. “The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve ‘the common good.’” That may be so, but it is “merely a secondary consequence.” Instead, capitalism is the only economic system in which “the exceptional men” are not “held down by the majority” and in which (as she said elsewhere) the “only good” that humans can do to one another and “the only statement of their proper relationship” are both acknowledged: “Hands off!”

A woman who titled a collection of essays The Virtue of Selfishness , Rand was given to brackish candor. Yet at a time when many people think that the common good is more often imperiled than empowered by unbridled greed, she provides an alternative defense of the acquisitive instinct by appealing to an ethics of gross achievement and a formulation of personal liberty that looks with suspicion and disdain on any talk of civic duty, moral obligation, or even prudential restraint. Her aim was simple: To relieve greed, once and for all, of any moral taint.

“I think greed is healthy,” an apparent acolyte told the graduating class at Berkeley’s business school in 1986. “You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself.” The speaker was Ivan Boesky, who shortly thereafter would be fined $100 million, and later go to prison, for insider trading. His address was adapted by Oliver Stone as the basis for Gordon Gekko’s “greed is good” speech in Wall Street . An exhortation to shareholders of a sagging company, it reads like a corporate raider’s war cry, with Gekko the grinning avatar of Agency Theory.

Such a blunt endorsement of greed today remains far beyond the mainstream. If we tolerate greed, it is because we accept the hard bargain of the Invisible Hand. We believe that greed can do good, not that it is good. That, we are unwilling to say.

But for the most part, I don’t think we don’t say very much about greed, not comfortably at least. Perhaps that is the inevitable price of an economic system that relies on the vigor of self-interested pursuits, that it instills a kind of moral quietism in the face of avarice, for whether out of a desire to appear non-judgmental or for reasons of moral expediency, unless some action verges on the criminal, we hesitate to call it greed, much less evidence of someone greedy. We don’t deny the existence of such individuals, but like Bigfoot, they tend to be more rumored than seen.

Moral revolutions come about in different ways. If we reject some conduct but rarely admit an example, we enjoy the benefit of being high-minded without the burden of moral restraint. We also embolden that behavior, which proceeds with a presumptive blessing. As a matter of public discourse and polite conversation, “Greed” is unlikely to be “Good” anytime soon, but a vice need not become a virtue for the end result to look the same.

About the Author

Vital Signs: 50 years ago Milton Friedman told us greed was good. He was half right

Professor of Economics, UNSW Sydney

Disclosure statement

Richard Holden does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

UNSW Sydney provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed – for lack of a better word – is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms – greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge – has marked the upward surge of mankind.

– Gordon Gekko, Wall Street 1987

Fifty years ago, well before the movie Wall Street, Chicago economist Milton Friedman set down what for many was the essence of the famous speech in Wall Street in an article for the New York times magazine entitled “ The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits ”.

His point, which along with his other contributions was recognised when he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1976, was that businesses serve society best when they abandon talk of “social responsibilities” and solely maximise returns for shareholders.

Incredibly influential (the past week has seen special conferences and anniversary analyses ), the essay has been credited with ushering in the doctrine of “ shareholder primacy ,” and with it short-termism, hostile takeovers, colossal frauds and savage job cuts.

It’s a doctrine not seriously challenged until the 2008-2009 global financial crisis.

But in an important respect it was misread.

Although not clear from the title of the essay , Friedman himself was quite concerned with broader social aims.

His essay was about how best to achieve them.

His point was that if companies made as much money as they could for their shareholders, those shareholders could spend it on social goals, “if they wished to do so”.

For the company to attempt to guess what goals its shareholders would want to support and to support them itself would be for the company to do its main job badly.

Although it made a certain sort of sense, the Friedman doctrine has turned out to be incomplete.

As Harvard University’s Oliver Hart (who also won the Nobel Prize for Economics) has pointed out, corporations are often much better than their shareholders at achieving the goals their shareholders care about.

Corporations can achieve more than individuals

Individual shareholders can’t do much to avert climate change, but the corporations they own can.

Its hard to argue that, if shareholders do indeed “wish to do so”, the first option isn’t better.

To cite a recent instance, is hard to “un-blow-up” 46,000 years of Indigenous heritage .

Read more: Corporate dysfunction on Indigenous affairs: Why heads rolled at Rio Tinto

In contrast, Friedman was almost surely right about corporate charitable contributions, which was in many ways the impetus for the article.

In what way are corporations better at giving money to charities (and political parties) than individuals? In none that are obvious (and not potentially corrupt).

So where do we draw the line about what corporations do and don’t do?

Proponents of the “stakeholder view” now endorsed by an increasing number of superannuation funds think corporations should have a composite objective that takes into account the interests of shareholders, bondholders, workers, suppliers, the environment, and more.

Yet a point in every direction…

The problem with this, as recognised by the arrow-covered pointless man in the animated Harry Nilsson film What’s The Point? is that “a point in every direction is the same as no point at all”.

As Friedman put it, composite objectives suffer from “looseness and lack of rigour”.

Others, such as Hart and University of Chicago professor Luigi Zingales think firms should find out what shareholders most want, and “ pursue that goal .”

This has the virtue of permitting a social objective while creating a concrete, measurable goal.

It’s a way of giving shareholders (and super fund members) a voice that is more direct than simply electing directors every few years.

Friedman helped start an important discussion. Fifty years on, it isn’t finished.

Milton Friedman
Social licence to operate
Vital signs
Social responsibility
Shareholder primacy

Head of Evidence to Action

Supply Chain - Assistant/Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

Education Research Fellow

OzGrav Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

Milton Friedman told us greed was good. He was half right

50 years ago Milton Friedman declared that greed was good, but there was always more to the story – as well as making profits firms hold the unique power to achieve social objectives, writes UNSW Business School's Richard Holden

Fifty years ago, well before the movie Wall Street, Chicago economist Milton Friedman set down what for many was the essence of the famous speech on Wall Street in an article for the New York Times magazine titled: “ The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits ”.

It’s a doctrine not seriously challenged until the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. But in an important respect, it was misread.

Although not clear from the title of the essay , Friedman himself was quite concerned with broader social aims. His essay was about how best to achieve them. His point was that if companies made as much money as they could for their shareholders, those shareholders could spend it on social goals, “if they wished to do so”.

For the company to attempt to guess what goals its shareholders would want to support and to support them itself would be for the company to do its main job badly. Although it made a certain sort of sense, the Friedman doctrine has turned out to be incomplete.

Corporations can achieve more than individuals

Individual shareholders can’t do much to avert climate change, but the corporations they own can.

A mining company could either stop operating an environmentally-damaging mine or run the mine, make a bunch of money and pay it to shareholders who could use the money to mitigate the damage “if they wished to do so”. It's hard to argue that, if shareholders do indeed “wish to do so”, the first option isn’t better.

To cite a recent instance is hard to “un-blow-up” 46,000 years of Indigenous heritage .

In contrast, Friedman was almost surely right about corporate charitable contributions, which was in many ways the impetus for the article. In what way are corporations better at giving money to charities (and political parties) than individuals? In none that are obvious (and not potentially corrupt).

So where do we draw the line about what corporations do and don’t do?

Yet a point in every direction…

The problem with this, as recognised by the arrow-covered pointless man in the animated Harry Nilsson film What’s The Point? is that “a point in every direction is the same as no point at all”.

As Friedman put it, composite objectives suffer from “looseness and lack of rigour”.

Others, such as Hart and University of Chicago professor Luigi Zingales think firms should find out what shareholders most want, and “ pursue that goal .” This has the virtue of permitting a social objective while creating a concrete, measurable goal.

It’s a way of giving shareholders (and super fund members) a voice that is more direct than simply electing directors every few years.

Friedman helped start an important discussion. Fifty years on, it isn’t finished.

Richard Holden is a Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School . This article first appeared on The Conversation.

You are free to republish this article both online and in print. We ask that you follow some simple guidelines .

Please do not edit the piece, ensure that you attribute the author, their institute, and mention that the article was originally published on Business Think.

By copying the HTML below, you will be adhering to all our guidelines.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

Economic lessons from Milton Friedman: time for firms to look beyond profit

A Free Market Manifesto That Changed the World, Reconsidered

Milton Friedman’s libertarian economics influenced presidents and inspired “greed is good.” So what did Friedman get right — and wrong? Today’s business leaders and economists weigh in.

Credit... Photo illustration by Cristiana Couceiro. Source images: Glasshouse Images/Alamy.

Supported by

Share full article

Introduction by Andrew Ross Sorkin

Published Sept. 11, 2020 Updated Sept. 14, 2020

Sept. 13 is the 50th anniversary of a seminal moment in the world of business: the publication of Milton Friedman’s essay in The New York Times Magazine entitled “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.”

Friedman, who died in 2006 at the age of 94, was no mere economist; he was a kind of celebrity. He became a regular on the talk-show circuit. PBS even gave him a 10-part series. His economic theories, among the most consequential of the 20th century, still hold sway over large parts of corporate America, maybe none more so than this 1970 manifesto on corporate governance. (For more on the historical context in which Friedman’s essay landed, see this essay by Kurt Andersen.)

At DealBook, we wanted to mark the occasion by stirring a series of discussions and debates. So, in conjunction with The Times Magazine, we assembled 22 experts — including C.E.O.s, Nobel laureate economists and top think-tank leaders — and asked them to respond to Friedman’s essay. Some cited specific passages, and some took on (and took issue with) Friedman’s entire argument.

You can read the original essay in its entirety here . Below are quotations from Friedman’s landmark essay, along with the experts’ responses.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Ethics and Morality

Is greed good, the psychology and philosophy of greed..

Updated June 23, 2024 | Reviewed by Kaja Perina

Greed is the disordered desire for more than is appropriate, decent, or deserved, not for the greater good but for one’s own (perceived) interest, and often at the detriment of others and society at large. Greed can be for anything, but is most commonly for food, money, possessions, power, fame, status, attention , admiration, and sex.

The Origins of Greed

Greed can arise from early traumas such as parental absence, inconsistency, or neglect. In later life, low self-esteem coupled with feelings of anxiety and vulnerability lead the person to fixate on a substitute for the love and security that they lacked. The pursuit of the substitute distracts from the painful feelings, while its hoarding provides some degree of comfort and compensation.

Another aetiology of greed is that the trait is written into our genes because, in the course of evolution, it has tended to promote survival and reproduction. Without a measure of greed, individuals and communities are more likely to run out of resources, and to lack the means and motivation to innovate and achieve, making them more vulnerable to the vagaries of fate and the designs of their enemies.

If greed is much more developed in human beings than in other animals, this is partly because human beings have the capacity to project themselves far into the future, to the time of their death and even beyond. The prospect of our demise gives rise to anxiety about our purpose, value, and meaning.

In a bid to quell this existential anxiety, our culture provides us with ready-made narratives of life and death. Whenever existential anxiety threatens to surface into our conscious mind, we turn to culture for comfort and consolation. And today, it so happens that our culture—or lack of it, for our culture is in a state of flux and crisis—places a high value on materialism , and, by extension, on greed.

Our culture’s emphasis on greed is such that many people have become immune to satisfaction; having acquired one thing, they immediately set their sights on the next thing that comes to mind. Today, the object of desire is no longer satisfaction but desire itself.

Can Greed be Good?

Although a blind and blunt force, greed leads to superior economic and social outcomes. Unlike altruism , which is a refined capability, greed is a primitive and democratic impulse, and ideally suited to our era of mass consumption. Altruism attracts passing praise, but really it is greed that our society rewards, and that delivers the material goods and economic growth upon which our governments have come to rely.

Like it or not, our society is fuelled by greed, and without it would soon descend into poverty and anarchy. Greed lies at the bottom of every successful ancient and modern society, including the glorious Athenian and Roman empires, and political systems designed to check or eliminate it have all ended in abject failure.

Gordon Gekko, in the film Wall Street (1987), is especially eloquent on the benefits of greed:

Greed, for the lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge [sic.] has marked the upward surge of mankind.

The Nobel economist Milton Friedman (d. 2006) argued that the challenge for social organization is not to eradicate greed, but to set up an arrangement under which it does the least harm. For Friedman, capitalism is just that kind of system.

But greed is, to say the least, a mixed blessing. People who are consumed by greed become utterly fixated on the object of their greed. Their lives are reduced to little more than a quest to accumulate as much as possible of whatever it is that they covet and crave. Even when they have met their every reasonable need and more, they are utterly unable to redirect their drives and desires towards other and higher things.

Greed is associated with negative psychological states including stress , exhaustion, anxiety, depression , and despair, and with maladaptive behaviours such as gambling, hoarding, theft, deceit, and corruption. By overriding pro-social forces such as reason, compassion, and love, greed loosens family and community ties, undermining the bonds and values upon which society is built. Greed may drive the economy, but as recent history has made all too clear, unfettered greed can also precipitate a deep and long-lasting economic recession.

Last but not least, our consumer culture continues to inflict severe damage on the environment , resulting in, among others, deforestation, desertification, ocean acidification, species extinctions, and more frequent and severe extreme weather events. There is a question about whether such naked greed can be sustainable in the short term, let alone the long term.

Greed and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The psychologist Abraham Maslow (d. 1970) proposed that healthy human beings have a certain number of needs, and that these needs can be arranged in a hierarchy, with some needs (such as physiological and safety needs) being more primitive or basic than others (such as social and ego needs). Maslow’s so-called ‘hierarchy of needs’ is often presented as a five-level pyramid, with higher needs coming into focus only once lower, more basic needs have been met.

Maslow called the bottom four levels of the pyramid ‘deficiency needs’ because we do not feel anything if they are met but become distressed if they are not. Thus, physiological needs such as eating, drinking, and sleeping are deficiency needs, as are safety needs, social needs such as friendship and sexual intimacy , and ego needs such as self-esteem, prestige, and recognition.

On the other hand, he called the fifth, top level of the pyramid a ‘growth need’ insofar as the drive to self-actualize demands that we break beyond our limited selves to fulfil our potential as human beings. Once we have met our deficiency needs, the focus of our anxiety shifts to self-actualization, and we begin, even if only at a sub- or semi-conscious level, to contemplate our bigger picture.

The problem with greed is that grounds us on one of the lower levels of the pyramid, preventing us from ever reaching the pinnacle of growth and self-actualization. Of course, this is the precise purpose of greed: to defend against existential anxiety, which is the type of anxiety associated with the apex of the pyramid.

Greed and Religion

Because it removes us from the bigger picture, which is God, greed is roundly condemned by all the major religions.

In the Christian tradition, greed, or avarice, is one of the seven deadly sins, a form of idolatry that forsakes things eternal for things temporal. In Dante’s Inferno , the avaricious are bound prostrate on a floor of cold, hard rock as a punishment for their attachment to earthly goods and neglect of higher things.

In the Buddhist tradition, it is craving that keeps us from the path to enlightenment. Similarly, in the Hindu Mahabharata , when Yudhishthira asks to ‘hear in detail the source from which sin proceeds’, Bhishma replies in no uncertain terms that it is from covetousness that sin proceeds.

In Book 12, Section 158 (the Mahabharata is the longest poem ever written), Bhishma tells Yudhishthira:

From covetousness proceeds sin. It is from this source that sin and irreligiousness flow, together with great misery. This covetousness is the spring of also all the cunning and hypocrisy in the world. It is covetousness that makes men commit sin. From covetousness proceeds wrath; from covetousness flows lust, and it is from covetousness that loss of judgment, deception , pride, arrogance, and malice, as also vindictiveness, shamelessness, loss of prosperity, loss of virtue, anxiety, and infamy spring, miserliness, cupidity, desire for every kind of improper act, pride of birth, pride of learning, pride of beauty, pride of wealth, pitilessness for all creatures, malevolence towards all…

The song The Fear (2009) by singer and songwriter Lily Allen is a modern, secular version of this tirade. Here are a few choice lyrics by way of a conclusion:

I want to be rich and I want lots of money

I don’t care about clever I don’t care about funny

…And I’m a weapon of massive consumption

And it’s not my fault it’s how I’m programmed to function

…Forget about guns and forget ammunition

‘Cause I’m killing them all on my own little mission

I don’t know what’s right and what’s real anymore

And I don’t know how I’m meant to feel anymore

And when do you think it will all become clear?

‘Cause I’m being taken over by The Fear

Read more in Heaven and Hell: The Psychology of the Emotions .

Neel Burton, M.D. , is a psychiatrist, philosopher, and writer who lives and teaches in Oxford, England.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Greed Is Good or Is It? Quote and Meaning

Does Greed "Capture the Essence of the Evolutionary Spirit?"

Important Historical Figures
U.S. Presidents
Native American History
American Revolution
America Moves Westward
The Gilded Age
Crimes & Disasters
The Most Important Inventions of the Industrial Revolution
African American History
African History
Ancient History and Culture
Asian History
European History
Latin American History
Medieval & Renaissance History
Military History
The 20th Century
Women's History

Greed Is Bad

Greed is good, greed is good in u.s. history.

Why It Hasn't Worked in Real Life

M.B.A, MIT Sloan School of Management
M.S.P, Social Planning, Boston College
B.A., University of Rochester

In the 1987 movie "Wall Street," Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko gave an insightful speech where he said, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." He went on to make the point that greed is a clean drive that "captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."

Gekko then compared the United States to a "malfunctioning corporation" that greed could still save. He then said, "America has become a second-rate power. Its trade deficit and its fiscal deficit are at nightmare proportions."

Both of these last two points are truer now than in the 1980s. China surpassed the United States as the world's largest economy, with the European Union following closely behind. The trade deficit has only gotten worse in the last thirty years. The U.S. debt is now larger than the country's entire economic output.

Is greed bad? Can you trace the financial crisis of 2008 back to the greed of Michael Milkin, Ivan Boesky, and Carl Icahn? These are the Wall Street traders upon whom the movie was based. Greed causes the inevitable irrational exuberance that creates asset bubbles. Then still more greed blinds investors to the warning signs of collapse. In 2005, they ignored the inverted yield curve that signaled a recession.

That's certainly true of the 2008 financial crisis when traders created, bought, and sold sophisticated derivatives. The most damaging were mortgage-backed securities. They were based on underlying real mortgages. They were guaranteed by an insurance derivative called a credit default swap.

These derivatives worked great until 2006. That's when housing prices started falling.

The Fed began raising interest rates in 2004. Mortgage holders, especially those with adjustable rates, soon owed more than they could sell the house for. They began defaulting.

As a result, no one knew the underlying values of the mortgage-backed securities. Companies like American International Group (AIG) that wrote the credit default swaps ran out of cash to pay swap holders.

The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department had to bail out AIG, along with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the major banks.

Or is greed, as Gordon Gekko pointed out, good? Perhaps, if the first caveman didn't greedily want cooked meat and a warm cave, he never would have bothered to figure out how to start a fire.

Economists claim that the free market forces if left to themselves without government interference, unleashes the good qualities of greed. Capitalism itself is also based on a healthy form of greed.

Could Wall Street, the center of American capitalism, function without greed? Probably not, since it depends on the profit motive. The banks, hedge funds, and securities traders that drive the American financial system buy and sell stocks. The prices depend on the underlying earnings, which is another word for profit.

Without profit, there is no stock market, no Wall Street, and no financial system.

President Ronald Reagan's policies matched the "greed is good" mood of 1980s America. He promised to reduce government spending, taxes, and regulation. He wanted to get government out of the way to allow the forces of supply and demand to rule the market unfettered.

In 1982, Reagan kept his promise by deregulating banking. It led to the savings and loan crisis of 1989.

Reagan went against his promise of reduced government spending. Instead, he used Keynesian economics to end the recession of 1981. He tripled the national debt.

He both cut and raised taxes. In 1982, he cut income taxes to combat the recession. In 1988, he cut the corporate tax rate. He also expanded Medicare and increased payroll taxes to ensure the solvency of Social Security.

President Herbert Hoover also believed greed was good. He was an advocate of laissez-faire economics . He believed the free market and capitalism would stop the Great Depression. Hoover argued that economic assistance would make people stop working. He wanted the market to work itself out after the 1929 stock market crash.

Even after Congress pressured Hoover to take action, he would only help businesses. He believed their prosperity would trickle down to the average person. Despite his desire for a balanced budget, Hoover still added $6 billion to the debt.

Why Greed Is Good Hasn't Worked in Real Life

Why hasn't the "Greed is good" philosophy worked in real life? The United States has never had a truly free market. The government has always intervened through its spending and tax policies.

Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton imposed tariffs and taxes to pay for debt incurred from the Revolutionary War. Debt, and taxes to pay for it, increased with every subsequent war and economic crisis.

Since its beginning, the American government has restricted the free market by taxing some goods and not others. We may never know if greed, left to its own devices, could truly bring about good.

European Commission, Eurostat. " China, US and EU Are the Largest Economies in the World ," Page 1.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. " Exhibit 1. U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services ," Page 1.

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. " Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product ."

Universidad Francisco Marroquín. " The Fed Ignores the Yield Curve (But the Yield Curve Is Warning for a Recession) ."

The Brookings Institution. " The Origins of the Financial Crisis ," Pages 7-8, 32.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. " Open Market Operations ."

FDIC. " Crisis and Response: An FDIC History, 2008–2013 ," Page 13.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. " Crisis and Response: An FDIC History, 2008–2013 ," Pages 24, 27.

William Boyes and Michael Melvin. " Fundamentals of Economics ," Pages 33-34. Cengage Learning, 2013.

Federal Reserve History. " Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 ."

Allen Independent School District. " A Shift to the Right Under Reagan ," Page 7.

TreasuryDirect. " Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999 ."

Tax Foundation. " Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History ," Pages 6, 8.

Tax Policy Center. " Corporate Top Tax Rate and Bracket, 1909 to 2018 ."

Social Security Administration. " Social Security Amendments of 1983: Legislative History and Summary of Provisions ," Pages 3-5.

The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. " Herbert Hoover on the Great Depression and New Deal, 1931-1933 ," Page 1.

TreasuryDirect. “ Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1900 - 1949 ."

National Bureau of Economic Research. " Alexander Hamilton's Market Based Debt Reduction Plan ," Pages 3-4.

Biography of Horace Greeley
Labor Day Purpose and History
Quotes From Andrew Jackson
Theodore Roosevelt Fast Facts
Top 10 Tips for Passing the AP US History Exam
The Life of Nathan Hale: Revolutionary War Soldier and Spy
Abraham Lincoln Quotations Everyone Should Know
The History of Christmas Traditions
Benjamin Harrison Fast Facts
William Howard Taft Fast Facts
James Polk Fast Facts
Quotes from Martin Van Buren
Abraham Lincoln's Greatest Speeches
James Monroe Fast Facts
Zachary Taylor Fast Facts
Jimmy Carter- Facts on the 39th President

November 1, 2013

Greed: How Economic Selfishness Harms Us All

Taming greed in favor of cooperation would benefit both individuals and society

By Dan Ariely & Aline Grüneisen

“I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them! The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.” These are the words of Gordon Gekko, played by Michael Douglas in the 1987 film Wall Street . The poster boy for unharnessed greed echoes the sentiment of rational free-market economists, who view greed as not only an inevitable aspect of human nature but ultimately a desirable one.

As the prevailing (yet simplistic) economic theory goes, greed motivates competition, and competition is essential for growth in a functioning market. By focusing on personal gains, people directly contribute to the greater good. The late American economist Milton Friedman espoused this ideology of greed when he said, “The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.” He asked, “Is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed?” Homo economicus , the rational self-interested being that represents standard economic theory, benefits society only to the extent that he maximizes his own utility.

Yet greed has historically had a bad reputation. Even today the overwhelming majority of people shun greedy behavior. When we consider the situations in which financial self-interest benefits individuals and society and when it impedes, there are few of the former and many of the latter. The belief that greed allows markets to flourish is more likely a reflection of the ability of Homo sapiens to justify our selfish motivations than it is a prescription for economic success. Understanding this fact, along with a greater appreciation of greed's harm, can go a long way toward curtailing selfish behavior.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

“Thou Shalt Not Covet …” If we rewind to ancient times, the idea of greed as a sin is planted throughout history. Philosophers from Socrates and Plato to David Hume and Immanuel Kant viewed greed as a moral violation, to be avoided and denounced. Roman Christian poet Prudentius depicted greed in the Early Middle Ages as the most frightening of all vices. And in its itemized treatment of this sin, among others, the Bible set forth the 10th commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.”

Today, rather than taking a purely moral approach, much of the opposition to greed appears to stem from its negative effects on others. When people prosper at the expense of others, for example, observers are repulsed. In a study published in 1986 psychologist Daniel Kahneman, now emeritus professor at Princeton University, and his colleagues showed that consumers refuse to support companies that take advantage of their customers for the sake of profit (through price gouging, for example). More recently, in unpublished work, Amit Bhattacharjee, now at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania reported that people judge even the mere act of profit seeking as harmful to society. The researchers found that more profitable firms were regarded as less deserving of their winnings, less subject to competition and more motivated to make money regardless of the consequences. Furthermore, when asked to compare two hypothetical organizations that were identical aside from their “for-profit” or “nonprofit” status, people perceived for-profit firms as less valuable and more socially damaging than the nonprofits. Thus, the perception of greed as harmful extends to the mere act of profiting, which is of course the only way that capitalist markets can function.

This aversion to greed-driven, profit-seeking behavior may be based on a fundamental desire for fairness, including, for example, more equal wealth distribution. In a study published in 2013 sociology graduate student Esra Burak of Stanford University showed that 61 percent of Americans claim that they would support a cap on compensation for extremely high earners, regardless of how hard they have worked or what they have achieved. In addition, in laboratory games in which people are asked to contribute to a public pool of money that will later be split among all participants, players readily penalize those who greedily hold on to their resources. They keep defectors in check and will do so even when restoring fairness comes at a personal financial cost.

Yet not everyone finds value in suppressing greed. In a series of studies published in 2011 organizational behavior professor Long Wang of the City University of Hong Kong and his colleagues had students play the “dictator game,” in which participants are granted a sum of money that they can divvy up among themselves and an anonymous partner in any way they choose. The researchers found that the more a student had studied economics, the more money he or she kept for himself or herself and the less likely the individual was to explain his or her actions in terms of fairness. In a second study, students reflected on their past greedy behavior in writing, rated the morality of greed in general, and tried to define greed in their own words. By all three measures, the more students had been schooled in economics, the more positively they viewed greed. And as a third experiment showed, even just a hint of exposure to economic theory can convince people of the virtues of greed. The researchers found that students with no prior training held more positive opinions of greed just after they read a statement on the economic benefits of self-interest.

Corrosive Competition Although we may be easily swayed by these convenient rationalizations, the economic justification for greed is nonetheless shortsighted. Ferocious competition may occasionally lead to optimal market outcomes, but it can also have harmful side effects. Think about competition in sports. At first glance, the drive to be the best appears to propel human achievements to new heights. World records are surpassed, and yesterday's Olympic medalists pale in comparison with today's champions. Yet extreme dedication has costs. Athletes may not spend enough time with their friends and families, or they may sacrifice their long-term health to perform better in the short term—by overexerting their body or taking performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids.

The consequences of unchecked greed can also spill over into society. In his 2011 book The Darwin Economy , economist Robert H. Frank of Cornell University outlines some of the disastrous effects of allowing competition to run free. Take, for example, neighbors gunning for social status. Each tries to outdo the others, purchasing a slightly flashier car, bigger pool or more expensive grill. When Joe Jones down the block builds a home theater and Jane Smith across the street installs a 3-D amphitheater, you will no longer be satisfied with your meager widescreen television. We don't simply try to keep up with the Joneses, we try to surpass them—triggering what Frank calls “expenditure cascades.” That is, high spending by top earners shifts the reference point for those earning just a bit less, affecting those next in the ladder of prosperity, and so on. This chain of events can culminate in all classes spending more than they can afford, leading to a higher likelihood of bankruptcy (from increased debt), divorce (from the pressures of financial instability) and longer commutes to work (after moving to cheaper neighborhoods to cope with the debt).

The financial crisis of 2008 arose from a similar conflict between eagerness for short-term gains and long-term prosperity. High competition among financial institutions drove them to “financial innovations” that eventually left many of us with bankruptcies, foreclosures, a lack of trust in the market and a substantial national debt that we will be paying for generations to come.

Greed can also encourage ethically dubious behaviors. In an unpublished experiment with Lalin Anik of Duke University, we investigated whether people would be more willing to profit at the expense of others if they could rationalize their actions more easily—specifically by claiming that their motives were intended to benefit another group: shareholders. To explore this hypothesis, we asked participants to imagine themselves as the CEO of a publicly traded bank. We gave them a list of ethically questionable actions that would profit their company and asked which ones they would take. They could, for example, charge overdraft fees, increase interest on securities held or use tax shelters to offset income with losses from previous years. When participants were told that their primary goal as CEO was to maximize shareholder value, they were much more willing to partake in these ethically questionable acts. And when some of these participants were told that their year-end bonuses depended on satisfying this goal, the questionable behaviors became even more popular.

Perhaps shockingly, these results were most pronounced for those who aced the three-item financial literacy test we gave them. That is, those who were more educated in finance were even more inclined toward questionable behavior. Although most of us perceive avarice in a negative light, we can be greedy ourselves when given the right justifications for our behavior.

Cultivating Cooperation Despite this capacity to rationalize selfishness, people do not always avail themselves of it. They can often be quite selfless, sacrificing their own welfare to benefit others. People help those in need, donate money to charities and volunteer their time. (Yes, even economists sometimes help the elderly lady carry her groceries across the street.) In scenarios such as the dictator game, most participants reliably share some of their wealth—despite the fact that the rational economic decision is to keep it all.

All in all, humans are part Scrooge and part Robin Hood. We are more likely to be selfish when we can easily explain our choices or when we fail to consider the people who could suffer from them. Yet when we think about the people whom we can hurt and help, we behave more considerately. The lessons are straightforward: we must not let rational economic theory eclipse the fact that greed can be damaging. Next, we should work to make the consequences of our actions clearer, with the hope that our cooperative spirit will be boosted by concrete examples of those who might bear the brunt of our actions. And finally, we must combat the rationalizations of self-interest, including the simplistic mantra that greedy behavior propels society forward.

Yet if you are still trying to surpass the Joneses, bear in mind that above the poverty line, having more money will not make you appreciably happier. In fact, research shows that individuals who focus on financial success are less stable and less happy overall. So rather than splurging on a high-end grill that will make your neighbor jealous—and perhaps add to your debt—choose instead to help your neighbor assemble her grill for a block party cookout. And if the party small talk turns to the economy, slip in a pitch for cooperation rather than greed.

Dan Ariely is James B. Duke Professor of Psychology & Behavioral Economics at Duke University and founder of the Center for Advanced Hindsight. He is co-creator of a documentary on corruption and a bestselling author.

Science Proves It: Greed Is Good

Wall Street, home of the good guys? Kind of.

L et us now stop and praise the plutocrat. Really. Props too to the bailed out, the overprivileged, the exploiters of the little guys, the Machiavellian narcissists who earn way, way too much and are taking advantage of the rest of us to stay that way. Oh, and let’s praise Putin too.

Greed really is good, as are income inequality, bullying across class lines and even the iron fist of the political strongman—in certain contexts, at least. That’s the conclusion of a new study from the University of Oxford, just published in Nature Communications . Using mathematical models of human social groups, the researchers found that when communities are hierarchically structured—meaning that there is a potential for high inequality too—the individuals at the top tend to make more of an effort in the interests of the group than those at the bottom, including competing with outside groups and facing potential danger in the process.

The authors detected that behavior across nearly all cultures, and cite corresponding studies of chimps, blue monkeys and ring-tail lemurs, showing that higher ranking individuals tend to venture closer to the perilous border of the group’s territory during patrols, and high-ranking females will join the males in combat with other groups. In return, the lower ranking members are allowed to become what is known as free-riders, hiding behind the skirts of the big shots and contributing little on their own. The price for this protection? Don’t cross the dominant members of your own group or they’ll direct their power—and ire—at you too.

Studies like this always raise illuminating and troubling questions and are easy to exploit by nearly anyone with a social or political agenda. (See? There really is such a thing as the safety net turning into a hammock; the makers versus the takers really do exist. Or: See? Bully-boy behavior is the stuff of the apes, something egalitarian societies—and homo sapiens as a whole—ought to have left behind by now.)

But, as in nearly all matters of human behavior, the reality is more nuanced than ideology allows for. Throughout history there is a long tradition of powerful people who serve the group in some way being rewarded with more power still. Famous generals become Presidents (Washington, Grant, Eisenhower), not just because everyone knows their names but because they’ve proven their fortitude in battle and can prove it again if dangerous outsiders come calling. If you’re confused about Vladimir Putin’s stratospheric approval numbers at home even as he has made Russia an international pariah—at least in the eyes of the West—be confused no more.

We tolerate too the enormous wealth some inventors and industrialists accumulate because at least part of the time, they make our lives better too. (Thank you for the cars, Mr. Ford, and for the iPod, Mr. Jobs.) Admittedly, we’re a lot less tolerant when wealthy and powerful people create things that benefit only other wealthy and powerful people—(Thank you for, um, the $25 million condo that nobody I know will ever remotely be able to live in, Mr. Trump)—but we’d rather have an economy that rewards ambition than one that smothers it.

Free-riding is more complex than it seems as well. There’s truth to the fact that in the past, at least, welfare could be a disincentive to work, especially when the work that was on offer was unappealing (you try working a deep frier all day) and paid little more than the free money the government was giving you. But there’s a limit to that—especially when it comes to arguments against extending long-term unemployment benefits.

Under federal formulae, a weekly unemployment check tops out at 40-50% of your last paycheck. If you were grossing only $400 a week to begin with—and plenty of hourly workers don’t make even that much—that’s a cool $200 in benefits. How long could you lounge about in that hammock? On the other hand, health insurance free-riders—people who wait until they’re sick to sign up—do represent a real risk. So the only way to make sure everybody gets a fair shake is—oh, what do you call it again? Ah, yes: a mandate.

The behaviors we share with the lower apes are there for a reason: they worked when we were lower apes, and they still do. The plutocrats, the pampered, are necessary members of a complex economy, and calls for pure egalitarianism have always been nonsense. But so is the tough-love, pull-yourself-up, no free lunch even if you’re starving ethos of the people who have forgotten—or never knew—what that kind of desperation feels like. There’s not a thing wrong with the rich and powerful, provided that they remember what wealth and power are for. Blue-tailed monkeys and lemurs do—so how hard can it be?

More Must-Reads from TIME

Breaking Down the 2024 Election Calendar
Heman Bekele Is TIME’s 2024 Kid of the Year
The Reintroduction of Kamala Harris
What a $129 Frying Pan Says About America’s Eating Habits
A Battle Over Fertility Law in China
The 1 Heart-Health Habit You Should Start When You’re Young
Cuddling Might Help You Get Better Sleep
The 50 Best Romance Novels to Read Right Now

Write to Jeffrey Kluger at [email protected]

Today's news
Reviews and deals
Climate change
2024 election
Fall allergies
Health news
Mental health
Sexual health
Family health
So mini ways
Unapologetically
Buying guides

Entertainment

How to Watch
My Portfolio
Latest News
Stock Market
Biden Economy
Stocks: Most Actives
Stocks: Gainers
Stocks: Losers
Trending Tickers
World Indices
US Treasury Bonds Rates
Top Mutual Funds
Options: Highest Open Interest
Options: Highest Implied Volatility
Basic Materials
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Financial Services
Industrials
Real Estate
Stock Comparison
Advanced Chart
Currency Converter
Credit Cards
Balance Transfer Cards
Cash-back Cards
Rewards Cards
Travel Cards
Credit Card Offers
Best Free Checking
Student Loans
Personal Loans
Car insurance
Mortgage Refinancing
Mortgage Calculator
Morning Brief
Market Domination
Market Domination Overtime
Asking for a Trend
Opening Bid
Stocks in Translation
Lead This Way
Good Buy or Goodbye?
Financial Freestyle
Capitol Gains
Fantasy football
Pro Pick 'Em
College Pick 'Em
Fantasy baseball
Fantasy hockey
Fantasy basketball
Download the app
Daily fantasy
Scores and schedules
GameChannel
World Baseball Classic
Premier League
CONCACAF League
Champions League
Motorsports
Horse racing
Newsletters

New on Yahoo

Privacy Dashboard

Yahoo Finance

Greed is good: a 300-year history of a dangerous idea.

T’ enjoy the World’s Conveniences, Be fam’d in War, yet live in Ease, Without great Vices, is a vain EUTOPIA seated in the Brain.

Greed: Good Or Evil?

Proper editing and formatting
Free revision, title page, and bibliography
Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Join our 150k of happy users

Get original paper written according to your instructions
Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

Sample details

Behaviorism

Greed: The Destroyer of Worlds

It is not inconceivable to state that greed is good in a world ruled by universal law. This would result in a perfect duty to refrain from acting on this. Excess money does not lead to happiness and the more money you have to more you want to earn more money. The economy would fall if people were going to live according to Gecko’s maxim. It is not rational to act on the “greed is good” maxim as it does not meet the requirements based on Step 2 and Step 3.

The maxim does not meet the requirements of Universal Law. Gecko’s speech would fit in with Nietzsche philosophy as it was driven by a sire to see human kind moving to higher and higher states of being. A quote from Gecko’s speech: “Greed, in all of its forms – greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge – has marked the upward surge of mankind. ” Nietzsche viewed morality as a dead end in human development and I am of an opinion that he would agree with Gecko’s views about greed.

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

Gecko’s views would have also resonated Any Rand’s philosophies as she believed that self-interest was morally good. Her three central virtues were rationality, productiveness and pride and these virtues centre on selfishness and greed. As per Rand “sustaining life, one’s own life in particular, is the original objective standard of value. ” Not forgetting Adam Smith’s thinking about one’s own security, gains, interest and capitalistic views. I believe that self-interest and the pursuit to riches leads to greed.

Greed is socially destructive. The agents or law-making bodies of a country should have laws in place to handle the equitable distribution of wealth. Greed can lead to an economic melt-down as every individual will be pushing to make more money and their self-interest forgetting that we are living in a world with limited resources. Self-interest and egoism may lead to greed and that could be destructive. The agents should use the veil on ignorance to put proper policies in place on the amount of wealth individuals can amass.

All the inhabitants of planet earth should have fair and equal opportunities and at the same time take care of the environment we live in and living sensibly. This discussion links to the Sustainability assignment as greed according to my opinion is also the root cause of high ecological footprints in this planet. As individuals are consuming more resources than what our planet can provide for us. We should start living consciously and sustainable.

As individual move higher and higher the more resources they consume hence depleting the scarce resources the world can offer us. This course was an eye opener to me and I am planning to live a sustainable lifestyle going forward to ensure that the future generations will have resources to sustain them. As individuals we do not realize that our pursuit to “live more comfortable lives as we call it” have serious repercussions. We are chasing wealth, glamour and high statuses but at what cost? Is it all worth it?

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/essay-greed-is-good/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Check more samples on your topics

Adderall, the wonder drug or the destroyer.

The boy with ADHD did not introduce his girlfriend to any of his friends because he could not remember her name, similar to how a chicken with ADD never fully crosses the road due to distractions. ADHD is a developmental and behavioral disorder that affects 3 to 5 percent of all school-age children. According to the

Analysis of “The Visible and Invisible Worlds of Salem”

Salem Witch Trials

What is the author’s main theme? In Chapter 3 “The Visible and Invisible Worlds of Salem” in After The Fact the author discussed how “Over the past few decades historians have studied the traumatic experiences of 1692 in great detail”(52). The author talks about the Salem outbreak in New England and how bewitchment was related

Compare and Contrast Each Version of War of The Worlds

The version of War of the Worlds I found most effective in creating fear amongst its audience was the radio broadcast. In both the novel version and the radio broadcast the alien creature that lands on Earth are described in great detail. Its grotesque features are planted in our mind as the narrator tell us

Study of ‘Anne Hathaway’ from Carol Ann Duffy’s ‘The Worlds Wife’

How typical, in terms of language, style, structure and concerns is ‘Anne Hathaway’ of the collection? Carol Ann Duffy presents Anne Hathaway as a character who is deeply in love with her partner whom she is writing a poem for. This poem shows that the collection is not an act of revenge, as it shows how

Bridging the Two Worlds-the Organizational Dilemma

Organization

Everyone, including myself, has had a memorable experience that deeply impacted them. One day, when exams were approaching, I woke up early and went to the library. Unfortunately, it was crowded with people and there were no empty seats. So, I decided to leave my bag on the desk to reserve my spot and went

Innocence and Experience: Blake’s Contrasting Worlds

nnocence represents the ideal state and experience represents the reality'. Discuss this statement in the light of the poems you have studied so far. Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience juxtapose the innocent, pastoral world of childhood against an adult world of disappointment and corruption. Yet, the two contrasting states are never fully separated in

“War of the Worlds” by HG Wells

The War of the Worlds was written in 1898 by HG Wells. It was written in the Victorian era. At this time, many people were questioning religion and exploring atheist ideas. Wells himself was an atheist and a socialist, so he had strong ideologies and many opinions on religious beliefs; especially with Christianity and Judaism. In

The Search For Other Worlds Extrasolar Planets

Earths Beyond Earth: The Search for Other Worlds In early 1990, the first extrasolar planet was detected, surprising everyone by its strangeness. More planets have now been discovered outside our solar system than in it. These planets present many great mysteries to the astronomical world. Extrasolar planets are planets that exist outside our solar system; they are

A Walker Between Worlds

Shamanism is a great mental and emotional journey that involves the shaman and the patients to transcend their normal, ordinary definitions of reality to a deeper level of consciousness. Shamanism is the sustenance of human vitality. It is a system of healing based on spiritual power from personal helping spirits whom the shaman encounters on

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

Newsletter Sign Up

Impact Today

Culture And Society
Foreign Policy
Government And Business
Science And Industrialization

Is Greed Good?

Writing for The Atlantic , John Paul Rollert describes the complex moral evolution of the concept of “greed” over three centuries, from Christianity’s unequivocal denunciation of self-interest to the present day, in which, Rollert argues, we have reached a kind of quiet but uncomfortable toleration of greed.

Rollert credits Ayn Rand with opening a “new line of argument . . . in the moral defense of greed,” which he sees as pushing the envelope, but as remaining “far beyond the mainstream.” Instead, he argues accurately, today’s moral outlook is one in which we “tolerate greed” but we’re unwilling to say that it is good.

But if this is true, perhaps it’s because the full lesson of Rand’s argument has yet to be widely understood.

In conventional usage, we equate “greed” or “selfishness” with the exploitation of others. We view the “selfish” person as one who preys on victims for his own gain. But for those of us who don’t want to be predators, the only alternative we’re offered by conventional moral thinking is to offer ourselves up as prey — i.e., to serve others. In other words, we’ve been taught that man must “accept masochism as his ideal — under the threat that sadism was his only alternative.” ( The Fountainhead ) In Rand’s view, this ignores the possibility of a non-sacrificial relationship to others.

Rand’s aim was not just to offer a defense of self-interest — to relieve it “of any moral taint,” as Rollert puts it — but to untangle our confusion about the meaning of self-interest. What she offers is a whole new concept of selfishness , in which every man “is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others.” Each man “must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

Rollert accurately notes that today’s culture instills in us “a kind of moral quietism” with respect to selfishness. We accept it tacitly as the engine of our economic system, but we don’t like to talk about it. The final step in the evolution that Rollert recounts would be for people to embrace Rand’s radical perspective that selfishness, properly understood, is not a “necessary evil” but an ennobling virtue.

The Quotable Ayn Rand: Who Is Going to Stop Me?

Using Reason to Cultivate Passion: A Moral and Psychological How-To Guide

Explore Topics

Environmentalism
Law And Courts
Ayn Rand Biography
Arab Israeli Conflict
Barack Obama
Sense Of Life
Campaign Finance Law
Rule Of Law
Policy Digest
Social Security
Ayn Rand Novels And Ideas
Objective Law
Morality Of Capitalism
Labor Unions
Donald Trump
National Self Defense
Romantic Love
Labor And Employment Law
Founding Fathers
Laissez Faire Capitalism
Scientific And Technological Progress
Individual Rights
Patents And Copyrights
Appeasement
Cultural Trends And Movements
Regulations
About Ayn Rand
Campaign Finance
Agriculture
Rise And Fall Podcast
United Nations
Minimum Wage
Department Of Justice
Church State Separation
Constitutional Law
Pharmaceutical Industry
Palestinians
Paul Krugman
We The Living
Property Rights
Morality Of Business
Business Ethics
Egoist Foreign Policy
Socialized Medicine
Freedom Of Speech
Ayn Rand Institute
Setting Goals For Life And Happiness
Reason Vs Faith
Financial Crisis
The Yaron Brook Show
Middle East
Afghanistan
The Debt Dialogues
Auto Industry
Income Inequality
Capitalism And Economics
Collectivism
North Korea
Health Care Policy
Intellectual Property
Supreme Court
Epistemology
Biotechnology And GM Foods
Fossil Fuels
Culture And Politics
Islamist Movement
Welfare State
Self Esteem
Egalitarianism
Freedom Of Religion
Creationism
Individualism
Pursuit Of Happiness
Rational Self Interest
Moral Foundations Of Freedom
Health Care
Ayn Rands Life And Works
Economic Vs Political Power
Egoism And Selfishness
Fast Food Industry
Mixed Economy
Oil Industry
Capitalism And Free Markets
Genetic Engineering
Green Energy
Financial Markets
Islamic Totalitarianism
Art And Esthetics
Businessmen
Conservatives
Business Management
Atlas Shrugged
Climate Change
Health Insurance
Objectivism
Banking And Finance
The Fountainhead
Aaron Smith
Amanda Maxham
Carl Svanberg
Don Watkins
Doug Altner
Elan Journo
Keith Lockitch
Kevin Douglas
Onkar Ghate
Rituparna Basu
Robert Mayhew
Steve Simpson
The Editors
Yaron Brook

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Ayn Rand Global
Ayn Rand Institute eStore
Ayn Rand University

Updates From ARI

Copyright © 1985 – 2024 The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). Reproduction of content and images in whole or in part is prohibited. All rights reserved. ARI is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions to ARI in the United States are tax-exempt to the extent provided by law. Objectivist Conferences (OCON), Ayn Rand Conference (ARC), Ayn Rand University (ARU) and the Ayn Rand Institute eStore are operated by ARI. Payments to OCON, ARC, ARU or the Ayn Rand Institute eStore do not qualify as tax-deductible contributions to the Ayn Rand Institute. AYN RAND, AYN RAND INSTITUTE, ARI, AYN RAND UNIVERSITY and the AYN RAND device are trademarks of the Ayn Rand Institute. All rights reserved.

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Examining the Dual Nature of Greed: Wealth and Power

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Examining the Dual Nature of Greed: Wealth and Power. (2016, Oct 02). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/is-greed-good-essay

"Examining the Dual Nature of Greed: Wealth and Power." StudyMoose , 2 Oct 2016, https://studymoose.com/is-greed-good-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). Examining the Dual Nature of Greed: Wealth and Power . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/is-greed-good-essay [Accessed: 24 Aug. 2024]

"Examining the Dual Nature of Greed: Wealth and Power." StudyMoose, Oct 02, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2024. https://studymoose.com/is-greed-good-essay

"Examining the Dual Nature of Greed: Wealth and Power," StudyMoose , 02-Oct-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/is-greed-good-essay. [Accessed: 24-Aug-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). Examining the Dual Nature of Greed: Wealth and Power . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/is-greed-good-essay [Accessed: 24-Aug-2024]

An Analysis of Greed in Lord of the Flies: An Study of Greed in the Novel by William Golding Pages: 3 (792 words)
The Dual Nature of Power: Insights from 'Game of Thrones' Pages: 3 (681 words)
The Complex Nature of Greed in Literature Pages: 3 (650 words)
Authors Who Used Humor to Comment on Gender, Greed, and Power Pages: 7 (1853 words)
Greed and Power in Macbeth Pages: 3 (709 words)
Greed for Money and Power: A Root Cause of Human Misery Pages: 3 (648 words)
Greed For Power In Macbeth Pages: 3 (817 words)
Dual Nature of Masks: Deception, Manipulation and Desires Pages: 5 (1499 words)
The Dual Nature of the Internet: Blessings and Curses Pages: 5 (1256 words)
The Dual Nature of Change: Exploring Its Impact on Man and Environment Pages: 1 (297 words)

Examining the Dual Nature of Greed: Wealth and Power essay

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Character Traits — Greed

Greed Essay Titles

Brief description of greed.

Greed is the intense desire for material wealth or power, often at the expense of others. It is a fundamental human characteristic that has been the cause of many societal issues throughout history. Understanding and exploring greed is crucial to understanding human behavior and its impact on society.

Importance of Writing Essays on This Topic

Essays on greed are significant for academic and personal exploration as they allow individuals to delve into the complexities of human nature, ethics, and morality. By examining greed through writing, students and writers can gain a deeper understanding of the consequences of excessive desire and the role it plays in shaping individual and societal values.

Tips on Choosing a Good Topic

Consider current events and their relation to greed, such as corporate scandals or economic disparities.
Look for literature and historical events that explore the theme of greed and its impact on individuals and society.
Reflect on personal experiences or observations related to greed and its effects on relationships, communities, or personal well-being.

Essay Topics

The role of greed in economic inequality
The portrayal of greed in classic literature
The impact of greed on environmental sustainability
Corporate greed and its consequences
Greed and its influence on personal relationships
The ethical implications of greed in business
Greed as a driving force in historical events
The psychological roots of greed
Greed in the context of modern consumerism
Overcoming greed through mindfulness and self-awareness

Concluding Thought

Writing essays on greed offers a unique opportunity to critically analyze and understand the complexities of human desire and its impact on society. By exploring this topic, individuals can gain valuable insights into the moral, ethical, and psychological dimensions of greed, contributing to a deeper understanding of human behavior and societal dynamics.

The Insidious Nature of Greed in Shakespeare's Macbeth

Gordon gekko's "greed is good" speech analysis, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Manifestation of Greed in J.r.r. Tolkien's "The Hobbit"

Avatar: a deeper look into the human greed through cinematography , why greed for money in good for the economy and society, the definition and nature of human greed, let us write you an essay from scratch.

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

A Theme of Greed in The Pearl by John Steinbeck

Discussion of why greed is good for the economy, a theme of greed in the tragedy of macbeth, the impact of greed on a man in the monkey's paw by w. w. jacob, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

How Much Land Does a Man Need by Leo Tolstoy: I Shall Never Reach that Spot

The sickness of greed in modern society, the idea of greed in the necklace by guy de maupassant, the theme of greed in the treasure island and the pearl, greed and loss in the necklace and disabled, review of king leopold’s ghost: a story of greed, terror, and heroism in colonial africa by adam hochschild, the wolf of wall street: ethics, greed and corruption, the wolf of wall street: depiction of greed and corruption, greed in macbeth, gerald scarpelli case summary, the monkeys paw theme, macbeth greed quotes, relevant topics.

Helping Others

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

IMAGES

Essay
Why Greed Is Good
Paper / essay
Greed is Good Essay
Read “Greed Is Good for Society” Essay for Free at Miraculous-Essays.com
Greed Is Good. Except When It’s Bad. (Published 2020)

COMMENTS

Greed Is Good: A 300-Year History of a Dangerous Idea
Accordingly, in recent decades, a new line of argument has opened in the moral defense of greed, a change that was augured and embodied above all others by Ayn Rand. Rand understood that, when ...
Greed Is Good. Except When It's Bad.
Sept. 13, 2020. Sept. 13 is an important date in the world of business. Fifty years ago on that day — today — Milton Friedman published a seminal essay in The New York Times Magazine that is ...
Vital Signs: 50 years ago Milton Friedman told us greed was good. He
Published: September 17, 2020 3:48pm EDT. The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed - for lack of a better word - is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and ...
Milton Friedman told us greed was good. He was half right
"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed - for lack of a better word - is good": Gordon Gekko, Wall Street 1987. Image: Shutterstock. Although not clear from the title of the essay, Friedman himself was quite concerned with broader social aims. His essay was about how best to achieve them.
A Free Market Manifesto That Changed the World, Reconsidered
Milton Friedman's libertarian economics influenced presidents and inspired "greed is good." So what did Friedman get right — and wrong? Today's business leaders and economists weigh in.
Is Greed Good?
Greed is the disordered desire for more than is decent or deserved, not for the greater good but for one's own selfish interest, and at the detriment of others and society at large. Greed can be ...
Greed is good. Except when it's bad.
It was the essay heard round the world. ... Friedman's thinking became theology — the intellectual scaffolding that allowed its disciples to justify decades of greed-is-good excess. Gone were the days when someone like my semiliterate grandfather, with only a third-grade education, could work as a porter and benefit from a profit-sharing ...
Greed Is Good: Quote and Meaning
Updated on August 21, 2020. In the 1987 movie "Wall Street," Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko gave an insightful speech where he said, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." He went on to make the point that greed is a clean drive that "captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money ...
Gordon Gekko's "Greed is Good" Speech Analysis
Introduction. In the annals of cinematic history, few speeches have engendered as much debate and analysis as Gordon Gekko's "Greed is Good" speech from the 1987 film Wall Street, directed by Oliver Stone.Delivered by Michael Douglas, the speech encapsulates the ethos of 1980s corporate America, an era marked by deregulation, rampant capitalism, and financial excess.
Greed: How Economic Selfishness Harms Us All
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit."
Greed Is Good: Science Proves It
Greed really is good, as are income inequality, bullying across class lines and even the iron fist of the political strongman—in certain contexts, at least. That's the conclusion of a new ...
Greed Is Good: A 300-Year History of a Dangerous Idea
A name now largely lost to history, Mandeville became a foil for 18th-century philosophy when, in 1705, he first proposed his infamous equation: Private vices yield public benefits. It came as ...
Greed: What Is It Good for?
Thus, there is also a case to be made for greed being good. It is important to note that both views of greed being bad and greed being good are mostly based on the effects greed has on other people or on society as a whole. The question as to whether greed is (dis)advantageous for greedy individuals themselves is seldom addressed.
Greed Lord Of The Flies Essay
Evil is a choice, a choice. No one is born good or bad. The choices that people make define who they want to be. Of course, no one is entirely good or evil; there is good and evil within everyone, and people can choose whether to bury it or let it take over. However, people are influenced by the world, which influences their choices.
Greed: Good Or Evil?
Greed is good, because it is the most important incentive for people to work hard, get a good education, start a business It makes people productive and contributing members of society. And in return, people are paid a salary called the profit incentive and with that money, you can live a more comfortable live and hopefully build wealth.
Essay
Greed: The Destroyer of Worlds. It is not inconceivable to state that greed is good in a world ruled by universal law. This would result in a perfect duty to refrain from acting on this. Excess money does not lead to happiness and the more money you have to more you want to earn more money. The economy would fall if people were going to live ...
Greed: What Is It Good for?
What is greed good for? Greed is ubiquitous, suggesting that it must have some benefits, but it is also often condemned. In a representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 2,367, 51.3% female, M age = 54.06, SD = 17.90), we examined two questions.First, inspired by Eriksson et al., we studied whether greedy people generate more personal and household income (economic outcomes), have more ...
Greed Is Bad, Neutral, and Good: A Historical ...
The good of greed refers to the potential advantageous consequences for society as a whole and for greedy people themselves. ... The essays approach their subject from a number of perspectives and ...
Voices for Reason
Writing for The Atlantic, John Paul Rollert describes the complex moral evolution of the concept of "greed" over three centuries, from Christianity's unequivocal denunciation of self-interest to the present day, in which, Rollert argues, we have reached a kind of quiet but uncomfortable toleration of greed.. Rollert credits Ayn Rand with opening a "new line of argument . . . in the ...
Discussion of Why Greed is Good for The Economy
Greed is everywhere and for the most part, greed is good. For example, Monta Vista students are inadvertently greedy, seeking more knowledge and trying to achieve the best grades possible. ... Macbeth Greed Quotes Essay. In Shakespeare's play Macbeth, greed is a prevalent theme that drives the actions of the characters and shapes the narrative ...
The good and bad about greed: How the manifestations of greed can be
Greed is a continuing part of human history because it serves powerful ego wants and needs that are espoused, modeled, reinforced and rewarded at all levels of society, especially in organizational cultures characterized by a high degree of individualism, a low degree of social cohesion, and either an absence or excess of boundaries. Greed is not all bad; sometimes it is the result of ...
Examining the Dual Nature of Greed: Wealth and Power
3570. The definition of greed is that it is an intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power or food. While most people view greed as something to be looked down upon, while in actuality greed can be both good and bad. As Mr. Gekko stated in the movie, greed is the motivation for businesses; without it business owners would not ...
≡Essays on Greed. Free Examples of Research Paper Topics, Titles
Tips on Choosing a Good Topic. ... Writing essays on greed offers a unique opportunity to critically analyze and understand the complexities of human desire and its impact on society. By exploring this topic, individuals can gain valuable insights into the moral, ethical, and psychological dimensions of greed, contributing to a deeper ...

Greed Is Good: A 300-Year History of a Dangerous Idea

About the Author

Vital Signs: 50 years ago Milton Friedman told us greed was good. He was half right

Disclosure statement

Corporations can achieve more than individuals

Yet a point in every direction…

Head of Evidence to Action

Supply Chain - Assistant/Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

Education Research Fellow

OzGrav Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

Milton Friedman told us greed was good. He was half right

Corporations can achieve more than individuals

Yet a point in every direction…

A Free Market Manifesto That Changed the World, Reconsidered

Ethics and Morality

The Origins of Greed

Can Greed be Good?

Greed and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Greed and Religion

Greed Is Good or Is It? Quote and Meaning

Greed Is Bad

Why Greed Is Good Hasn't Worked in Real Life

Greed: How Economic Selfishness Harms Us All

On supporting science journalism

Science Proves It: Greed Is Good

More Must-Reads from TIME

Entertainment

New on Yahoo

Yahoo Finance

Greed: Good Or Evil?

Cite this paper

Related articles

Most popular essays

Join our 150k of happy users

Sample details

Related Topics

Greed: The Destroyer of Worlds

Cite this page

Check more samples on your topics

Analysis of “The Visible and Invisible Worlds of Salem”

Compare and Contrast Each Version of War of The Worlds

Study of ‘Anne Hathaway’ from Carol Ann Duffy’s ‘The Worlds Wife’

Bridging the Two Worlds-the Organizational Dilemma

Innocence and Experience: Blake’s Contrasting Worlds

“War of the Worlds” by HG Wells

The Search For Other Worlds Extrasolar Planets

A Walker Between Worlds

Impact Today

Is Greed Good?

The Quotable Ayn Rand: Who Is Going to Stop Me?

Using Reason to Cultivate Passion: A Moral and Psychological How-To Guide

Explore Topics

Examining the Dual Nature of Greed: Wealth and Power

Greed Essay Titles

Importance of Writing Essays on This Topic

Tips on Choosing a Good Topic

Essay Topics

Concluding Thought

The Insidious Nature of Greed in Shakespeare's Macbeth

The Manifestation of Greed in J.r.r. Tolkien's "The Hobbit"

A Theme of Greed in The Pearl by John Steinbeck

How Much Land Does a Man Need by Leo Tolstoy: I Shall Never Reach that Spot

IMAGES

COMMENTS