Greed Is Good (Michael Moore Vs. Gordon Gekko)
October 6th, 2009
Email this article to a friend
Gordon Gekko has often been misquoted as saying “greed is good.” He did technically say “greed . . . is good,” but that snippet leaves a lot of the meaning out. Let’s look at what he really said:
“The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest. Well, in my book you either do it right or you get eliminated…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.”
Greed isn’t the right word because it’s an extreme version of what he’s really talking about. The opposite extreme is apathy, and both extremes are bad.
I’m not sure what a better word would be. Desire? Ambition? Drive? Mojo? Life force? Evolutionists call it selective advantage. Academics call it a thirst for knowledge. Economists call it rational self-interest.
Whatever you call it, it’s not bad. Surely there’s plenty of room between one extreme of preying on innocent people, and the other extreme of being a spineless jellyfish.
I’m bringing this up now because I just saw Michael Moore’s new movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story.” While I liked it, I thought it was far weaker than “Sicko” and “Fahrenheit 9/11.” I totally agree with him about all the corruption at the top, but I disagree with him about what’s happening at the bottom.
We see several people in the movie being evicted from their homes. Is it sad? Yes. Being poor is awful, no question about it.
But while I saw people who weren’t happy about their situation, I didn’t see anyone taking personal responsibility for it, or coming up with a plan for how they’re going to fix it. They just think they deserve to stay in their house whether they’re making the payments or not.
Their logic seems to be “I’m poor, therefore someone should give me a free house.” If it were me, I’d be thinking “I’m poor, therefore I better make more money so I can pay for this house.”
One family looked out the window as several police cars pulled up to their house to evict them. But they refused to open the door for them. Instead, one family member called the Sheriff and said they weren’t going to resist, but the cops were going to have to break the door down.
I actually found this guy more offensive than the “condo vulture.” He thinks he’s Gandhi in a noble fight of nonviolent resistance? No, he’s just a jerk who’s wasting the cops’ time and causing someone else’s property to be damaged.
To be fair, we didn’t get any information about how all these people ended up like that. There could have been tragedies that put them in that situation through no fault of their own. (Though minor economic fluctuations such as this recession are far from being tragedies.)
But there were hints that they became homeless only through absence of greed, for lack of a better word. Thinking that money is evil isn’t going to help. If you’re not making enough to pay the bills, then you have to either reduce your bills or make more money.
Are there no jobs where you live? You might have to move. Does your occupation no longer pay well? You might have to change fields. Do you not have any skills that employers want? You might have to develop some. This might not be fair or convenient or what you wanted, but it’s sometimes necessary.
When I got laid off in the dot com bust, I had to move to where the jobs were, learn new skills, and take a big pay cut. Did I want to do that? No, but it was a lot more constructive than sitting around in an area with no jobs, waiting for Michael Moore to put me in a movie.
And if I had stayed, I certainly wouldn’t have claimed the right to live there without paying for it. I would have sooner starved to death than default on my mortgage.
One person in the movie says there are only two kinds of people: the ones who have nothing, and the ones who have everything, with no one in between. Where is he getting that from?
I’d guess that almost everyone who’s reading this post is in between. The ones who have nothing sometimes truly lack the ability to move up, but usually they just refuse to evolve.
If someone doesn’t want to have moderate greed, I think that’s their right. But they have to accept the consequences of the path they’ve chosen.
Michael Moore says capitalism is the enemy of democracy. But the problem isn’t capitalism itself, just the kind we have.
Most people are outraged that the top 1% makes as much money as the bottom 95%, but that’s not the problem per se. If they create that much value, they should make that much money. Why should the people who don’t create any value make as much money as the ones who create a lot?
However, the problem is that the broken system allows some of the top 1% to make that much money without creating that much value. In fact, some of them destroy value.
And some of them have gone to jail for it, but many more are still out there and up to their old tricks. Why wouldn’t they keep doing it, if they have no sense of ethics and no one’s going to stop them?
Moore says the top 1% fear the bottom 95%, because they have 95% of the votes. But he says they won’t take back the country with their votes, because they believe that if they keep working hard, they’ll be in that 1% someday.
I don’t know where he’s getting that from. Why would anyone think they’ll magically jump up like that? No, the problem is that there’s no one to vote for. No one stands for eliminating corruption because being a politician requires being all caught up in it.
True capitalism doesn’t guarantee that everyone is equally good at the game, just that we all get to play by the same rules. And while there should be a safety net to help people stay in the game when they’re down on their luck, we don’t want a system that fixes everyone at the same level. Eliminate greed, and you eliminate progress.
Moore unwittingly gives us an example of the good kind of greed: Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine. He did a great thing and didn’t patent it for personal gain, because he didn’t need the money.
But while he wasn’t greedy for money, his greed for a cure is what made him work hard enough to find it. He wasn’t the kind of guy to sit back and wait for someone to hand him a cure, or buy him a house.
Evil people are often obsessed with money, but that doesn’t mean that money is evil. It’s just a resource, and it works for its owner.
When good people refuse to play the game, that just means that only the evil people will have it. Isn’t it better to see it in the hands of people who will use it well? That’s why we need a healthy dose of the good kind of greed.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Hey Hunter.
I sometimes talk about this same topic in a similar way. I bring up the idea that “strong and wrong(unethical)” usually beats “weak and right”, but that “strong and right” can beat “strong and wrong”, which relates to your point there about the good kind of greed. I am on the same page as you here, and it’s cool to have a similar thought in place.
You brought up a lot of great points of separate messages in this post. I liked reading it.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Pure competition is really what Gekko is talking about. In the movie he is ultra competitive and for the most completely legal. It is only when he goes all in on an illegal and morally wrong action (insider trading) he actually loses.
In our current situation the “greed is good” scenario would have been to let the banks, homeowners, and GM fail. Sure it would have been scary and really really bad for a little bit, but we would already be past that by now. Old well run banks would have expanded, and new banks and investment banks would have sprung up stronger and better run. GM would have been completely reworked from top to bottom and be the better for it. The economy would be on the upswing from real growth, not the artificial growth spawned by government spending. Instead we rewarded failure. In return, we will get more failure from those same people.
By not allowing greed to work correctly (good risk = good rewards, bad risk = bad rewards) we have started a domino effect.
Michael Moore is good at the emotional thing surrounding a real problem. However, he is absolutely terrible at identifying why the problem exists or how to fix it. He is as extreme as the people he hates.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:21 am
By the way, this is where guys like Gekko would step in.
“In our current situation the “greed is good” scenario would have been to let the banks, homeowners, and GM fail. Sure it would have been scary and really really bad for a little bit, but we would already be past that by now. Old well run banks would have expanded, and new banks and investment banks would have sprung up stronger and better run. GM would have been completely reworked from top to bottom and be the better for it.”
They would buy a piece of failing Citibank, GM, etc. do a little reorganization (actually a lot) and sell it to a strong company for a nice profit. Sure, this profit seems excessive to people making $40k a year, but this process allows companies to fail and new or stronger companies to emerge. Most companies don’t have the expertise to buy a piece of a failing company, and reorganize and recapitalize it quickly and efficiently. They are willing to pay a premium to anyone who can do this for them.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Michael Moore appeals to the kind of people, no matter their circumstances, that he portrays within the framework of victimology. As you rightly point out, sometimes circumstances can appear to conspire against our dreams. But Moore’s ideology seems to promote the notion that we’re all this close to being victims of the man, e.g., evil corporations. Further, his narratives universally infer that only by divine intervention cloaked in redistributionist, liberal policy will we ever escape the chains of capitalist monsters. Of which he, arguably, is one. But that’s okay, because it’s him – ostensibly looking out for the little guy with his fractured lens.
When are people going to wake up and realize in this country, more than any in the world, they hold their precious destiny in their own hands? It will only be stolen from you when you choose to be an accomplice. No one owes you anything. There’s a reason for straps on your boots. They’re for pulling.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Loving it, Hunter.
Moore definitely knows how to play the heart-strings of a big portion of the American public because of the widespread acceptance of (as Betsy puts it) ‘victimology.’ When everyone on TV and in the news is screaming at you that it’s not your fault and how dare the big-wigs do this to you, eventually most people will drink the Kool-Aid and think ‘yeah, how dare they! What could I have done?’
Definitely reminds me of the antagonists in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ by Ayn Rand. As the world is collapsing because of their ignorance and incompetence, the middle-men of the world (the ones who destroy value) are unanimously screaming ‘now is the age of the little guy! We don’t need you industrialists any more!’
October 7th, 2009 at 11:57 am
For me, greed is not just about wanting more. Greed is wanting more for the sake of getting more. Like a well-off person wanting to increase their assets through hedge funds, just so they can see the number grow, no necessarily they have good use of the money. It’s obsession, and it’s dangerous not just to the society but for the well-being of the very person.
I would use words like enthusiasm or passion for the healthy pursuit of wellness that you are describing.
And our current system do offer a safety net, including free housing. Homeless shelter is one, and there are government programs for rent assistance. When the person meets the criteria, they even pay the whole rent. (I don’t know the exact criteria, but I know some landlords who like to have these tenants. The government pays the rent – it’s sure bet for low income housing.)
And throwing away non-productive population is nothing new. I’m from an old world and we have plenty of stories and forklores of such. In the old agrarian community before the heavy machinery, the productivity (and therefore the survival) of the community depended on all member’s diligent work. If someone doesn’t measure up, sooner or later they get “thrown away”, usually to the mountains. So I think the modern system is a lot more compassionate and offers plenty of opportunities to those who are “hit hard”.
People tend to think the modern world (and maybe the very society they are in) is harsh, but the historical fact is it’s the other way around. I hope people make better use of this good system.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
@ Armen, separating it into direction (right or wrong) and magnitude (strong or weak) makes a lot of sense. Who can argue with strong and right?
@ Chad, I saw the movie a long time ago, but I didn’t remember much about it or even that insider trading was his downfall.
When I started my first job and got on the employee stock plan, I saw how the stock price responded to our quarterly announcements. Big swings were not unusual. And I thought, “You know what, the executives know how the stock is going to move ahead of time. They can make some good money on that.” I just thought it was a nice perk of being an executive – I had no idea it was illegal.
I’m with you on letting them fail, instead of rewarding failure. Oh well, maybe next time.
@ Betsy, I think I just might print your comment and put it up on the wall!
@ Colin, I’ve always thought “Atlas Strugged” sounded interesting, but I’ve never gotten around to reading it. I might have to take it off the back burner.
@ Akemi, I look at Bill Gates and see someone who doesn’t appear to really care about money. It makes sense, because it doesn’t matter to him in his situation. Then I look at Donald Trump and see someone who wants more for the sake of more. He doesn’t need it, but he loves playing the game. As far as I can see, he’s ethical about it, though he’s about as “greedy” as you can get without being bad greedy.
I think wanting more for the sake of more is fine. Not that everyone should want that, because at some point it’s not practical. It’s more like a hobby, like a stamp collector who has far more stamps than they need to mail letters!
To me, greed is stealing bread when you’re not starving, by beating up a blind person. And that kind of greed can happen among the middle class as well as the rich.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
While I wouldn’t go as far to say that I disagree with you about people losing their jobs and houses I would say that you haven’t painted an entirely clear picture. On the other hand, it doesn’t sound like Michael Moore has either (I have yet to watch the film).
There are people in this world that hit rough times or perhaps were born into rough times, and simply sit back and expect things handed to them – I have a feeling this naturally stems from the old lazy root or as you put it apathy. In the case of this segment of society I 100% agree with what you wrote.
However I also believe there are people that for whatever reason (upbringing, substance abuse, etc.) simply are not equipped with the resources to be able to pick up and move, retrain, do what it takes to pull out of the hole they find themselves in.
You write from your own corner of the world with your own perspectives of what you would do. Some people cannot do what you would do, it would never occur to them or the fears, mountains, hurdles between here and there are too vast.
I agree that capitalism is not the evil monster or that money is to blame. The root goes much deeper and needs to be addressed on a social level, not an economic one. Money doesn’t create problems nor does it fix them. The part of the population I write about would not be magically equipped for a “successful” life if given bags full of money.
I am in the middle class as you suspected most of your readers would be. I would hope that if I were to hit bottom I would take the path you suggested and climb up. It must be taken into account that I have no substance issues and was raised by an amazing family that taught me I could do and be anything if I put my mind to it. If a child is taught that they were born a failure and that they will always be a failure, if they are never at some point, given hope how would they begin to better themselves? Where would they start? More importantly; why would they start?
Without hope we are all lost….. Perhaps Michael Moore would be better off teaching that Hope is Good – if a person has hope that life could be better, that they could achieve more, if they believed that it actually was possible they would naturally do what it took to work toward that dream.
October 9th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
@ Jamie, there were once a couple of rich people who decided to give a homeless person some money as an experiment. They were going to give him one large bill, and this wasn’t the U.S., so I don’t know how much it was.
One guy thought the homeless person would be able to pick himself up, while the other guy thought he’d be afraid of that much money, would waste it, etc.
Unfortunately the story falls apart here since I don’t remember the ending. I heard it in the early 90s, and maybe it was apocryphal anyway. But whether money can cure homelessness is a reasonable question. I’d say it can, but it definitely takes hope too.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
The ultimate society would prevent the useless/destitute from starving or freezing to death, but provide the flexibility to allow best to prosper. This is a hard line to follow, as such we never hit it for years at a time.
However, we shouldn’t be providing enough aid for the destitute to watch HBO. This is a constant battle, as it should be.
Over the last 8-10 years we have allowed the top 1% to control more than their share (30 to 1 debt ratio at Goldman and other investment banks). This will obviously correct too far the other way. The real question will be if the majority on the poor side (includes middle class) and the majority of the rich side will be able to vote together to make the right choices (strong SEC, strong oversight, strong boards, etc.). Unfortunately, it seems that most on both sides have little understanding of how this mess actually happened.
Please read: Bailout Nation for a completely neutral view of how this mess happened. The guy who wrote it is only interested in making money, thus you get the truth.
Also, read “Why your world is about to get a whole lot smaller.”
I have nothing (financially) in either of these books. One gives you a good view of what happened and the other give you a good view of what will happen. You need to fit yourself in. As always there will be winners and losers regardless of belief. Unfortunately, all of this suggests less winners int he U.S. than the last 60-70 years have shown. Don’t be surprised.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:01 am
[...] Greed is Good @ Hunter Nuttal. Michael Moore and Gordon Gekko faceoff in this post. Interesting read. [...]