Greed Is Good (Michael Moore Vs. Gordon Gekko)
Tuesday, October 6th, 2009Gordon 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.



