20/20: "Greed" 11-11-05
11-10-05, 11:17 PM
#1
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
20/20: "Greed" 11-11-05
ABC, 9:00pm CST.
Some of you may remember when 20/20 started a series on "the seven deadly sins." On Friday it finally continues with "Greed."
From John Stossel's weekly email:
I'm looking forward to seeing this show but I won't for awhile as I am going out of town Friday for a wedding and I'll be gone all weekend. I think some of you would be interested in seeing this program so I'm announcing it here. I'll eventually see the show (amid all the sweeps month programming I can't keep up with) and I'll put in my two cents then.
Some of you may remember when 20/20 started a series on "the seven deadly sins." On Friday it finally continues with "Greed."
From John Stossel's weekly email:
This Friday we finally continue our series on the seven deadly sins. This week we focus on greed. First Brian Ross takes us to Wall Street where he introduces us to tycoons who cheated to win. One then bought things like a $6,000 shower curtain, a $15,000 umbrella stand, and an ice sculpture modeled after Michelangelo's David, but with Vodka flowing out of the private part. He's is in jail now.
It's disgusting when people grab more than their fair share, tricking others to get it. But is that the standard way people get rich? Do the successful prosper, at the expense of others? That's certainly what the capitalism haters say. Lately, they're saying it a lot about Wal-Mart. Some people just HATE Wal-Mart. They say Wal-Mart wrecks communities, discriminates against women, underpays its workers. A union-led campaign wants to get more people to hate Wal-Mart and stop shopping there. I confront him, and present some other points of view:
Philosopher David Kelly of The Objectivist Center says, "The fallacy that there is some pool of wealth there that's fixed and if I take more, you get less. That's not true. Wealth is constantly being created."
The Cato Institute's Brink Lindsay says, "Consumer savings in the United States, because of Wal-Mart, may be as high as $100 billion a year. This translates really into a wage increase that Wal-Mart is offering to all Americans who shop there. … Greed is a smear for profit-seeking, and for successful. Would it be nice if Wal-Mart workers all made $100,000 a year? Sure. It would also be nice if the rivers were filled with lemonade, and every kid had a puppy dog and a lollipop. But in reality, we have trade-offs."
Economist Walter Williams says, "Normally in our country, those areas where people are motivated the most by greed are the areas that we're the most satisfied with. Supermarkets, computers, FedEx. … Those areas where people say we're motivated by caring are the areas of disaster in our country, such as education, the post office, city garbage and the Department of Motor Vehicles. Again and again, these agencies that are supposed to help us don't serve us as well as people driven by what Dr. Williams called, greed (I'd call it enlightened self-interest). Self-interest does a lot of good things. I'll show you how it could save your life at the swimming pool.
Then, the flip side of greed. We have stories of three unusual people who give most of their money to strangers. And Lynn Sherr takes us to what she calls the anti-greed country: Bhutan, a tiny, Himalayan kingdom ranked near the bottom of the world's development scale. Bhutan came up with its own way to measure progress. Instead of gross national product, the official goal is what they call gross national happiness.
It's disgusting when people grab more than their fair share, tricking others to get it. But is that the standard way people get rich? Do the successful prosper, at the expense of others? That's certainly what the capitalism haters say. Lately, they're saying it a lot about Wal-Mart. Some people just HATE Wal-Mart. They say Wal-Mart wrecks communities, discriminates against women, underpays its workers. A union-led campaign wants to get more people to hate Wal-Mart and stop shopping there. I confront him, and present some other points of view:
Philosopher David Kelly of The Objectivist Center says, "The fallacy that there is some pool of wealth there that's fixed and if I take more, you get less. That's not true. Wealth is constantly being created."
The Cato Institute's Brink Lindsay says, "Consumer savings in the United States, because of Wal-Mart, may be as high as $100 billion a year. This translates really into a wage increase that Wal-Mart is offering to all Americans who shop there. … Greed is a smear for profit-seeking, and for successful. Would it be nice if Wal-Mart workers all made $100,000 a year? Sure. It would also be nice if the rivers were filled with lemonade, and every kid had a puppy dog and a lollipop. But in reality, we have trade-offs."
Economist Walter Williams says, "Normally in our country, those areas where people are motivated the most by greed are the areas that we're the most satisfied with. Supermarkets, computers, FedEx. … Those areas where people say we're motivated by caring are the areas of disaster in our country, such as education, the post office, city garbage and the Department of Motor Vehicles. Again and again, these agencies that are supposed to help us don't serve us as well as people driven by what Dr. Williams called, greed (I'd call it enlightened self-interest). Self-interest does a lot of good things. I'll show you how it could save your life at the swimming pool.
Then, the flip side of greed. We have stories of three unusual people who give most of their money to strangers. And Lynn Sherr takes us to what she calls the anti-greed country: Bhutan, a tiny, Himalayan kingdom ranked near the bottom of the world's development scale. Bhutan came up with its own way to measure progress. Instead of gross national product, the official goal is what they call gross national happiness.
11-13-05, 02:18 AM
#3
DVD Talk Legend
I bet all you libertarians love Snossel's whiny justifications of greed and selfishness, but I didn't know he was so naive until he chimed in with his defense of Walmart. He mentions the wonders of bargain-basement prices and employee pep rallies (rather scarily cult-like), but ignores the wider ramifications of town closings, bottom-of-the-barrel wages to go with the low prices, gentrification, and the heavy emphasis on consumerism.
I admired the people they showed who gave money away and are living simpler lives, because they find fulfillment in things other than money and possessions.
I admired the people they showed who gave money away and are living simpler lives, because they find fulfillment in things other than money and possessions.
11-13-05, 10:29 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Norm de Plume
I bet all you libertarians love Snossel's whiny justifications of greed and selfishness, but I didn't know he was so naive until he chimed in with his defense of Walmart. He mentions the wonders of bargain-basement prices and employee pep rallies (rather scarily cult-like), but ignores the wider ramifications of town closings, bottom-of-the-barrel wages to go with the low prices, gentrification, and the heavy emphasis on consumerism.
I admired the people they showed who gave money away and are living simpler lives, because they find fulfillment in things other than money and possessions.
I admired the people they showed who gave money away and are living simpler lives, because they find fulfillment in things other than money and possessions.
How about the part where it specifically states, "These people work here because it is the best job they can get. If Walmart closed, they would be forced to take lower paying jobs."
I don't think there is anyone alive who doesnt' admire the selfless people in that segment or the Buhtan one. Talk about acheiving happiness. But we live in reality, and if the greed and weakness of others can be exploited for good, don't we have an obligation to set up a system that does that. Wasn't that the failure of communism? The weakness and greed of people was too great and when they exploited others, the system really exploited them. Why don't you live like those people in the segment?
11-13-05, 10:31 AM
#5
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,277
Received 616 Likes
on
495 Posts
Originally Posted by Norm de Plume
I bet all you libertarians love Snossel's whiny justifications of greed and selfishness, but I didn't know he was so naive until he chimed in with his defense of Walmart. He mentions the wonders of bargain-basement prices and employee pep rallies (rather scarily cult-like), but ignores the wider ramifications of town closings, bottom-of-the-barrel wages to go with the low prices, gentrification, and the heavy emphasis on consumerism.
I admired the people they showed who gave money away and are living simpler lives, because they find fulfillment in things other than money and possessions.
I admired the people they showed who gave money away and are living simpler lives, because they find fulfillment in things other than money and possessions.
Yeah, we're just a bunch of uncaring cads.
Greed is bad, blah blah blah. If it weren't for greed, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages.
11-13-05, 10:32 AM
#6
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,277
Received 616 Likes
on
495 Posts
Originally Posted by Ovid
How about the part where it specifically states, "These people work here because it is the best job they can get. If Walmart closed, they would be forced to take lower paying jobs."
That's the free market at work - apparently an evil system to some. There seems to be this notion that if Wal Mart disappeared from small towns, all those employees would not only be able to find other jobs, but higher paying ones.
Last edited by Red Dog; 11-13-05 at 10:37 AM.
11-13-05, 11:59 AM
#7
Suspended pending providing a working email address
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw it, and thought the show was great, got bored by Bhutan stuff and the selfless people stuff though. The Walmart Segment and the Dennis Koslowski segment were both great.
Is it OK to both support Wal Mart and think they're not evil and also hate Dennis Koslowski?
Is it OK to both support Wal Mart and think they're not evil and also hate Dennis Koslowski?
11-13-05, 07:25 PM
#8
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Norm de Plume
I bet all you libertarians love Snossel's whiny justifications of greed and selfishness, but I didn't know he was so naive until he chimed in with his defense of Walmart. He mentions the wonders of bargain-basement prices and employee pep rallies (rather scarily cult-like), but ignores the wider ramifications of town closings, bottom-of-the-barrel wages to go with the low prices, gentrification, and the heavy emphasis on consumerism.
I admired the people they showed who gave money away and are living simpler lives, because they find fulfillment in things other than money and possessions.
I admired the people they showed who gave money away and are living simpler lives, because they find fulfillment in things other than money and possessions.
I suppose that the fact that Wal-Mart saves consumers about $100 billion a year amounts, as rightly said, to a $100 billion overall annual wage increase for Americans doesn't mean anything. That equals about $350 per American per year, $1400 for a family of four, a not insignificant sum.
As for Bhutan, it sounds nice but "happiness" is totally subjective and I don't think these people would be less happy if they could have more material possessions. Hong Kong and Singapore, while they have their faults (especially Singapore with its relative lack of personal freedom), nevertheless have provided great wealth for their people by taxing them low and allowing freer markets than almost everywhere else in the world. Neither place has natural resources in abundance but economic freedom works wonders whether or not people of certain political persuasions want to acknowledge it. Bhutan could do the exact same thing.
As for the people giving away their inheritances, that's all well and good if that's what they want to do. Nevertheless, I would submit that the Bill Gateses and others who instead invest and innovate contribute far more to society even if they have only self-interest in mind (which. BTW Gates doesn't as he also gives much to charities). The technological advances and job creation that result from their entrepeneurship create much more wealth and happiness in the long run than giving to charities. Granted, for some people a little charity is what they may need at a certain time in their lives and I have absolutely nothing against it. But investment and innovation contribute far more and don't even require the desire to do good.
