

Image via Wikipedia



Those on the left use the word as an epitaph against the successful as epitomized by Sen. Bernie Sanders "When is enough enough?" he asked in his impassioned plea for raising tax rates "on the rich."

But at the same time, those on the right embrace "greed" as vital to the functioning of our economy. Economist Walter Williams, for example, wrote in his essay  "The Virtue of Greed," "It's greed and not compassion that gets things done."


We instinctively know that greed is bad for society and see it in its original meaning as a vice, an action that should be condemned in all of its forms.  What, then, should we make of 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas' claim:  " … one man cannot over-abound in external riches without another man lacking them"?  Is the desire for wealth, or the accumulation of wealth, per se, evidence of greed?

In the time before capitalism, the aristocracy for the most part lived high by taking from the poor.  Even today in some countries such as North Korea where the "dear leader" does not lack any human comfort while most of his country faces starvation, this statement holds true.

But many of the world's richest -- such as Google's Sergey Brin and Larry Page, NBA's most valuable player for the past two years LeBron James, and pop star Justin Bieber -- gained their wealth by making extraordinary contributions to their communities, either through the products they invented, or the entertainment they provided.  They became rich not at the expense of others, but through voluntary exchanges that have enriched our society.

Calling those who are wealthy greedy solely because of their wealth, or to suggest that the human drive for a better life is the same as greed muddles our thinking.  Muddled thinking is dangerous because it can lead to policies that punish both virtue and vice, that interfere with our inalienable right to pursue happiness, and lead to more, not less, poverty.