You can take the boy out of the country. . .

But can you really blame him for his actions even if he is not in his natural state?

Um. . .well. . .yes.

Since I never did take the Philosophy 101 course at Black Squirrel U, I will admit that my answer is probably naive, so tell me Jeffy, why is this so important? Suppose this crazy material world around us is not our true natural state, then are we any less responsible for our actions? In contrast, suppose this really is our natural state, after all, it is a world (at least in part) made by human hands. Does that imply we are fully responsible for the consequences of our unbridled greed? Or even worse, that this type of instability is an inevitable part of human nature.

I think the question I am getting at is can we be good without big brother watching? Do we need some formal bureaucratic structure that enforces an altruistic agenda within the market (if that is even possible). Is more government regulation necessary to keep that greed in check?

I know the liberal in you is saying yes of course we need to federal government to watch out for the little guy, but I want to focus on the motives for exchange within a market and not ensuring human and political rights (We will assume that Obama is capable of advancing those rights although we will soon see once this whole torture issue plays out).

Man, I need to get some tea to think this through--damn it--why is the price of tea so high?

Stupid tea parties. Where were these "patriots" when we were spending billions of dollars in Iraq for no good reason? Is the thought of spending money on health care, education, and infrastructure really that appalling? Man, I need to get off this soap box and get a coffee.

All natural with no preservatives

Well, this may not make for a good post, but I think we need to take a step back from where you're starting with this question of greed.

Namely, we need to determine if human beings are in a natural state in the industrialized society of the 21st century. Would you accept that all of the technology that envelopes us and significantly alters our existence is but an extension of our natural abilities and makes this a natural state of existence? On the other hand, has mankind wandered from the Sub-Saharan Africa to a completely contrived system in which evolution has, to at least some degree, been deprived on the necessary feedback to progress?

Your thoughts on this, I think, lead to different interpretations of greed in our society, especially in our moral interpretation of it. I'll be happy to share both views, but we'll need some money on the table before I spin the wheel, AnonEcon.

The Middle Road

In Frank Rich's piece, coincidentally entitled "Awake and Sing" on this Easter morning , he appears to be making the rather obvious point that the world is irreparably different in a post-TARP era. I have certainly felt more like an actor at the improv and less like an experienced instructor when I teach my class about the role of the Federal Reserve in our free-market economy. Rich argues that the new trend among Obama and others is to inspire a new generation of college graduates to seek a career that fulfills a "higher calling" and not just "higher" in the sense of a salary.

While this thought is very warm and fuzzy and while it is true that the rules have changed now in the market, greed will still remain a very primal and powerful incentive that drives people's decisions. Instead of trying to convince people to avoid greed altogether, we need to inspire a balance between self-interest and the altruistic motive. A middle road if you will. On the middle road, greed is still rewarded to the extent that it inspires innovation and efficiency but excessive greed is effectively discouraged.

How? Well, it all depends on the inevitability of excessive greed. Which leads me to a series of unanswerable questions just for you Jeffy: Do you think greed is built into our human DNA? Do you think we also have an altruistic motive built in? If not, do we have to rely on public pressure and government institutions to ensure we don't kill ourselves with greed?

I believe both motives are inherent in our genetic make-up which is why I have some faith in market mechanisms. However, Wall Street was a culture out of balance and unstable, a culture where markets cannot thrive. We need a middle road to achieve growth, prosperity, and stability--at least that will be the main point of my next best-selling book ;-).

So, this morning I found out that Kal Penn, an actor who has been a regular on House, M.D. for awhile, will be transitioning to the White House. According to sources of unsubstantiated credibility, Penn will serve in the Office of Public Liaison & Intergovernmental Affairs to help reach out to Asian Americans. Looking at his education, he appears to have an undergraduate degree in sociology and film, and he's dabbled in some online graduate classes at Stanford.

Let's be fair about things. If this were a Republican administration, my left-leaning brethren would be appalled at such blatant cronyism. How does someone with such a pitifully irrelevant resume suddenly find himself with a position in the highest government office in the country? Was there really no other qualified candidate? I have an ENTIRE GRADUATE DEGREE. My phone never rang. Let's bring in the army of PhDs graduating this year and last in relevant fields who would like to apply for a job in the White House. NONE of them could beat out a random actor?

Putting unqualified people into public office because it's fun to show off for your friends is not change in which I can believe.