- Discuss when greed and selfishness in businesses go too far and become a hazard to society.
Smith speaks about the “invisible hand” in the publication with a few different views on it. On in particular is his vies that the wealth from the poor indirectly support the wealth of the poor via jobs, services, etc. He states that the rich only consume “little more” than the poor. With this state of mind, if the rich do become too greedy, and do not indirectly support those down the chain, the rich will get richer and the poor poorer. This also means that the rich are ultimately controlling the economy and its success or demise.
- Stepping back into your shoes again, contrast your system of values and ethics concerning greed and self-interest with the system of values of Smith or Marx.
In Smith’s self desire for luxury and goods, He states that individuals desire these nice things and want them, and are willing to be miserable to obtain them along the way meaning they are not actually happy at all. I disagree with this, because there is a price I willing to pay, and a limit before it is too much and unobtainable. My values and ethics are my limit in this scenario, and I would only put myself through so much pain for my need of happiness before the pain exceeds the need for happiness.
- Discuss if the ethical perspective of a particular group to which you currently belong, or previously belonged resembles the perspective of Adam Smith or Karl Marx?
I would say when I worked for a car dealership many years ago, the organization itself represented the views more closely related to Smith. It is a very cutthroat and manipulative environment internally representing the greed of money. There were always “weak” bridges between employees but the goal was to be competitive and make a sell regardless of what it would take. The more sales, the more commission, the more clientele. Endless hours would be spent wasting away, being miserable, trying to find another client. With these individuals working for the company however, the business is much more successful from the misery at the employees expense. The goal was to always have more. Here my misery exceeded my materialistic happiness.
I would have to side with Marx. I think that Marx would argue that we as humans are very selfish when it comes to being intrinsic to capitalism. The natural right to private property works the same way: It allows us to accumulate wealth for our own selfish needs, “without regard to other men, independently of society” (Marx, 1843). I think the presence of extreme and over bearing wealth, have taken an extreme and shocking turn. It shows now that our societyâ€™s poverty represents how capitalism has already gone too far. It would seem that Marx has made his case, and that capitalism is a “runaway train” in todayâ€™s society. As for Marx, it would look like capitalism requires ownership, and the means of production should be public and not private. Privatization has taken a “no limit” approach to the wealthy side of things. This is because the very wealthy have consolidated their power over the very poor. It seems that without any limitations or regulations the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Marx would argue that this is inherently undemocratic, as there are more poor than rich. According to financial samurai website, the top 1% of the population makes $380,354 a year. I had worked for a IT company before the job I have now working 120 hours a week, and I did not even make 30,000 a yr.