There is this theory which states that there are only three kinds of economic (or societal) systems: family-tribe-base ones, command-base ones, and property-base ones. In the first you will be supported unlimitedly by your family tribe, so you generally maximize the number of relatives. The second one (feudal, socialist) there is a small special group instituting an arbitrary distribution (may be good or bad, historically mostly bad). In that setup head-count of the whole economy in general is maximized, and that is why people would not be allowed to travel if they were serfs or living in socialist countries. Thirdly, there is capitalism, which leaves everyone on his own, expecting him to live off his own possessions and produce. And in that system, clearly property maximization is the way to wealth.
For me, with this basic distinction, everything fell into place. Also it assumes that it is not necessarily people who are prone to be greedy, but that the community rules makes them behave in specific patterns that hardly come as a surprise, once you see the benefit structure.
Also it assumes that it is not necessarily people who are prone to be greedy, but that the community rules makes them behave in specific patterns that hardly come as a surprise, once you see the benefit structure.
Just watch any infant and you will have empirical evidence that the natural state of a human being is greed. It's societal rules that limit that greed but assuming it can eliminate it is foolish and ignores reality. As several others have mentioned Capitalism recognizes that people are greedy and accounts for it in the economic model.
Well, I have two kids, and my experiences with them don't really support your point. Neither do other infants I know. Infants can be very energetic in pursuit of their desires, but I don't think "greed" describes it properly.
Motives which are at work are rather: hunger, thirst, curiosity, love, desire for attention, pain, fear. Probably others. Simple ones, but not that simple as just greed.
What is greed other than a way of describing people putting their wants and desires first to an extent we don't approve of?
In my experience there is no limit to how strongly small children put their wants and desires first. Therefore they are, by definition, "greedy". There is no malice in this. There is no awareness of consequences for others. But any adult who acted in the same way would be considered incredibly greedy.
I understand greed as desire to control, posses or consume, even beyond the point where it does you or your environment any good. And on that account infants are already more differentiated in their behaviour. They pursue only as long as it does them good (in most cases).
There are the kids which cling to this one toy car which is suddenly in very high regard among two friends, but there are also those which give it willingly away, once the other child starts crying or only looking very sadly. Compassion over greed. I see that quite often.
So I don't think one can say that in the infant (as a "pure" human, which has not been moderated by social norms) you can see that "humans are greedy." And even less so that holds for adults.
I have five kids. And while you do indeed see the gamut of emotions in them. If you were to withold the societal training parents provide to their children then the child will continue a trajectory that as they get older is called greed. When this happens we look disapprovingly at the parents and refer to the child as "spoiled". Greed does not have to be taught. Self-Control does. Compassion does not have to be taught either and yes it does appear in children as well. The presence of one does not preclude the presence of the other.
For me, with this basic distinction, everything fell into place. Also it assumes that it is not necessarily people who are prone to be greedy, but that the community rules makes them behave in specific patterns that hardly come as a surprise, once you see the benefit structure.