"Greed is good"? Yes

Wall Street, Gordon Gekko, 12/9/11; Pink Floyd; Dhr. Seven, Ashley Wells, Wisdom Quarterly

Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" full speech

(Ken Pruitt) Gordon Gekko (Oliver Stone's Wall Street) unknowingly describes the problems facing today's private sector (industry), while blasting the bureaucracy (governance) responsible for said problems in the first place. This is classic speech, both the in film and in economic thought. This is for people who think Saipan is a free market.

This is a famous pro-capitalist speech. Buddhism says the root of all unskillful action (unwholesome karma) and misery is due to three things: greed, hatred (and fear), and delusion.

This, of course, is a rough translation of what the Buddha taught since he used the terms lobha, dosa (bhava), and moha. These technical terms in Pali and Sanskrit have much broader definitions than our translated English words. Better words might have been avarice, aversion (cowardice), and nescience. But who knows what those mean? All the attraction and liking are subsumed in lobha. Dosa refers to all forms of aversion and disliking, which includes fear. And moha is ignorance of all kinds.

We say greed, hatred (fear), and delusion because it makes it more obvious in English that these things are bad. Then Gordon comes around and glorifies "greed." Greed is somewhat good, in a way, at least in the way Gordon is using it. How? Well, consider what we in English mean by "good." It's not always a moral judgment.

But, Buddha, c'mon, it's so much cash money!

Sometimes it's a functional assessment with one test -- getting what we want. If something gets us what we want, we accurately call that "good." I want to kill myself, I say. I tell Dr. Kevorkian that I'm thinking of using a 45. And he says, "That's good," meaning "that will work." He might add, "That's overkill. Why not just use my poison contraption?" Why, I ask him. "Because that's better," he answers. How so, I say. And the Doctor of Death explains that not everyone dies from a shot to the head, which is news to me. Some blow off their jaw, others get brain damage and deafness on one side. Others get a facelift and become paraplegics. He starts making a lot of sense, and his death device IS "good" in that it always works and never fails, and if I really want to kill myself (which is bad and a mistake) his way is "good." That's normal English.

Think about it. You say, "I want to get rich. I'm thinking of going to an Ivy League school, majoring in business, and stealing it from a company I raid by pumping and dumping its stock, screwing over all the other workers and investors there." And I say, That's good. I'm not making a moral judgment, and you know that. All I'm doing is saying, That'll work. Right? There's a better way, but your parents have their heart set on you going to an Ivy, so you and Gordon and Wall Street bankers can all have a great time with other lowlifes in New York. And you say, "What, you have a better idea?"

And I say, Yes. Try Buddhist business. "What in the world is that," and I talk about the Sigala Sutta (DN 31) and the Buddha's business advice to young householder Sigala. I mean, imagine it. What if there were a way to grow rich, enjoy it, experience all the sensuality and worldliness you want, and it wouldn't lead to regret hereafter. And there will be a hereafter, no matter how much you drink and blot out that possibility, sinking yourself in science books and ignoring all the evidence that there's more, much more, to this life than what we see and touch and can remember.

• But then in what sense is "greed" good? There is the possibility of translating other Buddhist terms as "greed." It's a stretch, but it is possible in the larger sense. All desire is disappointing, unsatisfactory, suffering. Why, how? When a craving, yearning, pining, desire, inclination, lust arises, immediately with the arising of it, we suffer (are discomfited, are pained, thirst, hunger, pine, long, yearn, agonize) in the absence of it. One way to get rid of this pain is to get the thing we want; another way is to stop wanting it, but that is not nearly as easy to do. Any desire results in this kind of "suffering" (dukkha, which is a very broad term encompassing everything from agitation to agony). But, of course, we desire enlightenment/awakening (bodhi), reality/an end to suffering (nirvana), liberation (moksha), and so on. We want the bliss of the meditative absorptions. We want magical powers (iddhi, abhinna). We want wisdom (prajna, panna), happiness (sukha). We want to meditate and so on. We desire purification (visuddhi). We want deliverance (vimokkha). These kinds of desires are desires -- and they will result in distress as soon as they arise -- but they are not called craving (tanha) to distinguish them from commonplace sensual desires. These are called by other terms -- resolve, determination, zeal, intention, or will. The term used is chanda.
• Chanda: intention, desire, will. 1. As an ethically neutral psychological term, in the sense of "intention," it is a general mental factor (cetasika, q.v. Tab. II) taught in the Abhidhamma, the Dharma in Ultimate Terms, the moral quality of which is determined by the character of the volition (cetanā) associated with it. The Commentary explains chanda as "a wish to do" (kattu-kamyatā-chanda). If intensified, it acts also as a "predominance condition" (see paccaya 3). 2. As an unwholesome quality, it has the meaning of "desire" and is frequently coupled with terms for "sensuality," "greed," etc., for instance: kāma-cchanda, "sensual desire," one of the Five Hindrances (see nīvarana); chanda-rāga, "lustful desire" (see kāma). Chanda is one of the four wrong paths (see agati). 3. As a wholesome quality, it is a righteous will or zeal (dhamma-chanda) and occurs, e.g. in the formula of the Four Right Efforts (see padhāna): "The meditator rouses will (chandam janeti)...." If intensified, it is one of the Four Roads to Power (see iddhippada). (Ven. Nyanatiloka, Buddhist Dictionary: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines).
• So in that sense "greed" (chanda) is good, but it's terrible and misleading to say so because it is a matter of semantics. "Greed" is always bad as we understand the word in English, but "will" is not necessarily bad in the larger sense while still being bad (if we define "bad" as "whatever leads to suffering"). An apparent paradox arises that good things can lead to suffering, and the resolution is this: Some things lead to suffering now and much happiness later, so they are "good." Some things lead to a little respite from suffering now and much suffering later, so they are bad. For example, striving in meditation can hurt, be boring, be frustrating, be painful, can seem fruitless, and so on, but when successful we will be glad we went through all that for what it yielded. Taking a break and enjoying sensual pleasures can seem a harmless pastime, something we deserve for working so hard, but our never ending addiction to them, the danger inherent in them, the fact that they can never by their nature bring us to satisfaction, fulfillment, satiation but always instead demand more and more, greater and greater diversity (papanca, proliferation), urge us on in samsara, the endless wandering in search of satisfaction, and this is the antithesis of nirvana (release, the highest happiness, the end of all suffering, ultimate reality.