The two respondents above have Spoken like good little socialists. they probably voted for obama as well.

“Greed” is neither good or bad: it’s just plain bullshit. We all do something for a reason, for a goal. Even when you do charity, you do it because it makes you feel good with the world ,but most important, with YOURSELF. Would you be considered greedy in this case?
You found a company, and if it profits “extremely” (i don’t know what “extremely” really means), BUT you didn’t expect it, you are greedy? come on, so much bullshit. A founder of a company, a rock band, a football player, whatever you want, always dream of one day making it great, even though it is unlikely. It is all this “greed” that moves people.
The right word for all this discussion is exploitation, not greedy. And regulation/deregulation per see can be directed to both objectives, it can stop exploitation, if can make people compete honestly, or it can make business and people sitting on their asses instead of improving it, or to try to make more money without improving.
If you’re speaking of banking deregulation, it wasn’t deregulation that failed, it was the consequences of a unregulated world that people didn’t want. I personally believe that regulation is better, but I do understand a deregulated industry could work: all it takes is to let them FAIL. Would you lend these guys or deposit your money if they weren’t “too big to fail”? Would they become that big if they were “too big to fail”? Make no mistake, this type of regulation created this situation, not the lack of it. To the avoidance of any doubt, I’m not against regulation. I’m against THIS regulation. All we need is for a decent “regulated” banking system is: 1 – let banks fail; 2 – secure only FDIC insured assets, OR separate the custody of our assets from the bankruptcy estate of the failed bank, unless you actually “lend” the bank the money; 3 – Higher and higher FDIC fees the bigger and the more concentrated the banking system is; 4 – Limit LEVERAGE, instead of bogus capital rations. This last measure is a bit redundant if you put into action the other 3.
Regulation per se can also have the opposite effect. Take for instance mobile operator licences, or utility operating licences. The historical arguments: A company gets too big and so we need to regulate it, because they operate in a natural monopoly market, that is, if nobody did anything the biggest company would take over the whole market, as it would become the lowest cost producer, and charge monopoly prices. Solution: regulator limits their profits, by fixing its tariff, and creates a “licence” for each territory, preventing it from getting too big. The very same tariff fixing not only disincentives people into entering the market, but also eliminates the company business risk. So from that point on the company can sit on their asses and not improve its efficiency, AND the licence implies nobody else would be competing with them. So, are you for regulation or for SMART REGULATION? I’m against THIS regulation. A much better solution could be achieved if: 1 – no monopoly could have ANY anti-takeover, or limiting voting rights, to prevent them from sitting on their asses; 2 – a progressive size fee, the bigger you get (the big here is not important, the important is the more concentrated the market gets), and 3 – abolish licences.
While you sit and complaint and ask for government to discipline these companies, what the government is really doing is to actually CREATING the monopolies, and then putting bureacrats there, to get your vote, as promote themselves as guardians of the universe.
So before we complain about regulation/deregulation/greed, you must first think what kind of regulation, and who exactly the current regulation is helping, before we come with preconceived liberal/convervative/socialist ideas or whatever.

Milton Friedman is a towering, historic figure. His books changed my life and helped me to organize my thinking. I wish his selfish interest had including more writing and more speaking as to help further advance my selfish interest.

Thanks.

Further, David (above) is completely wrong on regarding “deregulatory theory” whatever that is. Capitalism makes no claims that all information is available to all. It, very simply says that those with information are free to act upon it, as they see fit and suffer or enjoy the consequences.

Further, an efficient market is not one where every participant has the precise intellectual context as every other participant. That’s nonsense. An efficient market is one where there is minimal friction. Where the spread between the bid and the offer is minimal and stable. Everyone buys and sells for their own selfish reasons.

I’m long the S + P as I write this yet evey minute thousands of participants are shorting it. If I had access to all their information — an impossible requirement — I wouldn’t change my position and I’m sure the same holds true for every particpant.

A typical strawman.

Nothing wrong with greed as long as it doesn’t crossover into illegal activity. I’ve said before the current economic crisis was not normal economic activity, it was criminal activity and massive fraud and more evidence of that came out today:

Former Countrywide CEO Mozilo charged with fraud
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/former-countrywide-ceo-mozilo-charged-with-fraud

William Walsh, you’re right about the S&P. Ameritrade used to have an index (not sure if they still do) that showed whether their customers were buy/selling vs. what the market was doing. And almost always when the market was moving up the customers were selling, and when the market was moving down they were buying.

A Gordon Gekko quote,(From Wall Street-1987),:

“The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind”.
The New Gordon Gekko quote,(From Money Never Sleeps-2010):
“This is the new greed, pal. How much do you want? The government is paying!”
My question: Which of these beliefs are moral? Which of these views on “Greed” are right? Is “greed essential to the human condition?

Mark

This is typical. Most of the commenters are actually a lot more articulate and thoughtful about this than the author. Just because you wrote a book about Trend Following, and are capitalizing off of the work of the Turtles, doesn’t make you right.

Michael, you need to stop being so glib and ideological with your pet theories, and start being more historical and circumspect. Even Friedman has qualified his statements over the years. I find your ideas about what capitalism and free markets actually are to be incomplete and a bit simplistic. I find your attitude and arrogance offputting. If you are so smart, get your butt to Washington and start making a real contribution, instead of aggrandizing yourself by rehashing and repackaging the hard work and accomplishments of others.

I should add that if anyone thinks “going to Washington” is a noble or worthy goal…well, let’s just say we have drastically different understandings of what D.C. actually is and what can be done there. Politicians are problems, not solutions.