Not at all. Greed requires selfishness.

If you're presented with abundance, everyone is taking a similar share and there isn't counterpressure from your peers (e.g., laws that we vote for), then there is no selfishness and thus no greed. To define greed you need a feedback loop.

We're simple dumb animals. We take what's available. If you want to talk about defining arbitrary limits on consumption that are disconnected from circumstances then you're basically out here preaching religion.

Taking more than you need when others are lacking is selfishness. Counterpressure doesn't enter into it. If the only thing that stops you from being greedy is that other people or laws pressure you to not be, then you're still a greedy person. Our values are expressed by what we do in the absence of such pressure.

In the scenario I just described no-one is lacking.

When boomers bought all of these second/vacation homes cheaply in the 80s it wasn't in places with huge demand from underhoused people.

These arguments need a little more consideration of facts rather than appeals to emotion.

I hate to say it, but there was homelessness in the 80s and it is only eclipse by our current state of homelessness.

https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/wp-content/uploads/2...

Not. Where. People. Bought. Second. Homes.

Nobody was buying second apartments in NYC in the 80s. Nobody was buying apartments period. I knew people with brownstones for sale in spanish harlem that they couldn't get $10k for in the late 80s. 80% of _storefront_ space in midtown was vacant.

People buying vacation homes in Florida or Vermont aren't responsible for homelessness in major cities.

It amazes me how people pick and choose when they want us to be “dumb animals“. And it amazes me that someone on hacker news would say this. Even dumb animals are more communal and fair than modern humans are.