[Baff]

I can go with the justify my own beliefs part.
Not sure about the gloating obviously. I wouldn't have rubbed in that the other guy was unable to find fault in my appraisal but for his trolling.

To be honest with you that's not the kind of discussion I enjoy. Too confrontational. I like discussions in which people with related experiences share their views and the events that led up to the forming of them. You know, kind of stuff I can learn from. Experiences beyond my own.

[Rancid]

Seeing greed as a virtue is a terrible. All human existence and success comes from cooperation. Great business people know how to work with others for the purpose of mutual gain.

[Baff]

I view productivity as a virtue, rather than greed.
I wouldn't except for the fact that in my country productive people get taxed so heavily. That what they produce is used to support so many other people.

I attribute greed to those (already quite comfortably off) people who seek to take money from those who legitmately earnt it without offering any agreed upon services or goods in exchange.
It's not so much the greed that concerns me as the selfish anti social greed.

Greedy people who contribute little to society but ask much are of less value to me than greedy people who contribute much to society and get little to nothing for it in return.
In this regard, I'm just being greedy too, I expect.

I certainly don't feel any natural sympathy to eat the rich types at all. Nihilism at it's worst.

[qeddeq]

The conservative of a certain sort has a value set which he believes all other have: that the highest good is getting rich. If you have brains, you would want to use them to get wealthy. This premise is false. Some people who have talent do not care to use it to make money. For example, scholars work very hard at their craft but they clearly are not motivated by money, nor are they compensated extravagantly for their labors. In fact, throughout most of history the highest good has not been to make money. Aristocrats were not allowed to pursue wealth, at least in trade, because it was considered a derogation of their status. The noble man did not whore after money. The conservative of whom I speak is what was once called a "philistine". He is indifferent to what is noble, uneducated in the arts, and has no idea of virtue. He is rife today. The aristocrat pursued virtue in the military, scholarly or the religious fields. Scholars were then people such as physicians, lawyers, scientists. These are the fields the sons of the aristocracy could pursue. Why? Because they are noble pursuits. Whores for money are not noble. I'm sorry but that's historical fact. However, I am not saying that getting wealthy as a consequence of doing these things is necessarily bad, but one did not do them for that goal.
Now, the only reason I say all this is because I want Mr. Moneybags to realize that others have a different set of priorities, and that his own are not the best. These others I have mentioned are at least as good.
The second point I would like to make, is that I don't think it's possible for everyone to be rich even supposing they are all equal in motivation and talent. The pie is only so large, and the more competing for it the smaller the slice. If everyone were to try to become wealthy the result would be that no one would be wealthy.