OGDEN -- Is greed still good? That's assuming it ever was good, as declared by a character named Gordon Gekko in the 1987 film "Wall Street."
The value of greed was one question asked of a panel during one of Weber State University's monthly Taboo Talks.
Panelist Jeffrey Steagall, dean of Weber State's John B. Goddard School of Business & Economics, doesn't especially like the G-word.
"Economists have a term to use in place of greed, and that is 'self-interest.' People tend to act in their own self-interest most of the time, which is the basis of free-market economics," he said.
"It may work if everyone is lacking in economic power and no one can exert their power and grab more than their share of the pie, which was the case when the idea was developed in the 1700s and 1800s.
"But that does not relate to the world we live in today."
In today's world of major corporations such as Wal-Mart, Citigroup and other Fortune 500 companies, some governmental regulation would be a good thing, Steagall believes.
Greed does play a vital role in our economy, said fellow panelist Michael Stevens, WSU chairman of business administration and a professor of management.
"Is greed a good thing?" he said rhetorically. "Is sex a good thing? Sex is what drives the human species, and greed drives capitalism.
"With each, everything depends on how it is used and under what social structure does it play out in a way that is appropriate to our society."
Steagall said a balance is needed between business independence and government involvement.
"What we need now is some kind of mix," he said.
"One role government can play in an economy is to make sure groups have their power mitigated. For example, we have local monopolies on electricity, and it's much more efficient to let one firm do that because of the skills related.
"If the government is going to let you be the only firm, when you want to change your rates, the government is going to allow you to make a reasonable return, but you can't gouge consumers."
In the financial industry, Steagall said, institutions have grown so large that their failure would be devastating to the economy, so the government has stepped in to assist.
"The largest financial institutions can engage in risky behavior, and if something goes wrong, the government will step in and make sure they don't fail."
Stevens said the U.S. government's response to bank failures in the 1930s was to downsize banks.
"The solution was to cut them in half," into banking and investment divisions, he said. "It worked well for half a century."
Steagall said the government should not have let key businesses merge and get so big in the first place, putting smaller firms out of business.
"The biggest thing right now is to settle on what regulations are going to be," he said.
"One thing that comes with regulation is uncertainty for financial firms, and they don't know how new regulations will affect their ability to do business. They don't want to lend money then have the rules change, which might put them in a bind."
Steagall said he's not a huge fan of regulation, "but there certainly is a role for government to play in regulating banks."
"They can't make it overly burdensome, but there needs to be a way they can reap rewards from their good decisions and feel the consequences from their bad decisions.
"And their bad decisions have to result in consequences for their shareholders, not for the whole world."
Stevens blames politics for current economic woes.
"We have a sick and dysfunctional political process," he said.
"I blame the people who hired the politicians. Look in the mirror. The average American voter has been duped into voting against their interest for years. We all need to take responsibility for making choices."
Comments