Greed is coveting what another has built through his own intelligence, wit, labor, risk, affort, and (yes) good fortune. The ultimate "greed" is telling the other guy he has too many doors or he doesn't spend his income on the right priorities. I have 3 SFR's. I know I'd like at least 40 so I could replace most of my W-2 income. But if I could do it, I'd like to have 4,000 or 40,000. Do I have the guts, stamina, drive, and luck to do it? I don't know, but I'll tell you if I get there. In a market economy (absent the thumb of government or other bad actors on the scale), you gain income and wealth through serving others and creating more than the sum of your inputs.
I bought a 1963 house on a short sale from the bank and cleaned it up, rehabbed it, and rented it out to a couple in their 50's that were tired of living in an apartment with no garage and no spare room for their grandchildren to visit. Do I feel guilty that the previous owner lost his house to the bank because he was 2 years behind on the mortgage? No! The house was kind of run down and the yard unkept and filled with junk. When I started showing it all the neighbors came by and recommended to their relatives. The first couple that came to see it ended up renting it at a very advantageous (to me) rent, and they are very happy so far.
Another one I bought a guy out who was 5 months behind on his mortgage and leased it right back to him for one year, so he could stay and move out on his own time frame and with breathing room to get his income back on track. I bought it at about 25% below "market", but he still got a check at closing and 1 year rent paid (to me) in advance. I just fixed his (now my) air conditioner for $1100 last week. He wouldn't have/didn't have the cash, if he was even still in there 6 months later. When he moves out I'm going to rehab, rent, refi, and repeat. My cash on cash return will be infinity since I'll be $0 out of pocket after refi.
If I can do this or some other version of this, 39,999 more times, I'm going to. Every one of my deals is a win for me and a win for the seller, lessee, buyer, etc. If it wasn't, they wouldn't do it. I am ADDING value every deal and SERVING others with every deal. That's why they pay me. If someone else wanted to buy those homes to live in or rent, they can make an offer, but they didn't, I did. I didn't cheat or steal anything from anybody.
In the zero sum, Marxist, planned economy version of the world, there is a big "pile of gold" and if someone gets there first and takes too much of it, then there's less for everyone else and that's not "fair". So we need a Lenin or Stalin to take it away from the first guy, and give it out to everyone else. Of course, there is a governing class that gets to decide who is worthy of what stuff and who is too greedy. And this class has the force of arms (i.e. Kalashnakovs) to make sure what they say goes. 4 apartments is too many for you Kulak, off to the gulag!!
You think me owning 1000 SFR's is too greedy? I should sell them to other people 4 at a time so as not to "hoard" them? OK why didn't all the nice fellows wanting only 4 rentals offer more than me when they were on the market? What about the people renting them? Why should anyone have 4 houses of his own, just to live off the backs of his tenants? He should use his good fortune to give the renters the houses, especially if they're poor.
How much is "too much" and what is worthy for to you choose to spend your money (i.e. limited lifespan) on? Well that, sir, is a moral judgement. And I posit that it is one best made by free people on their own and guided by their own morals or their own God. And that is (I believe) the framework of our Constitutional Republic. It depends on the consent of the governed and gives the maximum freedom to the individual to choose their destiny and pursue their own goals.
You say someone has "too much" because you don't approve of their use of their property(ies) and you feel that someone else, perhaps yourself, would derive greater benefit from the property. Well what gives you the moral authority or intelligence to decide this, in the context of everyone elses alternate opinions on the matter? In China....well because you're the Communist Party and you have the Kalashnakovs (or Chinese version thereof).
In a market economy, it is the sum of everyone's judgement based on their activities in the marketplace and their voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange. And of course, for almost 300 years this has proved to provide the greatest material (and even arguably spiritual) benefit to the greatest number of people in human history.
The premise of someone having too much or being greedy because they aspire to, or attain, great wealth (thousands of doors) is based on numerous logical fallacies.
- If you have something, it is at the expense of someone else having it, or it is taken from them.
- There's a limited amount of "stuff" and whoever takes too much of it is "greedy".
- There exists an elite class of people who can decide for "the masses" the proper allocation of resources to result in the maximum prosperity.
Absent tyranny, the correct decision about when someone has accumulated "too much" is made by that person who accumulated it. Markets have very strong self correcting mechanisms. Those who create the most resources are usually the ones who make the best use of them. Once they don't, they are generally rapidly overtaken by someone else who does.
You want to cure cancer or solve world hunger, you can arguably do so better by being a Bill Gates than a Mother Theresa. That's not to denigrate St. Theresa or Gates, they just have different talents.... :-)
One can only eat, drink, drive, smoke, snort :-0 , or build a certain amount in a lifetime. If keep my 40,000 houses to myself...I can't take them with me, so my kids can sell them to somebody or many others to BRRRR...and build their empires. But no one in my opinion has the moral authority to tell me what to do with them in the meantime.