That's the point, toddlers don't really discriminate in this case. I'm not even sure if they have the same concept of "strangers" that you have. If we could all preserve this mindset, we would all be better of.
I also take issue with your caricature of 'greed is good'. The non-strawman version just says that people following their own self-interest can often lead to more overall output, because people are more motivated if they're pursuing something in their own interest rather than someone else's. That works amazingly well when the price accounts for all the costs and benefits - you get lots and lots of output of a good thing - and less well when it does not.
We still have deception and tribalism anyway. Wouldn't it be wiser to at least preserve also our better innate traits? Altruism is universally recognized as a positive trait, no matter what economist try to tell you.
> can often lead to more overall output
which translates in institutionalized theft, as we clearly see today when the output is not then fairly distributed but only goes up
> people are more motivated if they're pursuing something in their own interest rather than someone else's
That's your huge assumption. There are plenty of incredibly relevant scientists who never cashed on inventions/discoveries that changed the world. How do they fit in your scheme?
We can also discuss how the USSR turned from a starving rural economy into an industrial world power in decades, based on a completely different incentive system than "my self-interest". Or how most of the poverty in the past century was solved by China and not by "greed first" countries.
> That works amazingly well when the price accounts for all the costs and benefits - you get lots and lots of output of a good thing - and less well when it does not
Another big assumption. I have countless examples of the market not self adjusting for the greater good.
Greed has always existed troughout history. It never changed things for the better. What changed things was the scientific discoveries that led to the industrial revolution and social struggle.
To say greed caused our modern lifestyle is like saying that drinking water causes death, since everyone who dies has drank water at least once.
I agree with this. I just disagree that the innateness of a trait helps to justify it.
> Altruism is good
Yes, I agree with this too. But altruism is distinct from desiring equal distribution of resources.
> There are plenty of incredibly relevant scientists who never cashed on inventions/discoveries that changed the world. How do they fit in your scheme?
There's still extrinsic motivation in the form of prestige in one's field, as measured by citations, impactful papers, awards and tenure. Even people contributing to open source projects know there is social prestige and job prospects that are attached to that activity.
I am not saying that intrinsic motivation doesn't exist. I am only saying that extrinsic motivation also exists. Many people are programmed to seek status, whether that's wealth or fame or social credit or popularity or power (often these are related). This helped their ancestors find a mate, which is why they're programmed this way.
> We can also discuss how the USSR turned from a starving rural economy into an industrial world power in decades, based on a completely different incentive system than "my self-interest". Or how most of the poverty in the past century was solved by China and not by "greed first" countries.
So you're sweeping under the rug the millions that died to famines in multiple communist countries and the role that economic surplus from international trade and the "we need to let some people get rich first" mindset of Xiaoping's market reforms played in lifting China out of poverty. This is an unhinged perspective.
> I have countless examples of the market not self adjusting for the greater good.
I didn't dispute this. I said if the price is fairly accurate, then the enhanced output that comes from leveraging extrinsic motivation is a good thing. My claim is that the price is not fully accurate in almost all cases, but that doesn't mean we're most often pointing orthogonal or opposite to the ideal direction. Sometimes we do point in the opposite direction, and government should step in and address that, but mostly we don't.