[graemep]

> Aside from all the claims with no sources/references whatsoever (claims which are not at all self-evident), blaming "corporate greed" for hiring employees? Isn't it also "corporate greed" to lay people off?

Both can be true depending in circumstances. The management of companies are primarily motivated by increasing their share price, as that is what remuneration is most commonly linked to, nor profits. For example, by options.

When things are good they will over hire to make future growth look at good as possible, to increase investor confidence.

When things are bad they will be focused on making numbers look better in the short term.

[freedomben]

I don't disagree, but then it seems like the definition of "greed" that you are using is essentially synonymous with "running a company." If we want to use that definition, then the claims become true, but the term "greed" also becomes meaningless as it applies to everything we as humans do. "Greed" becomes the motivation behind why I took two slices of pizza instead of one, or why I turn the thermostat down in the winter to use less fuel (and thus save money), or why I turn the thermostat up in the winter (to get more comfortable, even though I'm using more gas). We greedily want to stay alive, so we use resources to procure food at the expense of other living creatures. For that matter, all life on the planet is driven by greed.

[graemep]

I do not think it is synonymous. Running a company means pursuing profits, but it does not mean you have to ignore all other considerations. You can have ethical limits, server customers, look after the interests of your employees, reduce your environmental impacts etc.

Greed means running a company without due consideration of these things.

IN this case the explanation I am suggesting is even less synonymous because by putting short boosts to the share price over long term profitability is not (in the long term) even serving the best interests of the shareholders.