Economic Inequality: It’s Far Worse Than You Think

[tesuji]

Economic Inequality: It’s Far Worse Than You Think - Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_MB_EG
 

Interesting article. I think most people are not aware of how much inequality has grown. This is the opposite of what the gospel teaches, in my opinion.

The answer in my opinion is not something like socialism.

We have the answer in 4 Nephi and in the example of the early church in Acts.

Quote

3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.
...

7 And the Lord did prosper them exceedingly in the land ...

15 And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.

16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

4 Nephi

Quote

 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts chapter 1

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by tesuji

[tesuji]

The video referred to in the article:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

[tesuji]

 

The video referred to in the article

(sorry for the double post of this link)

Edited June 28, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, tesuji said:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_MB_EG

Interesting article. I think most people are not aware of how much inequality has grown. This is the opposite of what the gospel teaches, in my opinion.

The answer in my opinion is not something like socialism.

We have the answer in 4 Nephi and in the example of the early church in Acts.

 

This was a completely useless and meaningless article as was the infographic video.

1. The article keeps mentioning income disparity without going into the causes.  And you've fallen victim to it.  When there is inequality of any type, there must be some injustice behind it, right?  Wrong.  
2. The article states that we're losing upward mobility.  Wrong.  The statistics it states only cover the statistics of those who do or do not move upward in their circles.  Again it doesn't go into the causes.  Most of the time, almost anyone with average intelligence and talent still have the opportunities to move upward.  They simply choose not to take them for whatever reason.  This is not injustice.  And it is not anti-gospel.  It is individuals making choices.  But you'd rather they be given things for free without even making any choices to improve their own situation.  Give them a handout that's all that's required, right?  Wrong.  A handout that is actually a hand up is what is helpful.  A handout for the sake of a handout does nothing.  That is why so many wealthy entertainers are bankrupt.  They never got out of the "poor" mentality.  They were given millions and then lost it all.
3. I question the statistics in both the article and the video.  Years ago, my economics class clearly stated that historically, the top 1% to 2% held 98% of the wealth.  In the US since the mid 19th century, the number was more like 5% held 95% of the wealth.  There were some exceptions.  When Rockefeller became the world's first billionaire, that changed some dynamics.  But that and a few others were outliers.  So, for the video to say it is an injustice that now (what was it) 20% hold 85% of the wealth?  That's an IMPROVEMENT in income equality.  But somehow that is worse than the past?
4. The article states that we have the most income disparity in the developed world.  Yeah.  Most other countries are much more socialized.  While socialism makes the wealthy poorer, it also makes the poor poorer.  The fact is that the poor in this country have become more wealthy than the 19th century based on income vs CPI.
5. The article posed the question about what people thought the ratio was between an average worker and a corporate CEO.  Before I read the answer, I just did a bit of math and came up with about 400:1 and thought, yeah, that's about right.  But the article thought it was some great reveal that it was 354:1.  Why?  

No, it's not worse than I think.  It's actually better.

Try looking up facts rather than reading any propaganda like this.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Guest

[tesuji]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Most of the time, almost anyone with average intelligence and talent still have the opportunities to move upward.  They simply choose not to take them for whatever reason.  This is not injustice.  And it is not anti-gospel.  It is individuals making choices.  But you'd rather they be given things for free without even making any choices to improve their own situation.  Give them a handout that's all that's required, right?  Wrong.  A handout that is actually a hand up is what is helpful.  A handout for the sake of a handout does nothing.  That is why so many wealthy entertainers are bankrupt.  They never got out of the "poor" mentality.  They were given millions and then lost it all.

Thanks for your reply. I think this is a topic worth discussing, if we're going to talk about politics as LDS members in this forum.

I've told you I'm not socialist.

What is your reaction to the scriptures I posted? 

To me, these verses are talking about the ideal. How closely can we approach that  right now? I don't know. 

I think there is plenty of evidence that inequality has been growing. I'll try to find some other sources that you might find more believable.

[tesuji]

I also don't agree with your statement that all people are poor because of poor choices or laziness or whatever.

I think if you are born with advantages - good parents, good schools, prosperous relatives - it's easier to become prosperous yourself. If I had not been born into a middle class family with a stable family life and parents who taught me, and helped me, to go to college, would I have turned out differently? Probably.

What if I had been raised by a single mom who had not gone to college herself, and had been abandoned by her husband. And works 2 or 3 jobs to keep food on the table. And can't afford to live in an area with good schools. And had a non-white skin color and was subject to prejudice in our culture? My life would almost certainly have turned out differently.

Edited June 28, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Tesuji, Economics is not one of my strong points, but I am trying to learn more all the time.  So I likely won't get very involved in a debate.  I just want to say that I've seen the video before and I thought it was interesting also.  I have a friend that I have discussed these things with.  She used to feel much like Carb--when she was married to a doctor.  Now she's divorced, living on alimony, and trying to get herself educated so she can get a decent job....these days she sees things a lot more like you and I do.  

I love the scriptures you posted.  I don't think we will be able to do that until the Savior comes again, but I do look forward to it! 

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[tesuji]

4 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Tesuji, Economics is not one of my strong points, but I am trying to learn more all the time.  So I likely won't get very involved in a debate.  I just want to say that I've seen the video before and I thought it was interesting also.  I have a friend that I have discussed these things with.  She used to feel much like Carb--when she was married to a doctor.  Now she's divorced, living on alimony, and trying to get herself educated so she can get a decent job....these days she sees things a lot more like you and I do.  

I love the scriptures you posted.  I don't think we will be able to do that until the Savior comes again, but I do look forward to it! 

 

Thanks for your reply. I don't have all the answers but I'm pretty sure none of the political parties do either. So I think we need to think beyond worldly ideology and find a higher way. I think we must confront these scriptures and ponder them.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Thanks for your reply. I don't have all the answers but I'm pretty sure none of the political parties do either. So I think we need to think beyond worldly ideology and find a higher way. I think we must confront these scriptures and ponder them.

I agree.  I don't see any reason for 354:1.  Sure CEO's should be paid more. I have no problem with that.  My problem is with them getting paid that much more.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

28 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 Most of the time, almost anyone with average intelligence and talent still have the opportunities to move upward.  They simply choose not to take them for whatever reason.

I strongly disagree with this.  When I lived in Utah, we all struggled....no one was choosing to not take an opportunity to move upward.  Now I live near Seattle and a lot of people in my ward work with Boeing and Microsoft and share your opinions.  It's easy to look down on those who are struggling as long as you aren't one of them,

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Thanks for your reply. I think this is a topic worth discussing, if we're going to talk about politics as LDS members in this forum.

So... you've given up on the abnegation ideal?

I've told you I'm not socialist.

I didn't say you were.

What is your reaction to the scriptures I posted?
To me, these verses are talking about the ideal. How closely can we approach that  right now? I don't know. 

That is worth discussing.  I'll post below.

I think there is plenty of evidence that inequality has been growing. I'll try to find some other sources that you might find more believable.

Sure, I'd love to tear apart more propaganda.

 

3 minutes ago, tesuji said:

I also don't agree with your statement that all people are poor because of poor choices or laziness or whatever.

That wasn't my statement.

I think if you are born with advantages - good parents, good schools, prosperous relatives - it's easier to become prosperous yourself. If I had not been born into a middle class family with a stable family life and parents who taught me, and helped me, to go to college, would I have turned out differently? Probably.

I absolutely agree.  Nothing I posted says otherwise.  But that statement simply wasn't true for me.  I'll explain later.

Regarding the scriptures you posted:

Quote

The Prophet rejected communalism. When he arrived in Kirtland in 1831, he found some of the Saints organized into a communal society called “the family.” He soon had them abandon that for the “more perfect law of the Lord.” (History of the Church, 1:146–47) When asked later, “Do Mormons believe in having all things in common?” he answered no. (History of the Church, 3:28) In Nauvoo, he recorded this entry in his journal: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo, everyone is steward over his own.” (History of the Church, 6:37–38)

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/01/to-prepare-a-people?lang=eng

So, it's important to read those scriptures with the right frame of mind.

A sister in a previous ward was clearly liberal, socialist, communist, etc.  She made the statement,"There would be nothing wrong with communism as long as the Lord is in charge of it."  That statement is true on the surface, but it is also completely misleading.  If god is in charge of it we see two things:

1. It is then a theocracy -- a true theocracy, not a man-pretending-to-be-God theocracy.  It is not communism.
2. God owns everything.  So if He wishes to distribute things His way, it is His right.  But when man tries to re-distribute wealth without consent that is simply theft and there is no argument around it.  Just because it is government sanctioned, doesn't change the evil nature of the theft.

There is NOTHING wrong with people donating to charities and donating to individuals of their own free will and choice.  THAT is what the verses you quoted is talking about.  If that is all you are saying, then I agree with you.

The reason I say that the article and video were useless was that it puts these numbers out there like they mean something.  They don't.  They imply that these numbers indicate an injustice has been committed.  They don't.  If you want to talk about making things more equal and having things in common, we can't start with an accusation that everyone with wealth is somehow a criminal or a sinner because they happen to have more than others.

With regard to upbringing providing you a better opportunity:  While this is certainly an advantage, this is not the overpowering factor that you think it is.  

First, we must acknowledge the fact that wealth is supposed to be generational.  An immigrant comes to America with nothing.  They may not achieve wealth in one generation.  But with each successive generation, the family builds wealth.  This has been the story of America since its founding.  My great grandparents came to America with a trunk full of all their worldly belongings.  Sharecroppers, butchers, farm hands, janitors, etc. littered a few generations of my family.  My father's generation were the first ones who achieved middle class status.  My generation were the first to achieve some significant wealth.  I hope my children will achieve even more.  That is the way it works.  And it SHOULD work like that.

In my case, by the time I went to college, my parents' business went bust.  They had to sell their home and do their best to get by.  That also meant that I had to pay for college all on my own.  I had a scholarship which I had to give up because of reasons.  So, I worked three jobs while going to school.  I even became homeless.  So, in many ways, all the generations of wealth building in my family died with my parents and I had to start the cycle all over again.  And I not only started it all over again, I am what I consider to be back to the proper stage of this cycle.

Yes, I know what it is to be impoverished.  But I will refuse to ever be poor.  Poverty is having no money in the bank.  Poor is a state of mind.  This isn't just about work ethic or laziness.  It is about a complete mindset.  Part of that mindset is recognizing an opportunity when it comes.  Many don't.  It's about ambition.  It's about recognizing that having money is not evil.  It's about so many other things.  But all that is ignored in articles like the SA link.

 

 

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I strongly disagree with this.  When I lived in Utah, we all struggled....no one was choosing to not take an opportunity to move upward.  Now I live near Seattle and a lot of people in my ward work with Boeing and Microsoft and share your opinions.  It's easy to look down on those who are struggling as long as you aren't one of them,

I was one of them.  Multiple times in my life.  And who says I was looking down on anyone.  I was making a statement of fact.  If I say that this runner came in last place in the race, does that mean I looked down on them?  No, I was reporting a statistic.

I still stand by my statement about seizing opportunity.  I'll give you an example:

Robert Kiyosaki spoke with a reporter who wished she could achieve his level of success with his best-selling novel.  After quizzing her a bit he said that she could achieve that level of success, but she just needed to put her salesman's hat on.

"Oh, I could never be a salesman.  They're (yucky)."  I don't remember the word she used.  But basically because that was her opinion of salesmen, she refused to do anything like "selling".  "I just want people to recognize that I'm a good writer and buy my books because they're good."

Robert tried to explain to her that there is nothing wrong with selling.  We all have to sell.  And the better we are at it, the better our returns will be. "Look", he said,"This article says 'best-selling' author, not 'best-writing' author.  If you learned to sell, you could be both a best-writing and a best-selling author.  But you have to be willing to sell."

Was he saying she was lazy or had bad work ethic?  No.  But she was refusing to seize an opportunity to learn from a very successful writer and follow his footsteps in becoming successful.

Not everything about wealth has to do with laziness.  Many great successes came about because of laziness.  No, the secret is that wealth requires a willingness to do some clearly moral and ethical things that many people have been raised to believe are "icky".  This is just ONE factor that keeps people down.  But there are many other factors and 'rules' we make up for ourselves that prevent us from achieving wealth.  It's mostly mentality/attitude and a willingess to seize opportunity.

[anatess2]

 

54 minutes ago, tesuji said:

What is your reaction to the scriptures I posted? 

To me, these verses are talking about the ideal. How closely can we approach that  right now? I don't know. 

 

 

 

 

Getting close to the ideal is what the Church is doing.  See the ways the Church brings us closer to God's blessed people:

1.)  Increasing Faith - helping members increase their faith as well as doing missionary work to bring more people into the faith.

2.)  Strengthening Families - at the very least, this ideal should already be practiced within the family.  But, this is actually more common in the Philippines than in the US.  In the US, the objective of self-sufficiency leads families to make islands out of their children when they become adults.  The resource-sharing stops at 18 in an effort to make the adult child self-sufficient.  This works fine in a Godly household where the family remains close and unified and the desire to succor a family member remains strong.  It doesn't work fine in many families where the children becomes self-sufficient to the point that they become islands to themselves so that when either parents or children needs succor they go to the government for aid instead of their families.  Aiding through taxation is not a conscious choice to be a unified people.  Pooling resources for a family member is more of that conscious desire to exercise charity.  In the Philippines, there is no government-provided welfare.  The Family is the welfare system.  So, the desire to build strong families becomes a matter of necessity that gets ingrained in the culture.  This works out because the Family becomes an identity of shared ideals and shared faith leading to shared resources and shared prosperity, all within the framework of free agency.  You are free to remove yourself from the family if you don't like it or you can get voted off the Family if you don't believe in its ideals.  As the Family stabilizes, the Family extends, such that generations of blood relations becomes part of that shared identity expanding the shared resources to a whole lot of people.

Within the Church, we have our own Families as the first incubator to practice this ideal and then we have the Ward Family as the extension of our families - all with that shared identity.

As far as political leadership goes... political leadership should be chosen such that it supports the Family and not usurp the Family's role in the exercise of charity in the name of "guaranteed outcome".

 

43 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree.  I don't see any reason for 354:1.  Sure CEO's should be paid more. I have no problem with that.  My problem is with them getting paid that much more.  

CEOs are paid in the same manner as everyone else.  Capitalistic valuation.  The amount of disparity between CEO and Laborer points to the level of competition in the marketplace of laborers versus CEOs.  So, why are laborers cheap?  Because there are more laborers than there are job opportunities.  Why are CEOs expensive?  Because there are few CEOs than there are job opportunities.  How do you change this?  2 ways:  1.) Increase job opportunities - this can be accomplished by making it attractive for businesses to invest in the area, or making it harder for businesses outside of the area to be part of the competition, 2.) Reduce laborers - this can be accomplished by proper management of laborer immigration, or this can also be done by exporting labor (offshore workers).

Edited June 28, 2016 by anatess2

[tesuji]

Aaahhh, walls of text. I'll try to study what you all have replied soon today.

My main point is that we should think about the principles, ideals, and solutions that the scriptures teach. I'm not advocating any political solution, and I think the gospel is the answer to these problems, not partisan ideologies.

Edited June 28, 2016 by tesuji

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, tesuji said:

I think most people are not aware of how much inequality has grown.

This is a far more complicated question than you might think. It boils down to the one issue that economists must deal with: scarcity.

In a world where everything was freely available (utopia, from the Greek meaning "nowhere") we would not need economics. Economics is the study of how to distribute resources so they are used in their most beneficial way. For instance, at the approach of a hurricane, the people of Houston buy thousands of sheets of plywood to protect their windows. The price of plywood rises to prevent someone from buying the precious and scarce resource to build his daughter an outdoor tea table. Plywood is too valuable to be used for tea sets when people's homes are threatened with destruction.

People are resources, just as is nearly everything else: food, water, air, diamonds, iron, name it. Some, like air and water are almost always available in plenteous supply. But in a situation like Apollo 13, when air was scarce, it was no longer cheap; the demand exceeded the supply. In the desert, water is dear, but in Seattle, it's almost always cheap.

Inequality is always rooted in differences between people. There are no two people exactly alike. When two have an IQ of 146, one will be more willing to work as a physicist and the other as an investment banker. One will have talents as a musician, the other as a poet. Two people with an identical IQ of 83 will be willing to work, the other more willing to believe the lie that his opportunities and wealth were stolen from him, and expect "society" to "restore" them. This person will never succeed: he'll always be a poor pawn in someone else's chess set.

I used IQ as a constant above, but any human trait could also serve: physical strength, height, good health or eyesight, or whatever else. I used talents as a variable, but any trait could serve here, too: balance, ego, hair color. These traits are almost innumerable, hence, no two people are alike. Spirituality, too, is among those disparate traits: some gots lots, others little.

In general, a higher IQ will point to a greater income and wealth, but talented basketball players earn a lot more than intelligent poets. And there are jobs that the unintelligent are willing to do that intelligent people are not: garbage and sewer workers do not need high IQs, but they do need a willingness to work. Because people with a lower IQ, but a higher willingness to work are also scarce, they can command (or, in reality, produce) more wealth than people with higher IQs, but who compete for more "desirable" jobs.

The so-called wealth or income disparity or inequality is not an injustice. It is a reflection of the differences in any of a host of characteristics or humanity. No program will overcome these. And, in spite of anyone's or any group's ardent desire to change it, it will always be so: inequality in people leads inexorably to inequality in wealth as long as there are scarcities in the world.

When Jesus comes, and He instores the Law of Consecration, there will still be inequalities between people. Some will contribute more to the general storehouse, some less, some will need more, and others less. Spirituality will be less unequal. And, there will be no "poor" because the needed goods and services will be in abundance. Even so, someone will have to grow the food, and some to clean the bathrooms.

Given the above, it is impossible for us to long live with all in common. The early Apostles failed to have a working United Order: Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Lord and lost their lives, but no mention of all the others who did not lie, but who did not live their covenant. After Stephen, the United Order seems to disappear from the New Testament. The Nephites lived it for two generations, but fell into apostasy. The City of Holiness (aka, City of Enoch) was an exception, but they were taken to God, and we have no way of telling how it would have worked had multiple generations died and succeeded each other.

In a telestial world, scarcity dictates inequality in wealth, and differences between people mandate the same.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't see any reason for 354:1.  Sure CEO's should be paid more. I have no problem with that.  My problem is with them getting paid that much more

Your not seeing it doesn't mean there is no reason.

The market has been really good at recognizing contributions to the general wealth, and rewarding those contributions correctly. It's better than any other mechanism ever tried, and it works better in the real world than in the classroom (where it also works in the vacuum of academe).

If you don't think that CEOs are worth 354 times what their lowest paid workers earn, then buy some stock in that company and go to the shareholders' meeting — then make your case. Other wise, why is it any of your business? When the owners of the company are willing to pay what they do, no one else should get involved: it's their company and their money.

Lehi

Edited June 28, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

Is it economic inequality that you worried about, or are you just jealous of "rich" people who have more than you? Envy is also gravely sinful.  

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, tesuji said:

I also don't agree with your statement that all people are poor because of poor choices or laziness or whatever.

Unwarranted blanket statement.  The only people I see using phrases like "all poor people" are folks on one side of a political spectrum, demonizing the other guy's argument.  Tesuji, don't be that guy.

I will say it out loud - here in the US of A, there is a great ability for people to float or sink due to their own effort or lack thereof.  Perhaps a greater ability than anywhere else on earth.  Yes indeed, one may sink due to bad luck, poor health, mental issues, skin tone, or many other unfortunate or unjust reasons.  But for every one of those people I've seen, I've been personal witness to hundreds who ended up where they are, because of their poor choices or laziness or other things in their control. 

 

2 hours ago, tesuji said:

I think if you are born with advantages - good parents, good schools, prosperous relatives - it's easier to become prosperous yourself. If I had not been born into a middle class family with a stable family life and parents who taught me, and helped me, to go to college, would I have turned out differently? Probably.

You mean, you had some sort of situation or circumstance that turned out favorable to your success?  At the risk of seeming snarky, I'd just like to point out that's the dictionary definition of 'advantage'.  There's something going on with your soul and that word though - you should look inward.  Got guilt?  Is an advantage a bad thing?  A sign something isn't right?  Yeah, you maybe need to so some soul searching, and find out why you believe that.  

 

 

Quote

What if I had been raised by a single mom who had not gone to college herself, and had been abandoned by her husband. And works 2 or 3 jobs to keep food on the table. And can't afford to live in an area with good schools. And had a non-white skin color and was subject to prejudice in our culture? My life would almost certainly have turned out differently.

 

Well of course our lives turn out differently due to our circumstances.  We get sent here to earth to endure injustice and a lack of fairness.  One thing we can do, is live in a country that helps people rise or sink according to their efforts, not their desires.  

My dad was born in 1922 - he told me stories of the great depression.  His dad would go ride the rails looking for work, and try to scrape together enough money to bring his family.  My dad hunted for food in his early teens, and if he didn't get anything, his mom and sisters and brother didn't get lunch.  As he lived his life, he struggled to get ahead.  That meant joining the army and serving in WWII.  Then exploring a career where he could work anywhere.  Then getting really good at it.  He worked hard his whole life, scrambling to make things better so his kid (me) could have some advantages.  Sounds noble, right?  

Consider your example: A single nonwhite mom, abandoned by her husband, working 2-3 jobs, can't afford to live in an area with good schools.  Consider that she needs to work hard her whole life, scrambling to make things better so her kids could have some advantages.  Consider that she needs to find a good man to marry and stop picking jerks that make babies and make tracks.  Does it sound like I'm a racist?  Or uncaring?  Do I sound like a privileged rich white guy, looking down on the poor oppressed masses whom I care nothing about?

How come my dad's story is so noble, and my answer to your hypothetical sounds so horrible?  It's the same answer. 

Yeah, look inward tesuji.  Gotta figure out how to separate "The Gospel" from "Liberal conditioning" or "unthinking emotionally-driven gut-reactions".  

Edited June 28, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[tesuji]

Neuro, I think you are assuming a lot about me.

My point is that there is great inequality. And this is not how the gospel teaches us things should be. 

I do not believe that personal prosperity is a simply a function of hard work. It is more complicated. I do think there are many poor people in this country who are working hard, and are still poor. Many other people are poor because of illness.

The church teaches hard work, self sufficiency, and provident living. Obviously, work matters. However, I don't think I've ever seen the church or Jesus in the Bible teach that poor people should be ignored or despised because their condition is something they brought upon themselves. The teaching is the opposite - we should do all we can for them.

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree.  I don't see any reason for 354:1.  Sure CEO's should be paid more. I have no problem with that.  My problem is with them getting paid that much more.  

How about because wealthy people tend to be more charitable than poor people?  Who donates more money to charity rich or poor?  If you were to take all the donations of the 20% vs 10% of the income of the 80%, you'd see that more money is being donated to charity than if everyone donated 10%.  And that's assuming all the poor would donate 10% if they had more -- not true.

How about the wealthy will invest more money than spend it?  When poor people have money, they spend it and it goes down a hole.  It is consumed.  Nothing is multiplied.  When a wealthy person invests money that money produces something in the economy and wealth is multiplied, not only to the investor, but to the economy as a whole.  The CEO having that wealth actually blesses many more lives than if that wealth were given to poor people.

The great secret to wealth is that of understanding what an investment really is.  It is spending money on something that will produce rather than consume.  A poor person's mentality is to spend everything in a consumptive way.  A rich person's mentality is to buy as much as possible that will produce more wealth.  That wealth is not just his own.  By its very nature it will grow the economy.

Those who make a lot of money off of non-producing items (gambling comes to mind) aren't growing the economy.  There is nothing produced.  Nothing is multiplied.  Such wealth is a result of many losing so one can gain.  A free market system is based on the idea of production, not need, not labor.

A communist system is based on need.  Need more, you'll get more.
A socialist system is based on ideology.  Whatever the winds of society decides will get more.
A free market economy is based on production.  Produce more, you'll get more.

So communism produces more needy people
Socialism produces more bureaucrats -- even among the common people.
A free market will produce more.

12 minutes ago, tesuji said:

I do not believe that personal prosperity is a simply a function of hard work. It is more complicated. I do think there are many poor people in this country who are working hard, and are still poor. Many other people are poor because of illness.

Anyone who says it is a function of hard work doesn't understand how the economy works.

All systems say that they value hard work.  But the fact is none of them do.  Hard work is merely a tool or a lever to work any of the systems.  In the free market, work alone will only get you so far.  But working hard at those things that produce more is what gets you ahead.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Guest

[tesuji]

OK, I've made my points here, for those who want to read them. I could say more and debate and make counter points and offer counter statistics, etc., but I feel like arguing is fruitless.

Edited June 28, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, tesuji said:

OK, I've made my points here, for those who want to read them. I could say more and debate and make counter points and offer counter statistics, etc., but I feel like arguing is fruitless.

No, actually I didn't even hear any of your points.  What do you think those scriptures are about?  Do you really believe that they mean we should give all our wealth to the poor in any and all cases?  What do you really mean when you decry inequality?

The reason we've made the statements we have is that you really haven't defined anything.  Everything you've said is rhetoric without any logic or reasoning or even definitions.  I'd like to know what your reasoning is.  I'm assuming you have some logic and reason to your positions which have yet to be defined for the topic of this thread.

@tesuji

I continue to get the impression that you really don't think much about these topics at all.  You're just feeling things out.  That's fine for a beginning.  But if you really want to make a difference in both yourself and others, you need to spend some intellectual capital and really define and understand what you believe and why.

If I'm wrong in this impression, I'd like to hear your reasoning -- especially what you think about the verses that you give so much heed to.

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by Guest

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I was one of them.  Multiple times in my life.  And who says I was looking down on anyone.  I was making a statement of fact.  If I say that this runner came in last place in the race, does that mean I looked down on them?  No, I was reporting a statistic.

Carb, wealth is relative. I know people that say they are not wealthy but to me the cars they drive, the vacations in Eupore etc makes them wealthy. Perhaps they are comparing themselves to Bill Gates. So when you tell me you've been there, I don't know what that really means for you. But you don't need to explain either.

What I'm talking about is not unrealistic people like the woman in your example. I'm talking about good people who work hard...but sometimes stuff happens. Job lay offs, illness, death in the family...all sorts of things can happen.

Now a point we might somewhat agree on...I think....is this. I choose to work in the Social Work field. I do this knowing full well I couldake more money in business. But the world of buying and selling g does not appeal to me. I'm and Idealistic and I am driven to try and make a difference in the world. I jokingly call my choice to do social work my vow of poverty. If you call that me chosing not to be wealthy, then I suppose you are right. 

But I believe there are people who hustle and who would work in any field to make money but sometimes crap happens.  No offense intended but when people claim all you have to do is be willing to work that discounts ones dependence on God. 

[NeuroTypical]

I think Tesuji's points are:

1. There's inequality, and that's bad
2. Most people don't know how inequal and how bad
3. We have scriptures telling us of a society that had no inequality, and that's good
4. We should do it like they did it in the scriptures

If I'm missing anything, let me know.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I think Tesuji's points are:

1. There's inequality, and that's bad
2. Most people don't know how inequal and how bad
3. We have scriptures telling us of a society that had no inequality, and that's good
4. We should do it like they did it in the scriptures

If I'm missing anything, let me know.

Those are fine points, but the troubling part of socialism is "that they'd rather have the poor poorer as long as the rich were less rich." Direct quote from Margaret Thatcher. She was right then, she was right today. The older I get the more I am convinced that hating the rich is a desperate attempt to appear "compassionate" and "I'm jealous I don't have that, so I'm going to throw a tantrum."  In reality, the rich get rich for providing goods and services people want. And you know what? Some people are just lucky and born into good circumstances. Welcome to the real world where in the words of the legendary Rolling Stones, "you can't always get what you want." 

Envy will eat you up because it makes you ungrateful, which is death to your spirit. 
(Sorry, been in a celebrating the English mood since the Brexit)  

Edited June 28, 2016 by MormonGator