The Folk Prophet

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by The Folk Prophet

  1. But this isn't even a valid way to think of it. The rich getting richer isn't going to help the guy sitting in a cardboard box. People that criticize "trickle down" economics misunderstand it. It's better to think of it like this: strong economies are good for everyone. Strong economies make the rich richer. Strong economies provide more jobs for the poor. Strong economies means a strong middle class. Capitalism creates strong economies better than any other system ever has. Capitalism in the US has created a world-wide stronger economy. Everyone, everywhere has benefited from it. But capitalism also creates Bill Gates. If capitalism is killed, the strength of the economy will falter. Taking money away from Bill Gates is, definitionally, destroying capitalism. Anyone who denies the clear empirical evidence of the strength of economies generated by capitalism is being willfully blind.
  2. Here I thought we'd end up with a fiesty, interesting, debate filled thread. Hmm.
  4. Thoughts?
  5. Is that the same cultural memory that "young" online Americans have.... you know...the ones tearing down statues of the founding fathers, etc? Nice to know young Russians are as delusional about being "poor" as Americans they complain online on their laptops and/or iPhones about how "poor" everyone is. I was going to add something about while sipping their Starbucks coffee...but I guess it's "Stars" coffee now. Edit: I don't really know anything about the state of poverty in Russia. I'm just grumpy and bitter about online complaints.
  6. My goodness, a lot of these have come to pass. Some are cryptic and hard to say. A few clearly have not.
  7. So my daughter (6) wrote* a story the other day. Here it is: ________________________ Once upon a time there was a little ghost in a house -- a haunted house. Everybody was allowed in, but be aware there are some mean ghosts that live there. But the people didn't believe it. So everybody ran away because the ghosts were chasing them and it was really scary. And all that was left was one person because all the other people got killed by the ghosts. What was next to do was get more people to kill the ghosts, because there were 100 ghosts and only one person. So he went to get the rest of the people to help with the 100 ghosts. But then there was an exciting bit - they killed all the ghosts and then they ran home because they were so sleepy. And then when they came home there was a scary moment because there was zombies in their house! And then when they had to fight, and they killed all the zombies. so then they could eat, but there was no food left and all the shops were empty. And then they just had to find food. If they didn't have food, they had to find food. But if they didn't find food, they wouldn't survive. The didn't find food at all. There was no food and they died. Their kids were just at home playing outside. _______________________ *by "wrote" I mean dictated as my wife wrote.
  8. I'd use mine to buy a copy of Windows.... .....wait.....😕
  9. This fits my view nicely. I know it's back to semantics, as are a lot of things, but I just don't think the Lord "requires" men to do His work -- except that in His work is in that regard it requires men. But hopefully you get my point. If no man is righteous enough to convert others, God will send angels. Or appear Himself. Or., or., or. He will do His work whether you and I are worthy or not.
  10. This is what I was getting at with the question.
  11. Something feels off about this math.
  12. This is not the least not conceptually. One has to consider how much wealth Bill Gates (and those like him) created in society at large while he was making his money. And, one has to consider the consequence of Bill Gates (and those like him) no longer being able to generate wealth for anyone. We need our rich people. People who talk about economics in only terms of how much money everyone has in their pockets don't understand economics at all.
  13. @Carborendum, I've been thinking on this and why I even responded in the first place the way I did. I thought of a question to ask you that might clarify what I'm thinking a bit and maybe help communicate what I'm getting at. This may not be contrary to anything you're saying, but by expressing it in this question maybe you'll see where I'm coming from and why I even responded: Let's say someone spent the previous evening viewing pornography and then, having not yet repented in any regard, bore testimony of the gospel to someone else. Do you believe that in that situation that the person hearing said testimony could not or would not ever feel the Spirit confirming the truth of the testimony to them ( led to be "gathered")? (Say said individual was a Counselor in a bishopric, and had been assigned, in conducting, to bear testimony at the start of a fast and testimony meeting. This is something that almost certainly has happened in reality.) I'm making the example moderately extreme on purpose. I could inject a lesser or more grievous sin and the question would remain though, I think. And I'm not suggesting an answer, per se. I have some thoughts and inclinations. But I'm legitimately curious what you (and others) think on the matter.
  14. My point is only that God can and does do His work despite our weaknesses. That fallen, mortal individuals bring about the gathering, despite being fallen and mortal. I don't know if I agree that denying ourselves of all ungodliness is a figure of speech, or "be ye therefore perfect". But it's a reasonable take, and a way to describe the same thing in a different way I think.
  15. Maybe what you mean is something different than what I'm taking this to mean, but as it's written.... then there can be no proper gathering then, because we cannot rid ourselves of "all" ungodliness. It comes across as if you're saying that God cannot do His work unless we're perfect. That's clearly not true.
  16. The problem is that Traveler is working with a different definition/view of what agency means. He has this convoluted, manufactured, over-complicated view of the matter, but then tries communicating it without even bothering to acknowledge that he's doing this. I don't think it's intentional on his part...but it causes a great deal of confusion. Agency seems to be a principle that people struggle with. (There are a few other principles that have the same problem). I don't know why. It seems like a simple principle to me. But it's one that seems to be constantly misunderstood. Of course most people, in my view, misunderstand it by over-simplifying it. But then, every so often, you have people that over-complicate it. It seems like there are certain people who tend to overcomplicate everything.
  17. @zil2 I don't have specific thoughts or interpretations, but anxiously await yours.