a-train

A guy in my old ward has a daughter who while an infant was dropped on her head by a photographer at Wal-Mart. His wife took the baby to the hospital and called her husband. He rushed to the family's side and within an hour or so of the incident the hospital was caring for a major skull fracture on the infant. Within about 6 hours from the time of the incident, several Wal-Mart lawyers arrived at the hospital and surveying the situation offered the father $2.8 Million. Concerned that this quick settlement had to be a major low-ball, he declined it and consulted with attorneys. After months of dealing with the attorneys, a judge awarded him $3.3 million, which after attorney's fees left the family with $2.2 million ($600,000 less than the original settlement offered by Wal-Mart). His daughter, was never given any surgery, but underwent close supervision. She is six years old today and the only permanent signs of damage are two seperate seizures which occured more than a year apart and which are not completely attributable to the incident. The money was all invested in a portfolio that lost 75% of its value this year with the stock market decline. He is very nervous about the investments he made with it and the possible outcomes. Anyways, Wal-Mart actually posed little fight and paid a vast amount more than the actual medical fees attached to the incident. If the investments made with the money turn out to be good in the end, his daughter will be a millionaire for her adult life. If any long-term health issues should materialize, there will be money available for treatments (as long as it is not lost in stock declines). Based on what this friend of mine told me, I doubt Wal-Mart will try to skirt their responsibility toward this man who died and his family. He told me that this group of lawyers are full time and work in shifts maintaining 24-hour service. They have a company jet to fly them immediately to locations where emergencies should arrive. They handle over a dozen cases per day. Most however, are indeed frivolous claims. Certainly this one is not, although it may become problematic to show negligence on the part of Wal-Mart. My view is that the people who did the trampling are at fault. However, Wal-Mart's general liability policy may be the only source to which to look for any promise of damages awarded. I hope this gives Wal-Mart and other retailers a wake-up call. While midnight madness events with special gifts to the first so-many guests do wonders for sales (I had my best black friday ever today because of such techniques), they need to be accompanied with extra order. If a select number of giveways or certain deals is sure to bring 100 times the people, a program such as a drawing may prevent crowd catastrophe. -a-train

The war between science and religion is only between particular scientific notions and particular religious notions. The LDS perspective changes the whole game, because LDS teaching refutes ex nihilo Creationism. Thus, the science that seems to indicate there was no ex nihilo creation is not troublesome to the Mormon.-a-train

I often like to think of the term 'faith' as in faithfulness. Being faithful to one's spouse is not simply acknowledging or believing in their existence. It is being trustworthy, it is being loyal, it is treating your relationship with integrity. I started out thinking: "Well, if there is such a Being, I want to do Him right." Connected with this line of thinking is: "I must do others right also, or else I would be unworthy of claiming integrity." At every phase of my understanding, this thinking has been the same and it is the same today. If one wants to know if there be any God, he must first intend to reverence Him. Those who say things like: "If God will prove himself, then I'll have respect" seem to exhibit the same flaw of character we find in those who are socially repugnant among humankind. An example is those who said: "When black folks prove themselves, then and only then will I respect them." The terrible flaw here is that this prideful line of thinking automatically puts us in a position to only befriend our enemies who humble us and demand our respect through compulsion. I would say this is not a very well thought path. If we intend to determine that there is a God, it would be preferable to discover Him peacefully. -a-train

Our local cannery in Kansas City will not allow non-members to go unless attended by a member. -a-train

What about saving up? Only a small portion of your monthly payment on a mortgage will go toward principle. However, the whole amount of your monthly contribution to a savings will stay in your pocket. Are there other people in your family in a similar situation? Perhaps someone building up a down payment or something? What you could do is pool your funds. Imagine two parties pay $500 a month each into a common fund, in forty months (3 years, 4 months) you would have the total. You would buy your place at the forty month mark, but keep paying the $500 a month into the fund for another forty months upon which time the second party would have $40,000. Of course, none of this accounts for interest earned which helps also. This process, put into an account compounding monthly interest at 2.5% would actually have you at just over $40,500 at month 39 with over $1500 in interest earned. -a-train

Don't let Sacrament Meeting be your Church experience. Make personal scripture study, prayer, fasting, tithing, and service be your experience. -a-train

Now lets think about that for a minute. Are the companies and industries that are not doing this going to start doing it as long as government keeps doing it for them for absolutely free? What is more likely to come first? Certainly she is and that is why I desire an immediate stop to all the funding of subsidies which threaten her job security. I want to see the end of the government funding that causes the training she has to become less and less valuable in a more and more saturated market, causing her pay and benefits to decline and her position to become less and less secure. I want to see an end to the means by which the companies that employ persons in her field add more and more to their bottom line at the expense of tax-payers and this woman. I want to see true economic freedom for this woman.-a-train

And just because many people deny that God has the power to exalt His children, doesn't mean He can't. The scriptures teach plainly that the righteous who are cleansed by the Blood of Christ will be made as pure as He is, will inherit the earth and a kingdom, will sit with Christ in His throne, will wear crowns of glory, will be raised to immortality, and will eternally work in the service of God.Further, it says in no uncertain terms that man is the offspring of God. And it clearly also teaches that God came to earth, was born of a woman, grew from childhood to manhood and endured the human condition in every way and died at Calvary and rose physically from the tomb on the third day to rise bodily to the Presence of the Father. This same process, of birth, life, death, resurrection, and exaltation is the process all men who are to be exalted in the Presence of God shall go through. Now, we can call that whatever we want I guess. We can say that man won't become a god (whatever that means). But if we are in denial of any of the truths I've mentioned above, we are in denial of the Holy Bible. -a-train

Yes, however they must be accompanied by a member on a scheduled visit. In fact, this is a great missionary tool. It gives us a chance to discuss at length and in depth the reasons why we have such a cannery. -a-train

Don't be so sure that the elimination of government funding would put this woman in the dog-house. These companies as you have indicated have a very high demand for these new workers. Where will they get them? They will have to pay for them. The woman WILL get the funds for school. Perhaps she could work for someone else with a tuition benefit (like FedEx).These very profitable companies are getting a free ride on tax-payer dollars and that needs to stop. This woman is not the victim nor the recipient of this issue, she is the smoke-screen. -a-train

Keynes was a fabian socialist whose economic teachings were designed to promote state socialism.Being the owner of one of the three skateboard shops in Missouri that is allowed a Nike SB account, I know all about the Nike marketing and scarcity. Now the statement about not wanting to be in a generation of poverty speaks volumes. Many great generations impoverished their posterity on that basis. The intervention we see today in our financial markets claim to take the economic pains away. All these actions do is put the burden and danger on future generations, if not on ourselves in the not-to-distant future. Social Security is a dramatic outgrowth of this ideology. The burden of the costs of the standard of living for one generation is placed on the coming generation without the consent of the rising generation. My generation was never allowed to vote on whether or not we would pay for the retirement of the people currently receiving our money. The first generation got to receive benefits without really paying much in. Ida May Fuller (the first recipient of social security) received 924 times more in benefits than her total contributions. Of course, you probably already know that I believe the troubles we are currently in are not the result of any natural free-market, but rather the direct result of government intervention sold to the people as a benefit for the poor in the from of "equal housing opportunities" which only benefited the most connected and informed investors at the top of the economic scale while inadvertently (or perhaps purposely) creating a housing price meltdown and helping to trigger recession. I do believe there must be regulation, but the regulation comes in the protection of private property. Any regulation that compels people to buy products or services regardless of their desire for them or the prices thereof is certainly a violation of property rights. Everything from the environmental issues that so many are concerned about to the social issues of health care and welfare cannot be treated in absence of property rights. Think long and hard about property rights and it becomes evident that they would solve much of these issues. A company dumping waste into a water supply has caused damaged to property and should be liable. People unable to afford health insurance may be in such a position because half their income goes to taxes. Meanwhile the price of healthcare rises dramatically because of subsidies and regulations that actually have the effect of raising those prices. All the concerns about private property result from not understanding it. People assume that the wealthy need do nothing to stay that way and prevent others from becoming so. This is absolutely wrong, without violence. If simply the ownership of vast wealth alone gave a man tremendous power, then what necessity is there for any king to possess an army? What does it mean: "That market will balance itself out"? Does it mean prices will return to where they used to be? What point in history do we look to as the price at which things must balance back to? What are we talking about? Today, people may pay a fortune for a coin or a baseball card because of its condition and rarity. Is there something wrong with that? The kid that pays $300 for a quickstrike Nike Dunk is not enslaved or ruined thereby. He has every opportunity to simply not buy it, and a great many take that opportunity. But if he were threatened with jail if he were to withhold his funds and attempt to not purchase those shoes, this would be a certain despotic ruin. The occupation of Iraq is a definite government intervention with terrible consequences. The whole point of it is to benefit big business types well connected to Washington. Ultimately, we will be unable as a nation to borrow or monetize more debt to fund the occupation. In this case, tremendous amounts of wealth are taken from productive market driven investment and wasted on deadly foolishness that benefits the already wealthy. If the property rights of the people were protected, the occupation of Iraq could not be funded. Many see our government lacking in regulation. This is true. It does not enforce the protection of private property. That is the real problem the whole matter boils down to. We are led to believe that free-markets are simply anarchy. This is far from true. A free market has very rigid rules. People are not compelled to buy things and they are not compelled to buy at fixed prices. No one is compelled to give property away and no one is allowed to take property without meeting the demands of the property owner in the purchase thereof. This is not the system we have now. And the problems we have are the result of the failure to protect private property. When we get back to protecting private property, we will get back to sustainable prosperity. -a-train

You know, in my last response I almost mentioned something, but I didn't because I don't like a thread to go too far away from the subject. But here it is:There are some who would say that if our government doesn't train these workers, then the employers will be encouraged to outsource these jobs to a country that DOES train the workers leading to more domestic unemployment. Those making this argument will also say that the lower unemployment will lead to further strain on the economy and thus lead to even greater unemployment. The image is an endless spiral toward a total collapse of all domestic commerce. The problem with this argument is that it does not take into account the buyers on the front end of the business and the effect this downward spiral will have on them. To whom is this employer selling these goods produced over seas? If indeed this leads to domestic economic recession, won't domestic demand for this product also decrease? This would lead to lower prices. Thus, the savings gained by the employer would ultimately be passed on to the consumer. Now many would instantly cry: "Oh there is no way those big business guys are going to pass the savings on to the consumer!" But the reality is that they will have no choice. They have built up a tremendous supply source and their demand source has decreased, this means lower prices whether you like it or not. As these products sit on shelves, retailers start slashing prices and wholesale orders start dwindling. How do they maintain volume? Lower wholesale pricing. It is inevitable. No business is safe from this. So with the lower prices on that particular product or industry, what do the unemployed locals do? They have to move to a different product or industry, one that they have an advantage in. What is that? Well, the first place they should look is within their interests. I can tell you that the government bureaucrats certainly have no clue, regardless of what we are told. Now this may seem harsh, but it is not avoidable. Imagine every possible government intervention and they all end the same. Perhaps the government could disallow the outsourcing of these jobs, but if they didn't prevent a foreign competitor from importation, these businesses will be uncompetitive in the market and the jobs will be ultimately lost anyway. Imagine the government does both, the domestic public as a whole pays higher prices for this given product than much of the rest of the world, which makes them less competitive in the global economy. This approach really only spreads the problem to the rest of the domestic economy. It may also only speed the obsolescence of the product or service they offer as it becomes unaffordable in contrast with other products and services. I have a friend who is here in Kansas City at the dental school on a program from his home state of Hawaii. If he returns to Hawaii and practices dentistry for so many years, he pays back only a small portion of his student loan. If he practices outside of Hawaii, he will be compelled to pay back the whole loan. The difference is almost $200,000. He was telling me that a friend of his who is back in Hawaii having passed through school is still paying the total amount because he could not find work as a dentist there. He said that it is too competitive. There are too many dentists! My friend wants to return to Hawaii because he loves the location and his family, and he will probably do so regardless of his work situation there. If he really wants to be a dentist and be economically successful, he will have to go to a place where the dentistry market is not so saturated, just like the doctors leaving Canada. Otherwise, he should have gone into a field that was not in such supply in Hawaii. The argument is made that dentistry in Hawaii is more affordable now because of all the competition. But the reality is that the taxpayers are already paying for the difference in subsidizing all the education. In fact, dentistry can only be discounted so much until the service is unsustainable, therefore the taxpayers may be paying even more for the services because the cost of the wasted education may outweigh the available discounts. Without the subsidy, you would first have higher prices as there is a shortage of dentists, but eventually the few offices will need more hands and thus either fund the education of those hands or pay them such a high wage that they can afford the education (which is just the same). In that scenario, students would pay off loans easily when entering a lucrative position. But because of the government subsidies, the opposite is happening. The students graduate and then find it difficult to pay off the student loans in a saturated market. Austrian economists refer to misdirected efforts or investment as 'malinvestment'. As government gives heavy incentive to invest the time in dental school, the student does so under a skewed perception of the market. They are under the false impression that there is strong demand for dentists and see the subsidy as a great blessing. Perhaps they even graduate to find a great position waiting for them. But as more and more dentists flood the market, all of them begin to feel the pain of the malinvestment. What this sort of subsidy does is brings many people into the market that otherwise would not be there. Many of them don't really have much love for dentistry, but are there because of the subsidy and the tremendous promise of a great income. The whole thing is sold to them on that premise. They are told that demand for dentists is so high that the government has to step in to supply it. Now those locals who lose their job to skilled workers immigrating to their area are not in such a bad position as we are told. If indeed there are people coming into an area who will earn higher wages and take part in a lucrative business based there, the overall economy there will see a sustainable improvement. This is good for the locals, no matter what. They will work in positions that require less training, but these positions will be in more demand and pay more. Few city governments will ever discourage an importation of persons of higher skills and income than what is already common in the city. Workers will be able to live and save on the available wages in their area. Their decisions about what field to enter or to seek training in should be based on their interests, not government subsidies. The market is like the ocean, it has many different currents. We can either waste ourselves trying to redirect them, or simply ride the currents. -a-train

Where does the capital come from in those situations? Someone, somewhere, saved it or brought it into exisitence through a debt contract only to be repaid by future savings. His definition does not eliminate Investment Bankers, Margin Buyers or Stock Brockers. So if I take your money and tell you it is an investment, it really is? You have nothing invested, I just took your money. You never get anything in return. That is not an investment. The only benefactors for this program are businesses that avail themselves of tax-payer funded training for their employees. The taxpayers, get nothing. I think the market demands that these people be trained. But the problem right now is the very opposite of a low supply of skilled workers. There are well educated and trained workers taking jobs that require much lower skills. There are plenty of skilled workers, just not enough business to hire them all. That is why you have lay-offs and closures and rising unemployment: there is not enough business, demand is down. This is the opposite of a shortage of skilled workers.If there ARE sectors that have high demands for new skilled workers, then they will have the funds to train them. Why do they need these workers so bad? Because whatever they do is in high demand. They have the business to support the training and hiring of new workers. In this case, the workers have an advantage in securing better pay and benefits from an employer who has nowhere to turn to replace them. Charging the tax-payers to pay for the training of these workers is just another play into the hands of an already economically advantaged group and a breaking down of the advantage of the workers. It is the businesses who are the beneficiaries of the subsidy. They only wish us to believe it is the employees who are better off, but those are the ones most shamelessly being exploited by the marriage of big business and big government. I say all this because I have every bit of feeling of compassion on and interest in the welfare of the workers who are to receive training. The companies who hire these workers are at a tremendous advantage if there is a strong supply of these workers. Will the workers be likely to receive a wage or benefit increase when the company can easily replace them? Are they more or less likely to lose their job when there are many waiting in the wings to replace them? In this case, the individual worker has pressure from below and above to work for less and to do more for their employer in order to maintain their position. The employer is then able to hire more hands for the same amount of money and thus get a nicer bottom line, all at the expense of the tax-payer and the workers. So, how do I believe we should respond to a situation of a shortage of skilled workers in a given sector? Let the workers take advantage of the companies and let the companies pay the higher wages, benefits, and even fund the training of new workers. -a-train

The Bible teaches plainly that men are gods and children of the Most High. Claims that the LDS belief in such is unbiblical are simply ridiculous. I have worn myself out quoting the scriptures of the Bible that demonstrate plainly that the whole point of man's creation is to rise him to immortality and eternal life and to give to him a throne and a crown in heaven. If you don't believe it, you don't believe the Bible. -a-train

Diversify. Invest in precious metal, in food, in land, in all you can. But don't do any of this until you have your food storage and a cash financial reserve in the home. -a-train

Although the dictionary said that investment is: "the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value", we are left to ask: "What is capital"? Dictionary.com includes the following defintions of Capital: Both the second definition I've quoted and the 4th fall well in line with "Accumulation of savings through lower present consumption". We could replace one of these definitions for the word 'capital' in the definition of 'investment': "The investing of money or 'assets remaining after deduction of liabilities' in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value." Austro-lib's "accumulation of savings through lower present consumption" is his definition for capital and it is indeed a good one. For even borrowed money is someone's savings (unless of course it is borrowed from our modern banking system which creates the 'money' out of thin air). Austro-lib is right. When trying to sell the taxpayers more services, the services have to be dressed up and made to appear to be a good thing for the taxpayer. "Investment" sounds nice, like the taxpayer is getting a return on the taxes. It certainly sounds a lot better than: "You can pay to train the employees for big businesses so they can pocket better profits". -a-train

Yes, welcome. The rise of faith in freedom is quickening. Every day I encounter more and more people interested in a turn back toward small government, economic freedom, and a humble foreign policy. I think that since the death of Ezra Taft Benson, new converts to the Church have not had the principles of freedom so strikingly presented before them by our General Authorities. But that is no matter, they are finding these things as explicitly spoken of in our Standard Works as they were in any one of Marion G. Romney's, or David O. McKay's talks. What has come as usual to the benefit of freedom is the technological advancement of the freedom of speech which in our case is: the internet. The converts to the Church today will be able to access information on the Church and our leaders and history in an unprecedented fashion. The information age is no friend to despots and harborers of tyranny. More and more people both LDS and non are starting to learn about monetary theory, the inflation tax, and the fundamental problems with such enormous government intervention in the free market. They are starting to question the real advantages of the increasing efforts of government to redistribute wealth according to bureaucratic planning which is so obviously influenced by the most wealthy. They are beginning to ask from whom and to whom the wealthy wish to redistribute wealth and by what means they intended to do it. The seeming lack of difference between Republican and Democrat efforts have the country going into apathy followed by a new desire for real change. As America has not lived without the control of members of the CFR, and in fact having lived under the presidency of nothing but two CFR families (Bush and Clinton, even the Reagan era had a Bush in the Presidency) for almost three decades, people are really hoping to see something new. With Obama, there is hope for change, but we are getting a repeat of Reagan's seeming newness which amounted to yet another round of leadership from the same elites sitting in new positions at the game of musical chairs. The realization of which however is more widespread because of the internet. I have high hopes for the upcoming generation. They are faced with being born into a country that has already committed them to pay more than half of their life's earnings in taxes. Most of them have no inheritance but debt and national morality is in shambles. They are starting to look around and wonder where there is really any progress. And as they look at history and speak to their elders, they don't buy the false presentation of an America once being a nation of slaves living in poverty and working in conditions of absolute filth and mortal danger under the falsehoods of phony religion and superstition having been saved only by fabian socialism. Rather, they see a tremendous departure from despotism and the evils attached thereto followed by one attack on liberty after another which has brought us far from the path of freedom. The great reformation of American Freedom is upon us. Welcome to the Revolution. -a-train

I think the American dream is alive and well. In fact, we are just now getting back to that after a diversion to a debt-based nightmare. Hopefully America will start saving again and building the American dream. -a-train

Perhaps there are those who are saying things like 'Obama will institute youth training programs to brainwash our children.' But certainly austro-lib did not do so with this thread or his article. He isn't offering a pooh on Obama parade. He is speaking to a precise issue and quoting the Obama proposals directly put forth in public announcements from Obama's campaign.The introduction of the whole conversation of Hitler was austro-lib's quesiton: "We should support the President, no matter what? If Obama turned Hitler, we should support him?" This, of course, was not to say that Obama HAS 'turned Hitler' (meaning a fascist murdering dictator), but the poignant image is for the question of what is the definition of 'supporting our leaders' and how do we accomplish it? If any U.S. President HAS 'turned Hitler', it is George W. Bush. There are some who would say that we support our president to a point and then once arriving there, our support goes no further. The idea is that they are willing to follow leadership even beyond moral principle, but there comes a point where grey fades to a black upon which they turn on the leader. This sort of support lacks definition and is ultimately arbitrary. As austro-lib quoted, we have much better direction from Church leadership on the subject of supporting our political leaders. We stand up and support and defend the principles of truth, right, and freedom without bending to accomodate what is not right. We do so by first becoming informed and involved. We can openly support the principles and policies of good government and criticize those that are bad. It matters not who invents them or promotes them. This is the very opposite of partisanship. The approach is a principled one. We should not care about the race, gender, or party of a person seeking office, our concern is their principles, ideals, and approach toward government. All the mud washed away, this whole thread comes down to this question: Is it a good idea for the federal government to spend more tax-payer money on tuition for those designated by the federal government as worthy of such benefits? Bastiat was referenced because his famous broken window fallacy speaks directly to this issue. What it demonstrates is that there will be no sustainable net economic gain (either collectively or individually) resulting from such a program. It's only possible effect is little more than plunder and claims that the general public is in some way benefited or that the individual recipients of the tuition are indeed enhanced are unsubstantiated. In fact, the program smells like welfare for the rich as companies seeking to defer costs associated with training employees to the taxpayers are probably the ones behind these ideas. -a-train

You are a patient boy. You'll wait. You'll wait. You'll wait. You'll wait. Your time is water down a drain.-a-train

YouTube - Ron Paul questions Bernanke about world currency Does the subject of gold ever come up in discussions among the central banks about the international monetary system? "Only in terms of the sales that the central banks are planning." - Bernanke. -a-train

OK. Let me break this down real simple. If we aren't critical of the policies suggested by our President, we are NOT supporting him.Austro-lib and I are not even anywhere near the realm of Bush supporters so you don't have to pit us against him or the failed policies of his administration. Also, if you feel that it is fine for you to criticize Bush, why is it not just as well to do so of Obama? If Obama is considering a bad program and the people having discussed it and brought to his attention the potential problems of this policy, he may indeed forego the policy and America would be all the better. The point is that critical thinking of our government's policies is not the opposite of support of our leaders, but it is the essence thereof. -a-train

LOL! Jeremiah and Moses were commanded by God to give the counsels they gave.-a-train

Elph did misinterpret the quote. Happens to the best of us.-a-train

On the subject of sustaining our government, did Jeremiah fail to sustain his king (king Zedekiah) when he counseled him about his policies? How about Moses and his counsels to Pharaoh? If we, the people of a government by the people, fail to converse and offer our counsel to our leaders, are we sustaining them or failing to do so? When our leaders are advocating policies in which we see problems, are we sustaining them by NOT warning them of these dangers? How is it that we really sustain our leadership? -a-train