[God's Two Options]

I'm not familiar with the scaffold objection. As for irreducible complexity, I'll grant that the theory is scientific and was very deserving of the careful consideration that it received. However, it has long been disproven through peer review.

The scaffold objection is simply the idea that redundant complexity can occur and then the redundancy can be eliminated by natural selection. Like a building with a scaffold around it, once the scaffold is no longer needed, it is removed.

If applied to Behe's mousetrap, it would mean that the mousetrap started out as something actually more complex which once it began catching mice, it got rid of the redundancy and became nothing but a mousetrap. All the extras that got thrown out acted as a scaffold in the meantime. The survival of the mechanism was thus at one time based on something else before the catching of mice became the ultimate function.

What bothers me about this objection is that it would seem to suggest devolution rather than evolution. Although I understand the scientific assertions.

John H. McDonald, of the University of Delaware, made this great page dedicated to the evolution of the mousetrap. It's great!

Darwinism seeks to explain the complex variety of life on Earth, not its origins. In that regard, it is considered a rock-solid theory. Origins theory is called abiogenesis and it is much less solid than Darwinism. There are lots of theories out there, and as far as I know there isn't yet one that is preferred over the others. If there's one thing I love about science, it's the freedom to say "I don't know" while never giving up on finding the answer. I don't blame theists for wanting to have all of the answers, but just know that there is nothing wrong with doubt and uncertainty. The world we live in is full of mysteries, and it is that fact that has led us to countless scientific discoveries. In a world based on faith, where's the adventure of seeking out the unknown?

Darwin himself believed that the first cell was brought into existance "in a warm little pond". And yes, the scientific community holds no consensus on the orgin of life. What should be understood is that no matter what the future holds for the science of this matter, the believers in God will always be able to say: "and that is just fine, it must be how God commenced the work of creation."

-a-train

[An American Company Forced Into Serving Gays]

What compelling reasons does the government have to deny the fundamental right of marriage to gays?

What compelling reason does society have to recognize two men or two women in the same manner as it does the natural unit of the human family: a man and a woman?

It is a natural human right, the right to life. It cannot come through any other means than the union of man and woman. Thus this union holds particular rights connected to the rights of man. The human family is the natural order of the human race. It is independent of government and it is the basis of society.

We are not seeking to limit the rights of persons engaged in homosexual relations in the slightest. They possess all the same rights as persons engaged in heterosexual relations. The legal instrument of marriage however, is something reserved for a man and a woman who are recognized by society as a new unit of the human family. With that, their parental rights and the rights as a family are protected.

The two men, or two women seeking this legal instrument were not endowed by nature with the capacity to be father and mother either biologically or in spirit. Thus what obligation do we have, as a society, to issue them a license as such?

-a-train

[Obama Creates Jobs? No!]

I can't tell if you're actually reading what I'm writing, or not.

Any company that can afford to pay for the ATC’s services pays for them.

Elph, I got it. I'm not taking any issue with that.

How is her specific training in the high technology equipments, which is essential to the manufaturing market, going to be less and less valuable? How is her specific market going to be saturated?

Imagine that the federal government started giving this same training, for free, to hundreds or even thousands of people. They would all be coming out of their government funded training looking for a job. What job? HER JOB!

I gave you one example of the high technologies I am talking about, the “Controlled Numeric Computer” (CNC).

Upon completion of the training program, with few exceptions, her benefits are never going to decline, and her position will always be secure. That is because there is always going to be a market for people trained in the high technologies.

This may be true for her lifetime, but there is no certainty. Take the example I gave above. A dentist does not have work in Hawaii because there are too many dentists. Why? Because of state programs that pay for dental school. There are too many graduates looking to practice dentistry.

I have clearly demonstrated there are numerous lucrative job opportunities for someone trained to run the high-tech equipments. I used the example of the “Controlled Numeric Computer,” (CNC) as an example of only one of these equipments, as the training program includes much more high-tech training.

Yes, I am not arguing with that. What we are talking about is situation wherein the federal government would start taking people off the street and giving them that training for free. This WOULD move toward saturation. How does the government know when to stop training people in a certain area? "The employers will tell them." Right? Wrong! They don't benefit in capping the subsidy, they want unlimited free workers.

Imagine if your toothbrush business were told by Uncle Sam: "We are going to give you free toothbrushes to sell until you have an overage, just let us know when you have enough." When would you say you have enough? Most of us would stack those toothbrushes to the ceiling and have our wharehouses bulging to the brim. We would drop the price of toothbrushes to keep our volumes up, after all, they are free for us!

It is the same with the subsidized training of workers. The employers have no interest in stopping the subsidy.

Finally, It would be very helpful to me if you would respond to the real-life examples I give. For example, why would a company reduce the benefits and job security of a woman who knows how to use a CNC?

Because there are a dozen fully trained and capable applicants sitting in the lobby, having all passed through a federally funded program certifying their CNC training and all of them have agreed to do her job at a lower wage and with less benefits.

-a-train

[The End of American Capitalism - Your MONEY IS REALLY WORTH NOTHING.....]

Is the point of this thread the message of the Zeitgeist movie? If I have it right, the Zeitgeist message is an atheistic and anarchistic proposal of anti-monetization and the end of private property and the replacement of all world governments with with a utopian world society with a "resource based economy" and technology for its religion. The real call to action of this film is that of rallying support for the Venus Project whose very website asks for donations and sells DVDs and books for the very monetary units they speak so ill of. The message is simply a modern face on a very old concept which we all know well: COMMUNISM.

-a-train

[Globalization is Good!]

The trouble is that 'globalization' is being re-defined as 'world-government' or the 'globalization of monopoly' and thus it is confusing folks. This plays into the hands of those seeking monopoly. The term is too vague. 'Globalization' of what? Is it the globalization of the use of peanut butter?

Globalization of free-trade is certainly what is necessary to globalize prosperity and what the maker of the movie in the OP is pushing for. I am in complete agreeance.

-a-train

[Unintended consequences]

None of us really understands the consequences of legalized SSM. How can we . . . it's too new!

You're right. It is new. And there is another question: Is SSM the action which will bring about unintended results, or is it also itself the unintended consequence of previous actions? This discussion is not beginning for the first time today. Can I say a thing about it?

The definition and examination of the human family as a socio-economic unit goes back to antiquity. Big changes in the theories regarding the matter came about with the discovery of America and the new sciences born thereafter. Frederick Engles asked a very similar question and followed much of the logic of Lewis H. Morgan.

The two believed the formation of the human family was Darwinian in its progress. Interesting for us Mormons is Morgan's basis of much of his theory in Native American studies.

Engles wrote Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State in the spring of 1884 relying heavily on Morgan's work to give logic to Communism. In it he asserts with Morgan that the first instance of the human family was "when unrestricted sexual freedom prevailed within the tribe, every woman belonging equally to every man and every man to every woman."

He then supposes with Morgan that the first seperation of the family unit was "according to generations: all the grandfathers and grandmothers within the limits of the family are all husbands and wives of one another; so are also their children, the fathers and mothers; the latter's children will form a third circle of common husbands and wives; and their children, the great-grandchildren of the first group, will form a fourth. In this form of marriage, therefore, only ancestors and progeny, and parents and children, are excluded from the rights and duties (as we should say) of marriage with one another. Brothers and sisters, male and female cousins of the first, second, and more remote degrees, are all brothers and sisters of one another, and precisely for that reason they are all husbands and wives of one another. At this stage the relationship of brother and sister also includes as a matter of course the practice of sexual intercourse with one another."

He continued that the next stage of the evolution of the human family "was the exclusion of sister and brother."

Engels goes on to demonstrate how this family unit continued to break down in to smaller and smaller groups: "The impulse given by the gens to the prevention of marriage between blood relatives extended still further. Thus among the Iroquois and most of the other Indians at the lower stage of barbarism we find that marriage is prohibited between all relatives enumerated in their system -- which includes several hundred degrees of kinship. The increasing complication of these prohibitions made group marriages more and more impossible; they were displaced by the pairing family. In this stage, one man lives with one woman, but the relationship is such that polygamy and occasional infidelity remain the right of the men, even though for economic reasons polygamy is rare, while from the woman the strictest fidelity is generally demanded throughout the time she lives with the man, and adultery on her part is cruelly punished."

Engles thus basing the modern human family on the following asked also the attached question: "We are now approaching a social revolution in which the economic foundations of monogamy as they have existed hitherto will disappear just as surely as those of its complement-prostitution. Monogamy arose from the concentration of considerable wealth in the hands of a single individuals man-and from the need to bequeath this wealth to the children of that man and of no other. For this purpose, the monogamy of the woman was required, not that of the man, so this monogamy of the woman did not in any way interfere with open or concealed polygamy on the part of the man. But by transforming by far the greater portion, at any rate, of permanent, heritable wealth – the means of production – into social property, the coming social revolution will reduce to a minimum all this anxiety about bequeathing and inheriting. Having arisen from economic causes, will monogamy then disappear when these causes disappear?"

Thus, Engels esteems the monogamous human family as nothing but the effect of the selfish desires of men who wished to greedily constrain property to themselves and their posterity.

Engels speaks further of the coming social revolution and gives his answer about the consequences of it: "In any case, therefore, the position of men will be very much altered. But the position of women, of all women, also undergoes significant change. With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the “consequences,” which today is the most essential social – moral as well as economic – factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden’s honor and a woman’s shame?"

All this said, Marx and Engels were disgusted by homosexuality. They actually believed that communism would end it. They believed it to be a degenerate form of relations brought about by capitalism.

Engels said further: "In the great majority of cases today, at least in the possessing classes, the husband is obliged to earn a living and support his family, and that in itself gives him a position of supremacy, without any need for special legal titles and privileges. Within the family he is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat. In the industrial world, the specific character of the economic oppression burdening the proletariat is visible in all its sharpness only when all special legal privileges of the capitalist class have been abolished and complete legal equality of both classes established. The democratic republic does not do away with the opposition of the two classes; on the contrary, it provides the clear field on which the fight can be fought out. And in the same way, the peculiar character of the supremacy of the husband over the wife in the modern family, the necessity of creating real social equality between them, and the way to do it, will only be seen in the clear light of day when both possess legally complete equality of rights. Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society."

Thus the communist embraces the dissolution of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society in the effort to bring the social revolution. But in truth, what comes with it is the total obliteration of the human family altogether and its replacement by the state rather than the actual realization of true monogamy as promised.

Thus most communists states made homosexuality illegal. Stalin outlawed it and required that people seeking position in the Communist party be married to a member of the opposite sex. Khrushchev liberalized Stalin's marriage laws, but took no move to advance the cause of homosexuality.

Thus, social reforms that strike at the strength of the socio-econmic unit of the human family by the state give way to unintended consequences among which is the rise of homosexuality.

Engels answers his question about monogamy disappearing like this: "One might answer, not without reason: far from disappearing, it will, on the contrary, be realized completely. For with the transformation of the means of production into social property there will disappear also wage-labor, the proletariat, and therefore the necessity for a certain – statistically calculable – number of women to surrender themselves for money. Prostitution disappears; monogamy, instead of collapsing, at last becomes a reality – also for men."

Because his estimation of the human family is skewed in the first place, his understanding of his proposals and their effects are just as incorrect.

SSM is both the effect of previous social reforms and the cause of future unrealized effects.

As the economic feasibility of the family is more and more diminished, the birth rate declines. A look at this map demonstrates the effect of economic conditions on the birth rate. It shows clearly that overall economic growth and the standard of living seem to have nothing to do with birth rates, but rather the economic need for the family. The old soviet block is the darkest red.

As children and their role in the family is diminished, the family itself is diminished. The definition of the family is changed and thus alternative familial systems arrive.

The long-term consequence of the compulsion of American society to legally consider the homosexual couple as equal to the heterosexual couple will be the further dissolution of the human family and the growth of the power of the state and society over the individual.

-a-train

[Obama Creates Jobs? No!]

I have to call you out on this one. This is clearly an ad hominem attack. If everyone who disagrees with your economic policy is a socialist and you don't listen to socialists, what you're -really- saying is that you don't listen to anybody who disagrees with you. Ad hominem attacks have no place in logical thought. The truth is that economic hardship is not a new idea and very intelligent people have disagreed with your thoughts on it. I could bring up Marx's Das Kapital in sharp relief to your ideals, since he's as far on -his- end of the spectrum as you are on yours. I could also point out that Marxist Communism has never existed in the same way that pure capitalism has never existed, so both of your arguments are purely theoretical in nature.

Hmm... If I said that Larry Hunter is a Republican whose economic theories and proposals are designed to support free-markets and individual liberty, would this be ad hominem? I agree with a great many of Mr. Keynes statements, but his advocacy of state socialism and his ideas about state influence in the markets, and certainly his ideas about Eugenics are not things I can agree with.

I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of this quote, I can say though that capitalism in my view, does indeed exist and always has. Perhaps we are working with different definitions?

Now -this- is an argument with some meat on it! Yes, you're absolutely right: Historical generations borrowed from their children's future, which has resulted in a steadily mounting debt that has essentially just been swept 'under the rug', basically ignoring the fact that future generations will have to pay that off.

Is it selfish to not want to be the generation that suffers crushing poverty due to what essentionally would amount to more than the reparations forced on Germany after World War I? I can empathize with families who would be afraid of that. Overnight, people who saved their whole lives would be thrust in to poverty. People would starve on millions of dollars(Just like what happened after the Treaty of Versailles) and the safety net of government would fall out. This time would make the 30s seem like the 20s(I am exaggerating. Excuse the hyperbole, but it would definitely be worse than the 30s).

I'll be honest, I'm not quite sure what we are talking about here. I am certainly not advocating poverty.

However, there is another answer: Get our spending under control. A slow, measured payback, with ourselves being able to entirely eliminate the national deficit, would allow this economic scenario to not happen.

This sounds a lot like what I propose we do about national debt.

I liked what you had to say about sustainable prosperity, because that's ultimately what the concern is now. We know how to have artificial prosperity(Just have another cold war. Everyone wins until the economic meltdown takes place). However, I have been pondering what our essential argument is and I think I have a way of identifying what our core disagreement is. I'm certain you recognize that in a purely libertarian view, much like now, the rich tend to stay rich(Due to the wealthy having enough money to throw around to make investment and to gift to their posterity) and the poor tend to stay poor. You view a more leftist view as hurting the middle class and poor government management results in artificially high prices in the areas government interferes in.

I do NOT believe that free-markets create a situation where the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor because of the economic advantage of the haves over the have-nots. In fact, in my view, free-markets are the best way to keep the haves on their toes and allow the have-nots to gain. The system whereby the haves keep wealth and oppress the have-nots is not natural, it comes through government. Without the government giving them their monopoly, they suffer competition and lose market share.

I recognize the argument. Without a safety net, one brought on by taxation, the poor will be desperate, but you are correct that the middle class tends to suffer when taxation is brought in and much higher taxes are required in order to do what basic human decency could accomplish.

If we are looking to employ the unemployed, the only solution is higher sales. Burger King needs to sell more Burgers in order to hire more workers. And the higher sales need to some from sustainable demand, not a one-time stimulus from government which will ultimately result in a lay-off when the sales drop again.

I started to consider what this ultimately means. In my gut, I fiercely believe that the middle class should be willing to give up some comforts to ensure that all may survive and have a shot at prospering. My lack of trust for the truly wealthy mirrors your own lack of trust in the government. However, I recognize that there are some similarities between this and the arguments in heaven and, if I'm to be intellectually honest, I have to point out the flaws in my argument.

It is not government that I lack such trust in, it is the wealthy which you also distrust. The difference is our view in the means whereby the oppressive self-interested power elitists intend to accomplish their dictatorship over the masses. They don't intend to do it by directly enslaving the people. They are doing it THROUGH the government.

They get a politician who is on their side to go before the masses and tell them all how he is going to save them from the big bad corporate elites who have all the advantage due to their wealth. He is going to take some of their wealth away and spend it on education and training for the poor. Thus educated, these people will be able to demand better positions and better pay and thus the wealthy lose some of their advantage.

The people support this idea having bought into the notion that it is good for them and bad for the mean old capitalist pigs. The pigs laugh all the way to the bank as the masses actually pay for their own training and education and work for lower wages because of this program. The few who know the difference are unable to abstain from it because it is implemented by the government.

Lenin called social democracy "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", and he was right. The Framers understood this well. They wanted a government only powerful enough to protect freedom, not so powerful that any group could rule others through it.

On the one hand, I'm arguing against self-determination. I'm saying that the government should treat us like idiots, holding our hands to prevent any possible mis-step on our part and to make the playing field -perfectly level-. I'm arguing lowest common denominator.

Do not misunderstand my position. I certainly advocate non-state efforts to help the poor. It is the self-interested efforts of the elitists packaged as a 'safety net for the poor' that I oppose and sound a warning about. What I am saying is that these efforts which are supposed to 'level the playing field' actually tilt the tables.

However, this is very serious. Given the nature of the world economy and given people's passionate stance on things, maybe we should ask the Prophet for a straight answer. It might seem silly that he would answer us directly, but given that this is clearly a difficult time, maybe we could write and ask. I can promise that I would listen to that man.

I honestly believe that our leadership can't be so outspoken as it was 20 years ago. It is simply a battle left to the members to fight. I think many (and many non-LDS folks too) have become apathetic and have decided a world government is simply inevitable. Some even welcome the idea of the tyranny of the Anti-Christ or what have you, simply in the interest of speeding to the point of the end. This is sort of the 'let's just get it all over with' approach.

You know, author Larry Abraham (who was not LDS) said, in effect, that the power elite's alignment with the state of Israel my prove their undoing. With the LDS perspective, I look at such a notion with great interest. We know that the world will be at war with them when the Saviour returns.

-a-train

[All for a sale at Walmart?]

Irresponsible of a father to invest funds to care for a lifetime of care for an infant child in anything that could lose its value or a value of 75% during the recent market decline. Market is only down 45% in the worst case of S&P 500.

What was he thinking.

Ben Raines

Unfortunately, this young father has little experience in that sort of thing. He invested the entire amount with Washington Mutual. I don't know the exact arrangement of it, but he said that his current account value is under $600,000. I know a lot of it is in life insurance. Beyond that, he told me little.

-a-train

[All for a sale at Walmart?]

"None of us are as dumb as all of us"

Absolute Democracy

-a-train

[God's Two Options]

I think the issue isn't so much ID, but the discussion of the origin of life. There is the arguments of irreducible complexity and the scaffold objection. The discussion and study of these concepts is indeed science just as much as is the discussion and study of Aristotle's ideas whether proven right or wrong.

Certainly a science teacher who puts forth assertions as scientifically validated points which are not so is in need of correction. But it would not be any sin for this teacher to present the various views of various scientists.

"What is the origin of life on earth?" is an interesting and wonderful question. Has science answered it? Darwinism is certainly deficient in getting at the actual substance of the question. Science has not effectively yet demonstrated that life on earth came through some process of raising non-living material to life. Perhaps life is uncreated and exists on countless spheres and always has and always will. To me, this would fit our scientific models better and easier than anything I can tell.

Raising non-living matter to life is less scientific and more superstitious in my view. If our observations are all we have, then all life comes from life. I see nothing to suggest that there ever was a time without life nor will there ever be.

Also, if the bringing of non-living material to life is possible, could not this process have occured in multiple simultaneous events on Earth? Does it seem more likely that under primordial earthly conditions enabling the raising of non-living material to life, that only a single living organism was spawned from non-living material rather than two or more? Common biochemistry and the genetic code of earthly organisms demonstrate common order and make up of life on earth, but how does this prove common descent exactly?

If it does NOT prove common descent, a whole new realm of possibilities and questions arise.

-a-train

[Explain the sacrament hour]

The importance of Sacrament Meeting is the sacrament. All the talks and announcements are really only side-items which pale in comparison to the importance, holiness, and sacredness of the Lord's Supper. This holy ordinance was instituted by the Saviour Himself among His disciples on the night of His prayer in Gethsemane before the day of His crucifixion.

It symbolizes the breaking of his body with the breaking of bread and the spilling of his blood with the wine or water. The partaking of these things demonstrate our acknowledgement of His Great Sacrifice and our willingness to take upon us the yoke of Jesus. It is a time of repentance and reflection not availed in any other ordinance and is to be the centerpiece in the habitual ritual worship of Christ in our lives.

We are instructed to bring our families together to sit in reflection of the Sacrifice of the Saviour and partake of His flesh and blood in this symbolic manner as often as weekly. It is a very biblical ordinance and I often read of it and the actual events of the crucifixion and prayer in Gethsemane while I partake of the Sacrament.

If we do not make this ordinance the reason for coming to the chapel on Sunday, we are going to miss out on the greatest blessings offered in so coming.

-a-train

[All for a sale at Walmart?]

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

[God's Two Options]

You raise a very good point. I suppose that's why religious beliefs are commonly referred to as worldviews. In that same vein though, is it not true that belief in God can cast doubt on truths that would otherwise be plain to us? We've seen a lot of conflict between science and religion in recent years. Some believers accept the evidence they're given and are thus able to reconcile their beliefs with scientific progress. But there are still many who are unable to do so because of scriptural teachings and prophesies.

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

[God's Two Options]

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

[Can nonmembers purchase from the cannery?]

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

-a-train

[Need LDS Perspectives on Financial Decision]

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

[Fed up of yo-yoing]

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

-a-train

[Obama Creates Jobs? No!]

Again, the day FedEx, Bayer, UPS, and every other like company in the nation, agrees to hire every single person who wants to avail him/herself of its education benefits, is the day the government can stop providing funds to help students pay for their educations.

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?

Until then, this woman is a real person, who needs real financial aid, to afford real training, to make her marketable, in the real job market, where a real company, will hire her for a real job, that ensures a real living wage, and real benefits, and real job security, now.

Elphaba

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

[We can become gods?]

I don't believe there can be other gods but God, and I don't want to learn to believe it. Just because many people tell me that it could be possible that humans could become gods, that doesn't make it the truth.

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

[An American Company Forced Into Serving Gays]

My mother is gay, she has never been tarred and feathered or taken from her home in the middle of the night and beaten. She has never been in jail. She has never been the object of any extermination order. She has not been murdered.

My father on the other hand, he was a straight heterosexual guy who went to Church and paid his tithes. He was shot in the head and killed by robbers on November 15th, 1982.

Go figure, there is no direct correlation between sexual orientation and persecution.

-a-train

[Can nonmembers purchase from the cannery?]

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

[Obama Creates Jobs? No!]

But eliminate the government funding, both in the form of financial aid, as well as the funding necessary to develop superior training programs, and far too many people have no way they can pay for the training at all.

When reality hits, and the woman realizes there is no way she can pay the $3000 tuition, that no high-tech company is going to hire her and pay for her training, and there is no financial aid to help her do the same, she realizes her options have just disappeared.

What does she do now?

Elphaba

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

[Obama Creates Jobs? No!]

I agree with much of what you said, A-train. However, I'm going to bring up economist John Maynard Keynes. He once was used as an argument that, in the long run, the market will always work itself out - Therefore, no government influence in the market is necessary. His response, when people used his arguments to this effect, was "In the long run, we're all dead."

He is also quoted as saying “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”

This is what I see when I hear these arguments. You're right, of course: The market will balance itself out in the long run(Barring outside interference). However, wars(Such as in Iraq) and artificial scarcity(For example, see Nike's guerilla marketing of some of their shoe products) will often be used to up the value of an item in a market uncontrolled. Worse, these problems can take generations to fix and often result in first one nation and then another become hit by vast poverty.

Because I don't want to live as one of those generations that are plunged in to poverty, I vote for regulation. Because I know that companies are just as untrustworthy as any other institute of man, I vote for regulation. Because I believe that man itself is not capable of fair trade until the Saviour comes, I vote for regulation.

This requires some thought: What is the right balance between the Machiavellian nature of total free market economics and the tyranny of total government control?

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.

I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. -Thomas Paine The American Crisis 1780

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

[Obama Creates Jobs? No!]

You raise a good point, A-train: Subsidizing workers training when companies desperately need them seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse: Clearly the companies should be paying for them since they're the ones benefitting the most from their involvement.

And, actually, if I were to be completely honest, the subsidized training that Doctors receive in Canada has resulted in many getting trained here only to be poached away by the US because they pay higher salaries. Doing this doesn't guarantee you get workers, which is why Canada has a dearth of Doctors despite training many.

However, the downside to this lies in my own situation: My company is paying 15000 US to relocate me because it would cost them twice as much to train someone to take over my position and they would have someone with no experience on their side. Since North America tends to have high standards of living for those with skills, people flock here if they have a skill.

So the downside of government interference is that there's no guarantee of the country having a position filled and taxes will be wasted. The downside of -not- having training is that many companies will simply import their talent, leaving the same people underpriviledged and underpaid.

You've given me something to think about, A-train. I'm going to consider this and see if there's a solution.

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

[Obama Creates Jobs? No!]

Defining investment the way Austro was suggesting eliminates numerous real life examples of investors:

Investment Bankers, Margin Buyers and Stock Brokers.

All three of them take money from some other group and put those funds somewhere else in the hopes of getting a commission on them. That's simple fact - It happens.

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.

You could argue that those people are stupid or dangerous, but that was not his argument with that. His argument was that saying it was an investment was simply wrong.

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.

Actually, A-train, as an aside, I do have a question for you: Given the rising unemployment and lack of skilled tradespeople in the US for the jobs that -do- need people, what would you suggest is an appropriate response? Do you feel the free market would fix that, or merely allow those with low expectations to live their lives the way they want to?

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