a-train

Constant and strong wealth creation doesn't come from bubbles or population explosions. Just ask any African businessman. In fact, a population increase can increase poverty as more consumers consume the same or less goods and services. What will always and everywhere grow the stock of wealth for any people great or small? Capital enhancement."Ewww!" Say the socialists (who changed their name to Progressive but decided that wasn't working so they now call themselves "Liberals", but they are really Neo-conservatives). "We hate capital enhancement!" They cry. "Those nasty robots destroy jobs! Just like the illegals and the Asians!" Silly socialists, don't you know where wealth comes from? You complained when tractors threw farmers out of work. You complained when Ford made cars that put carraige makers out of work. You complained when Edison made a light bulb that threw all the candle makers out of work. You complained when the paper mills shut down with the digital revolution (even after all your years of complaining about the smell). Funny how you don't want to save the jobs of all those people working in the insurance industry. Wait, I get it! You don't like ties! You want to end all white collar jobs and make everyone wear a blue shirt, that's gotta be it! I hate ties too. What does capital enhancement do? It LOWERS the unit cost of production. Widgets made by a machine cost less than those made by hand. Innovation has the same effect. Computers become less and less expensive because of these two factors. This is how the stock of wealth actually grows, innovation and capital enhancement enable us to either produce more quickly and efficiently, or avoid the need to produce certian things altogether. Why does healthcare not become cheaper with innovation and capital enhancement? IT DOES! "Wait a-train! Don't be an idiot, everyone knows that medical care costs are going up." Actually, they are not. You used to get a guy with a small fraction of the education possessed by a modern M.D. to come to your door with a small bag of drugs and instruments for a relatively low money price, now you have to wait in the lobby and pay big bucks to see a doctor who has much more education but will only refer you to a specialist who has fantastic gizmos and gadgets and costs a lot more in terms of money. The REAL costs however have fallen dramatically. Before, an infection was treated with a nice cheap hand-saw. The cost? One month's wages and your leg. Today you get drugs and/or a lazer surgery at the price of three months wages and you keep your leg. A host of costly and difficult procedures and treatments have become less laborious or have altogether been made obsolete by innovation and capital improvement. A common factory worker today can get an operation which will save his life at the cost of a few months of work which even the richest man in the world a short while ago could not purchase. What price will we put on lost lives, limbs, organs, etc.? Those were the costs of infections and diseases two generations back. What has happened is that REAL medical costs have COME DOWN to a point where people of average means can get procedures that no man could afford at one time. The same is true for cars, refrigerators, computers, everything. What has slowed this process in developed economies is government intervention. The cost of innovation has risen dramatically as government sanctioning adds heavily to that cost and the time involved in securing that sanction. If a government bureau approves a procedure or drug that is indeed beneficial, then all is well. However, if it approves one that is later found to have severe side effects or is ineffective, the repercussions could be severe for the bureau's arbiters. Because of this, the bureau will try to ere on the side of safety. Thus a treatment which might have saved lives or great costs could go unapproved for a time or forever. While advocates point out the benefit of keeping bad goods and services out of the marketplace, they avoid the subject of the costs of keeping good ones out too. A manditory national health insurance will serve to further bureaucratize the innovation and capital improvement process in health-care. Thus, it will further slow the process whereby healthcare becomes CHEAPER in REAL terms. This is not all bad news however, despite all the moronic efforts of government do-gooders, hell bent on liberty-crushing social planning and pet projects, this innovation and capital improvement process will continue to make healthcare less expensive in real terms. -a-train

Freedom isn't free.-a-train

Can you choose not to buy government health insurance at all? What about the people like myself who want to make that choice?-a-train

We are going to get national health insurance just as we got social security, medicare, medicaid, and many other non-democratic programs with their non-democratic agencies which harm some of the population to bless others, and in the end it too will be bankrupt and in need of "reform" which is also known as a "bail-out" which translates to another flogging of future generations. Why is this so? Because too many today still buy the collectivist snake water which led so many before us to serfdom. -a-train

When was the last street war fought between employees of Coke and Pepsi with AKs? I've never heard of Miller beer distributors shooting it out with the police and killing several. There is quite a difference between corruption in a major corporation and the drug wars going on in Mexico and the southern states.-a-train

If you go to Kansas City, you MUST go to Genghis Khan mongolian bbq. It will knock your socks off! -a-train

The most effective thing Mexico could do to end their troubles with the drug cartels is legalize drugs and allow real business men to ruin the cartels. -a-train

I keep hearing the advocates of National Health Insurance claim that the problem with current insurance providers is that they make a profit. They claim that 25% of insurance costs is simply profit to the insurance companies. But what I always ask them is: "Why have you been waiting all these decades for government to make a non-profit insurance company? Don't you know you could have already done that a long time ago? And, don't you know there are already such organizations out there?" The only thing government can do that such a non-profit cannot do is compel people to pay in to the company by threat of force. -a-train

Mitt was just another politician, he offered nothing new, nothing better. -a-train

I want one. I'd get the happy. -a-train

The cap and trade system now on the table is a tax on domestic carbon emmisions and a protective tariff on imports from countries not participating in any carbon emmisions tax. The gamble being played here is our Washington bureaucrats are betting the non-participants will be unable to continue the same market activity without playing, but every indication would suggest that the far east will actually grow its business as their own people afford carbon intenstive products. If that is the case, we will pay the costs of lowered emmisions, but still suffer the same global warming. I think the hope in the hearts of the advocates of cap and trade is that the western people will push for global controls, but even if they do I doubt the east will change policy. What is most befuddling is that the same environmentalists that hope to see a cap and trade system purport the peak oil notion, that oil is going to run out soon. If that is the case, doesn't cap and trade really have little meaning as the resources necessary to continue the current emission levels are soon to be in short supply? Further, with all this new taxation and regulation, is the Obama White House prepared to take away the subsidization of carbon heavy industry? Are my tax dollars going to stop supporting Conoco Phillips? By the way, COP suffered some downward pressure lately and I would recommend picking some up for the long haul. Dividends are free from social security and medicare taxes you know. -a-train -a-train

If he had real balls, he'd start selling liquor without a license. -a-train

Christians tell that story all of the time, but it was a Bible and the bullet dented the word "God". My favorite Mormon legend is the one about the temple worker who stops the session to ask someone to leave. Nobody leaves so he says "I don't want to point you out but your sin deals with chastity." After a woman leaves the session goes one and the teller always claims the spirit then finally entered. This either has happened on some regular basis, or is a widely circulated legend. -a-train

Such distinctions are simply divisive. There are Mormons and that is all. God bless them every one. -a-train

The book is great, a harsh rebuke of commercialism and a fantastic advocation of the economic triumph of the pure in heart. A good read. -a-train

Funny, the stone age is precisely the only feasible outcome of state socialism.-a-train

The idea is that you'll have the same expenditure, but get less energy. The spread goes to uncle sam's social programs which will perpetually require funding from other sources as well while the whole productive capacity of our people is diminished to pre-historic levels. But hey, unemployment will be zero when we work twelve hours for a bowl of rice!-a-train

Herbal Beer is better. -a-train

The parable teaches that a man must serve the LORD, not mammon. The man who buried his talent served mammon, not the Master. He was greedy. He would not part with a simple talent for fear of losing it. The man with five talents on the other hand, invested them without a care and was rewarded well. Our efforts are to turn our talents to the money changers, to bring an increase to our LORD. -a-train

Much of the Christian world has succumbed to the philosophy of altruism. The message of altruism is that the promotion of one's own personal interests is evil and the promotion of the interests of others is good. This shameful false doctrine has not only been widely perpetuated throughout Christianity, but even among Mormons. It is diametrically opposed to our Father in Heaven's Plan of Happiness. Many take verses out of context to support the philosophy of altruism. King Benjamin's famous saying that service to our fellow beings is only service to our God is often held out to support altruism. This however, does not make the altruist ethic any better. The Aaronic Priesthood in our ward stands at every Sunday priesthood meeting and quotes the Mission of the Aaronic Priesthood from the Aaronic Priesthood manual. The first line says: "The purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood include: Become converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ and live its teachings." Read it in the manual on page 7. Is not the first priority of every Aaronic Priest to seek his own best interests? Is not the duty of every father to put his family's interests above all others? What would we say about a husband who cared more for another woman than his wife? I recall a woman who said "When I die, I want to take up the smallest particle of heaven so that God can have all the glory." If indeed taking the very smallest portion from heaven would glorify God the most, would we not do well to simply take no portion of heaven? Would we not glorify him best by simply going to hell? God's work and glory is the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:35). Do we not see that God spends all of His time seeking His own interests? Do we not see that the immortality and eternal life of man is what glorifies God? We should seek to take all we can from God. What is better, to receive or to refuse the gifts of God? Evil and Good are not defined on the basis of "who". "Who" is the only determinant between good and evil within the philosophy of altruism. "Who" is politics. Satan turned the Plan of Our Father in Heaven from "what" to "who". That is where the trouble began. Christian altruists even hold the Saviour up as the ultimate altruist. To them, he gave up all his own personal interests and put others first. It was this, in their eyes, that made Him great. Satan on the other hand, according to the altruists, sought only his own personal interests and this is why he is so evil. But I ask you: Who has served their own personal interests best, Jesus or Satan? Indeed, Jesus served his own personal interests quite well, and Satan has damned himself for eternity. How could this be so? It was not the "who", but the "what". Satan sought his own interests, but focused only on "who". Jesus did so as well, but focused on the "what". Jesus focused on what should be done, not who it should be done to. Satan focused not on what should be done, but who it should be done to. Our own personal interests are not only good if sought, but they are part of our responsibility to God. When we stand at the judgment bar, we will not be responsible for the agency of others. We will be responsible for how well we sought our own personal freedom from sin, our own personal worthiness. Individuals must love themselves. We are commanded to do so. The great commandment which says: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" would be void if we hate ourself. Indeed, if our self love is low, then loving our neighbor as ourself would not mean much for our neighbor. The rules that should direct our affairs in terms of material wealth are no different from those of the spiritual realm. Imagine one who says they are destroying their own personal chastity through one single sexual transgression because they love their lover. That "love" makes their actions no less sin. Just the same, to destroy ones own capacity to produce is not made good simply because it feeds a family for a day. King Benjamin said it is not required that a man run faster than he has strength, that providing for the poor must be done in wisdom and in order (Mosiah 4). One cannot provide for the poor if he has ruined his own capacity to do so. Should we really seek our own material welfare? Definitely. Is it a sin? No, it is a commandment. -a-train

Yes it was, I already pointed out the explicit approval in the Old Testament. (Deut. 23:20) It says: "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury". Was not the master in the parable the LORD? Is God's "greed" any sin? Not to sound condescending, but I invite you to do so. So are you saying that we would serve God's will by burying the talents He has given us?My interpretation of this parable is not only that which is coherent with the Saviour's explanation in Matthew 25, but it is also the same which our leaders are directed to teach in the Gospel Doctrine manual (Lesson 22 in the New Testament Gospel Doctrine Manual): LDS.org - Sunday School Chapter Detail - “Inherit the Kingdom Prepared for Youâ€Â* It is also the interpretation widely taught in General Conferences since the beginning of this Church. Joseph Smith even taught that interpretation (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith page 67) : http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T2.html -a-train

That is the exact opposite of the parable. The one who burried the one talent was not the righteous, but wicked. He had not faith but fear. He selfishly sought his own personal materialism and laid aside the instructions of his lord. Because of this, he entered not into the joy of his lord.Our LORD has given us the great talent of the Gospel and our instructions are to trade it with others and bring to God the increase. The message is missionary work. It is a slothful missionary that fails to spread the gospel but keeps it hidden in a napkin or in the earth. Further, the testimony which is not used is taken away. So if you want to lose your testimony of the gospel, simply stop doing your missionary work. Otherwise, we need to stay with it. Getting back to materialism, we can take the example of the Apostles who upon being asked if they have any money simply reply: "We have sufficient for our needs." These men are massive fund managers. Imagine the asset management that our General Authorities are involved with today. Can there be any doubt that God is rich? Is there any wealth on this earth that is not His? Satan, on the other hand, has not even a physical body much less any real estate. And somehow there are still those claiming the righteous have nothing and the rich are wicked. Material wealth is not an automatic attribute issued to the temple worthy. In our probationary state, the rain falls on the head of the just and the unjust. Possessions give no indication of righteousness or the lack thereof. Our endeavors are to build Zion. Can we do so with nothing? What example do we have from the General Authorities? The Church is run as efficiently as possible in its temporal affairs. Resources are allocated toward production and increased capacity. The Elders have counseled us to avoid debt and to save. We are counseled to put our savings to production. Brigham Young taught the saints not to keep talents in napkins. He would say that if one has a piece of land sitting idle, he should rent it out for farming or whatever can be done with it. The American Dream has been redefined in recent decades. The new definition makes it synonymous with consumerism. Possessing lots of liabilities is the aim of the American Dream today. The true measuring stick by which we can tell if a thing is vanity or purposeful is profit. If owning a house makes one a profit, then it is good and is an asset. If it costs one money, it is bad and is a liability. Certainly one must have liabilities to live, we must eat and drink and be clothed and so forth. However, the accumulation of liabilities is to be avoided as much as possible. That is, of course, if our goal is prosperity. It was liabilities that kept the man in Matthew 19 from following our LORD. It is said he "had great possessions". The LORD wanted him to trade these in the marketplace for assets which would benefit the poor. The Church welfare program does not simply give donated funds to the needy. The funds are invested and increased to magnify the benefits available. This sharply contrasts against the welfare endeavors of our government which must borrow money simply to keep up with promised benefits. Many of us would do a lot better if we sold many of our possessions and used the funds to invest and to gain an increase. Our contributions to the poor could thereby be magnified. But we do not do this because we are in love with those objects. We love all that junk in the garage. We love that car. We love that house. We love all sorts of stuff. Many of us have such love for those things that we pay for them many times over in the form of debt and interest. Interest was not proscribed by Jewish Law. On the contrary, it was condoned in Deut. 23:20. Because of this, with the Muslim and Christians often denouncing interest banking, many Jewish families became the elite bankers throughout the old world. Nobody sees renting a car out as a sin. But many see renting money out as a sin. There is really no distinction. Loaning something out for a fee is a great way to allocate resources efficiently. By this, the various users of the resources split the overall costs of providing them. It doesn't matter what those resources are. Material wealth often is a subject misunderstood. I think it is because we spend too little time on it. The worst ramification of this is that many who think their activities demonstrate their non-materialist ways are in bondage to mammon. -a-train

Perhaps one could get into such justifications. But I would ask this: Do you get paid to own this car? No? Sell it and buy something that you get paid to own.One could use $950,000.00 to buy rental properties, bonds, stocks, or inventory in a business, etc. The remaining $50,000.00 could be used for a car. In fact, you could probably rent a different car every week with that $50,000.00 (almost $1000 a week for a year). The gains from the invested $950,000.00 would cover the $50,000.00 at a 5.3% yield. The goal of this philosophy is to avoid holding resources which you cannot use productively. In plain terms, if holding them does not make you money, doing so is not productive. This, believe it or not, is a philosophy of efficiency. Resources are not wasted, if they are not productive, they are quickly turned over to someone who can make them productive without care or attachment. It is that care and attachment to such material that God wants us to overcome and which causes so many to stay poor. Many see cars like this as a symbol of wealth, I would say it is only so if it is an asset. Otherwise, it shows only that the owner has more dollars than sense and he is on his way to less wealth. -a-train

A $2000 car would be vain if it was not an asset. That is the issue. Price means nothing.-a-train

The poor car. -a-train