2ndRateMind

God speed, Anatess. But I did not mean I would limit my earnings to $8000.00 per year. Just that I would keep no more than that, of them. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thanks for that, MrShorty. As before, more fascinating reading. Having had a couple of days away from this thread, I am inclined to harden my attitude. Clearly, we all need enough to provide for ourselves and families. Not only for now, but in case of some fateful eventuality that threatens to beggar us, and render us dependent on the charity of others. Any reasonably self-reliant individual might reasonably object to any other minimum requirement. But my own inclination is to live off the minimum my nation allows to it's unfortunates, and confine my wealth to that level that would be apportioned to all of us, should the wealth of the world be equally distributed. This seems to me to be a justifiable level of wealth for anyone. But it's a tough call: income at around $8000.00 per year per head, net worth around $9000.00 total per head. This amount increases directly, of course, for each member of your family. Within that budget, the idea is to provide food, rent, utilities, preps for bad times, education and health, investment in one's career, etc. The only legitimate way these figures increase, is if they increase for all concerned; if the rate of benefits increase, for example, or if the wealth of the world increases. It's a regime that satisfies my own morality; I do not necessarily expect it to satisfy yours. Nevertheless, I would be interested in any similar formulas you might have arrived at, to decide what is yours, not by legal right, but morally. Best wishes, 2RM.

Dahlia, I am quite sure some rich people care about social justice. In fact, they care so much they are still rich. As for the one's that don't care, well, there is something I can respect about their honesty, even if I can't quite get my head around the idea that some of them claim to be Christians, as well. As for corruption, well, any intelligent philanthropist can find their way through that, even while we continue to campaign against it. I urge against the idea that, in pursuing some ideal, like social justice, when we come up against some challenge, like corruption, we should give up on our original objectives. If we do, the extent of our commitment in the first place is questionable. Best wishes, 2RM.

OK, so I am persuaded that a market economy is the most effective means mankind has ever discovered for generating wealth. It's just that it produces the kind of goods and services people have money to pay for, and are willing to spend on, rather than (necessarily) the kind goods and services that are good for us, and nourish each and all of us in minds, bodies and spirits. So, my not very radical proposal is merely that, before we spend on some consumer flotsam or luxury jetsam, we simply ask ourselves if we can justify that purchase as more important to us than food, or medicine, or clean water, might be to some refugee of catastrophe, climate, or war, or some victim of political, social or economic subjugation. And if we can't justify it in such terms, then we might think about how our money might be better deployed. I suspect that, if we get into this kind of habit, we will find benefits for ourselves, as well as the others we voluntarily support. But, I expect that you Latter Day Saints are going to say you already knew this, and do it routinely, anyway! Best wishes, 2RM.

And you! Best wishes, 2RM.

I'd agree with most of that, especially your last comments, Crypto. But the thing my purchase of a luxury handbag does, is express an economic demand for luxury handbags. The thing a malnourished individual's failure to buy food does, is express no economic demand for food. Thus, in the system, the effect will be to produce more luxury handbags, and less food. I am not sure, quite aside from the scandal of the inevitable starvation of the malnourished, that the signals we send to the market to produce this or that economic good or service, is necessarily the signal we want to send. In a lop-sided market, distorted by super-wealth for some and nothing for others, we do not get a market reaction that is either rational or moral. Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, Just_A_Guy, I admire your sophistry. But I come back to an earlier point I made, that in the world at any point of time, there is a finite amount of stuff, be that food, medicines or luxury handbags. And a finite amount of dollars chasing that stuff. If I choose to spend my excess of dollars on luxury handbags, and someone else is denied food or medicine due to their lack of dollars, which happens all the time in this mortal vale, then there is something wrong with the system, however attractive it might be to folk who want more and more luxury handbags. Best wishes, 2RM.

That's OK. These discursive, rambling threads may not always be the most ideal medium for deploying a long, complex chain of reasoning. Nevertheless, they are democratic, in that anyone can interject, and criticise, and that is why I use them. So, let us backtrack, somewhat. I believe the purpose and meaning of life is human spiritual development. I further believe that we achieve that by sacrifice and service to one another. By donating to, say, some charity, we simultaneously practice and display and manifest our love for our fellow creatures. In that manifestation, we make God more immanent in the world, right up to the point of sacrificing our very lives, that is, everything we are and have, for the benefit of others. There can be no greater gesture, and Christ made it on our behalf, to show us that no such sacrifice, which takes the ultimate in spiritual development, would be in vain. And that all our sacrifices, however small, would be noted and counted in our favour, come the resolution of things. So, for me, absolute poverty is the scandal of our age. For you, it might be something different. Perhaps it is global warming, or habitat destruction, or whaling, or disease reduction, or the confine of wild animals to zoos, or the dismissal of our elderly to dismal homes. Whatever it is, and whatever you do for and give to your chosen project, it all counts towards making the world a better place, towards making your salvation, and our Utopia, that bit closer. If I commend the eradication of absolute poverty to you, it is because there is clearly much to do, in this matter, and because it throws into sharp relief the nature of the sacrifices necessary. Each $1 I have is $1 someone else, who may need it more, doesn't. Hope this clarifies, a little. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thank you, for that. Fascinating reading. I certainly agree with you that 'We are still working on that' ! So, I'm wondering what do you LDS/Mormons (I never know what to call you!) make of these scriptures? Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed it has! Perhaps the world is fortunate that I will never become it's leader, with armies and secret police and stuff at my beck and call, and need to rely solely on rational argument to persuade people, for their own good, to agree a common and just agenda for all our own future's sake. As to your why? question, I am not ignoring it. Part of the answer lies in a post I have already made (I think on this thread) about the nature of 'Good Work'. The rest requires us to address this vexed question about the nature of human nature, and whether it is inherently selfish, or selfless, or, as I suppose, somewhere in between. Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, clearly The Folk Prophet, if I did not believe my ideas were true, and just, and right, and therefore Godly, and True, and Just, and Right, I would not be seeking a spiritual home, but another set of ideas. All religions, and splits off religions, would like to claim they have access to divine and perfectly objective truth. They cannot all be right, because they disagree in matters of substance and detail. And so I am more likely to be persuaded by compatibility with my conscience than theological assertions. Best wishes, 2RM.

Ha ha! Yes, Mormons. I take it that on an LDS forum, I am talking mainly to Mormons. I have allocated you a year of my time, some of which has still to elapse. Persuade me your ideas are compatible with mine, and I am yours, forever. If not, there are the Jehovah's witnesses, or the Southern Baptists, or the Roman Catholics, or the Scottish Presbyterians. But, I came to you guys first, because I like your sense of community. Best wishes, 2RM.

Sometimes, you just have to take a child's-eye view of the world, to make any moral sense of it. 'Be ye as cunning as serpents, and innocent as doves'. Matthew 18 1:3 KJV Best wishes, 2RM.

Windseeker, I hope you read this. I gathered you had tired of the thread. I wanted to say that I appreciate the wisdom in your post. If I have a big idea, though, it is this. By making the world fit for Christ to return to (hasn't He done enough for us, already?) we assure our own salvation. When He returns, let Him have nothing left to do! The spiritual stature necessary to forego our own wealth, that others might have a basically acceptable standard of living, is the same spiritual stature that will see us into heaven, and beyond. For me, Utopia, and Salvation, are not therefore, fundamentally different concepts, but depend on each other. How this notion might fit into Mormon theology, though, I have no idea. Best wishes, 2RM.

That's OK. Assuming the population of the US to be around 300,000,000, the proportion of millionaires in the population is around 0.3%. No other nation has anything like this ratio. In economic terms, by definition of the personal wealth of the wealthy, no other nation is anything like so successful. Incidentally, we are only talking about the US because that is where most of you are. However, the line this thread is taking, is, is that success a moral success, or just plainly unfair? You're quite welcome to argue either way, but I will come after you if you think excessive wealth is 'A Good Thing'. Best wishes, 2RM

I don't want your wealth. I thought I had made that clear. Don't make this personal. I just suggest that malnourished people with little or no access to clean, fresh water, or housing, or electric power, or sanitation, or primary education and healthcare, are better entitled to these basics, whatever their nationality, than millionaires are to a 'tax efficient environment'. I am sorry you don't want to discuss further. I, personally, have made considerable progress due to your contributions. Best wishes, 2RM.

If that is the way you understand my message, I have failed to communicate it properly. The world produces more than enough food for everyone to eat, and eat well. Yet, people starve. The problem is not production, but distribution, according to the lopsided way we allocate wealth. That is my central issue, not the irrelevance of some lucky few eating like royalty. Best wishes, 2RM.

Ha ha ha. We all know that the US has been living beyond it's means for decades. And all the while, still voting for lower taxes. Meanwhile, it is the nation of a million millionaires, that, to it's shame, hasn't even cured it's own poverty issues. It can, you can, we all can, I suggest, go some way towards doing that by pursuing a more egalitarian approach to wealth. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed I read your posts. And take note of them. I just don't like to criticise them, since that has led to bad feeling, in the past. Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, as a non-Mormon, I have deliberately stayed out of your debates concerning sexual moralities like gay marriage, and gay adoption, or abortion, or, indeed, child pornography, bestiality, and necrophilia. In debate, I am quite happy that you decide, as individuals and as a church, what your individual and collective positions should be. Provided you don't harm anyone. And, this seems to me to be the very essence of secular liberalism, as well as religious tolerance. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, this was a great post, Estradling75, even if a little misdirected. It really gets to the heart of the economics of this debate. Let me deal with the misdirections, first. 1) I appreciate that we are talking about dividing the total wealth of the world among it's inhabitants, rather than the income of the world, among it's inhabitants. As far as income is concerned, I had already decided to limit my income to the income of the poorest in my country, the amount available to someone, like me, who relies in benefit, which is the amount the government says is the minimum one needs to live on, in my country. My calling, I begin to realise, is to speak for the poor; I do not see how I can do that, without being poor. 2) The realisation you have given to me is that I also need to limit my net worth to the amount we would all have, if all the wealth of the world were distributed justly, fairly, and equally. I thank you for that thought, most sincerely. So, let's now deal with some of your horrors. Let's assume everyone in the world gets their $9000.00. Corporations would not cease to exist. Rather, they would be owned by many investors, instead of just a few. Governments are not gone; they simply need to tax more fairly, instead of favouring the wealthy, who invariably find ways of avoiding tax, to the detriment of the poor, who have to pay, even in allegedly progressive systems, a greater proportion of their wealth than the rich. Systems like insurance, especially health insurance, do not evaporate. Instead, they gain greater purchase, because no-one can afford to opt out. Houses are valued on the basis of their land, labour, bricks and mortar, instead of what the rich can afford to bid their prices up to. We all get to have one. The police are less necessary, because there is no economic inequality anymore, to feed economically acquisitive crime. Nevertheless, they are still available, along with the military, because truly democratic, legitimate government is enabled, uninfluenced by vested interests. More to the upside, millions, perhaps even billions, of good, resilient, self-reliant poor people, frustrated by their poverty, would have sufficient capital to launch micro-businesses, or educate themselves, or equip themselves for employment, in ways they currently can only dream about. I just love this vision of the future! Thank you for helping me generate it! Let's press this reset button! Best wishes, 2RM

Ha ha! Just to say, I am not jealous of wealth, and I do not envy wealthy people. To be sure, I sometimes dream of how pleasant it might be to sail a super yacht around the Med, or own a good-sized farm, or an Island in the Aegean, or drive a state of the art sports car, or employ a butler to keep my shoes polished and clothes pressed, and serve me at dinner. But, when I do so dream, I know these things are completely incompatible with my character, and they do not have real purchase on my life. Far from envying rich people, I pity them. It is much harder to give up privileges you are accustomed to, for merely moral reasons, than forego the stuff day-dreams are made of. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, here is the text as I read it in my translation Matthew 26 8:12 KJV To me, it seems quite clear that Jesus was speaking in a specific time and place, to a specific audience, and that his words are best understood in that context. It is quite true that his disciples, in their time, always would have the poor with them. But, that is not necessarily true of our time, and place. For the first time in history, humanity has the economic capacity to eradicate absolute poverty. The question is, do we also have the will? Best wishes, 2RM

I take the degree of economic equality within a society to be an indicator of, rather than a decider of, it's spiritual health. It may indeed be that a wealthy person forced to give up some proportion of his wealth might not benefit spiritually in that scenario quite as much as if he or she had decided, of their own volition, to give that proportion of their wealth away, and sacrifice their own consumer desires for the needs of others. Of course, much depends on their own attitude to the democratic will towards eradicating absolute poverty. But, when we are balancing wants and needs, profligacy and lives, I confess I feel no sympathy for the rich in this respect. I don't particularly care whether rich people benefit spiritually by the redistribution of wealth. It would be better if they did, and if this were all resolved voluntarily and amicably. But, this has shown no sign of happening yet, 2000 years since Christ, to the extent necessary. I weigh the very lives of the poor as more important than the ascendance of wealthy people up the spiritual ladder. If they are dead, the poor have no opportunity to gain in spiritual stature, at all. Best wishes, 2RM.

LiterateParakeet, I am glad you're outraged by injustice and abuse of power. It is nice not to feel alone. I confess though, in a peculiar way, I am not as outraged by, say, a murder of a child after a rape of that child, than I am by the death of a child through malnourishment and eventual starvation. Seems to me the former is so obviously wrong, no right-thinking person could condone it, and no right thinking person would do anything other than assist the police and government to get that kind of thing stopped. But, when it comes to death by starvation, well, it happens all the time, and people just accept it, and carry on complaining about the size of their tax burden, or blame it on corruption, or the fecklessness of the poor, or do anything other than face the fact that we rich westerners are hogging the wealth that these poor people need to stay alive, with. So, that is why I am outraged. The argument about sexual abuse has, I think, largely been won in respect of the court of public opinion. The argument about poverty has not. Best wishes, 2RM