It's just not fair...

[Just_A_Guy]

 Each $1 I have is $1 someone else, who may need it more, doesn't.

 

I think the implicit understanding of the economy on which this is founded--numberless concourses of people chasing a finite amount of dollars, with some inevitably losing and starving to death--is deeply flawed.  Money is merely a medium of exchange--not wealth per se.  Wealth consists of the goods and services created/obtained/accumulated in a given economic unit.  As long as a population in general, and a workforce in particular, is growing, one person's gain need not be another person's loss. 

 

I'll give you an example:

 

If you and I are on a deserted island, and I have a piece of gold, and you have a coconut, and we trade--neither of us is "wealthier".  The island's "gross domestic product" hasn't changed--both before and after the transaction the island's GDP consisted of one piece of gold and one coconut. We have redistributed wealth (which, if voluntary, isn't a bad thing), but we have not created any.

But let's say I suddenly realize you now have that shiny piece of gold, and I want it back. How can I (legally) get it? Well, maybe I figure out a way to make a decent spear, which I'm sure you'll want badly enough that I can trade it to you for that piece of gold you now have. I make the spear, and you buy it from me.

 

Now, something interesting has happened.  Notice that there's still only one gold piece on the island.  But the island's GDP now consists of a coconut, a spear, and the piece of gold. By producing a good or a service, I have created wealth from almost nothing.  Through our transactions, I now have the gold--and the island's total money supply remains unchanged--but are you less wealthy?  No!  You have the spear, whose value you yourself decided was equal to that of the gold you gave up (whose value, in turn, you yourself decided was equal to the coconut you started out with)! 

 

The takeaway from this should be that the amount of actual cash in a system doesn't necessarily reflect the true wealth in the system, and it certainly doesn't prevent more wealth from being created either collectively or individually.  The fact that I have a dollar doesn't keep you from getting a dollar, any more than the fact that I had a hamburger at McDonald's for lunch today means that you can't get a hamburger from McDonald's for lunch tomorrow.

And the principles are the same even on a macroeconomic scale. Mere redistribution does not create wealth, on either an individual or a nationwide basis.  What we need--and what the free enterprise system (in conjunction with reasonable regulations to prevent fraud and a healthy safety net for the disabled) has provided for, better than any other system that has existed to date--is wealth creation. 

 

Yes, I'm aware that this golden-egg-laying goose we call a "free market" or "capitalism" tends to poop all over the barnyard--but until you can find me a goose that poops less or lays golden eggs more frequently, I think I'll stick with the one I have; and I'll thank you for putting down your axe and ceasing all this talk about foie gras recipes. 

Edited October 31, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[2ndRateMind]

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.

Edited October 31, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Crypto]

Your excess is not preventing the increase of wealth, in this case the increase in food wealth.
The way economics works is not as a 0 point sum, at point 0 in time it might be a finite amount as you assert, however the moment you or anyone else choose any action it is no longer at point 0. Thus your point 0 is a moving target. Trade does not happen unless both parties perceive a benefit or increase.

So taking your position for a moment that at any point in time wealth is finite, your transaction still does not decrease the wealth of another individual. Limiting your wealth to increase another's wealth is a logical flaw. Limiting your wealth for moral reasons is a different story.

The question is what is preventing the increase in food wealth when their is obviously enough food wealth to provide for all.

 

Distribution of wealth is a zero-point sum at any fixed period of time. However what I would personally assert is that this is not what is the cause of such poverty,but politics, human nature, greed, compulsion, jealousy, pride, and the desire of some to be above others is the cause.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Crypto

[2ndRateMind]

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.

Edited October 31, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Crypto]

I agree partially with you at least   

If people are staving the wrong signal is being sent.

 

(i'd love to discuss more, but I've got things to do now)

 

Have a Good Evening or Day! :)

[2ndRateMind]

And you!

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

 

Of course something's wrong.  I've already conceded that--and even provided scriptural support, to boot!  This goose poops.  But note that even here--someone's feeding his family on the money he makes from producing luxury handbags.

 

But here you are, saying we should kill the goose that's laying the golden eggs.  Okay, then--but first, show me your goose and explain to me why you can be sure it is going to produce more gold and less poop.

 

I don't think you can.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[2ndRateMind]

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.

Edited October 31, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Just_A_Guy]

Sure; we already knew this.  Do we do it routinely?  Well . . . we should  . . . :)

[dahlia]

I once had a young man on my case load who would always say, "It's not fair." I once pointed out to him that what he was really saying was, "I'm not getting my way!"  

Boy, there is nothing that will make my head spin as much as someone saying "It's not fair." Life isn't fair. Suck it up. You want something different, go do it, go be i t.

 

As to the OP's saying that the wealthy don't care about social justice (and what a grenade that is. What's social justice - taking from me to give to you?) isn't true across the board. The Gates do tremendous work in bringing vaccines to developing countries. This is in addition to bringing technology to people around the world.  I used to work for a think tank that got big grants from places like the Ford Foundation. Ford, Carnegie (do you know about the Carnegie libraries around the country?), and other started foundations or other projects to provide for the 'less fortunate' or to advance knowledge. I know that Rush Limbaugh gives millions in charity and rarely talks about it, other than the on air fundraiser for blood cancers (if I recall correctly) he holds each year (where he matches the donations). He gives to the military and their families.

 

You don't know what they wealthy do, so stop harping about what's fair and what isn't and that the wealthy don't do 'their share.' Personally, I don't think they have to do anything; it's their money. That most of them do engage in charitable acts is to their credit. 

 

btw - as to food aid for many countries - their corrupt governments take a lot of it right off the top. We, and other nations, give enough to feed the world. People are hungry because of their governments, not because there aren't efforts to feed them.

[2ndRateMind]

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.

[Blackmarch]

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.

that we still have a real long ways to go...

[MrShorty]

2RM, I realize that I have not been as involved in some of the socioeconomic debate on this thread (probably because I don't feel qualified to enter into it). If you are still interested, I saw this blog entry today and thought of your discussion here and thought you might be interested: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2014/11/consecrating-the-widows-mite/

[2ndRateMind]

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. 

Edited November 5, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

I have an easy formula... EARN as much as I can so I can help as much as I can.  I have a great and valuable talent that I can make money or gain resources out of.  Others, not so much.  Therefore, I will make as much money with my God-given talent so that I can help those whose brain/physical prowess/social and political circumstance/etc. prohibit them from gaining the resources to support themselves... because, Life is not Fair even just by virtue of natural birth and bringing forth Fairness through MONEY is futile... because, it assumes that people have the same capacity for responsibility with the resources they are put in dominion over.

 

And I always shake my head with the desire to stay poor... it says loud and clear - I don't want to help anybody.  I just want to support myself, thank you very much.

Edited November 5, 2014 by anatess

[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.

Edited November 5, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

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.

 

Sure, and what do you propose you'll do with the extra?

[2ndRateMind]

Well, there are plenty of good causes. My own needs are really quite austere. One of my favourite charities is a microfinance operation, that operates mainly in Africa, and provides small (like $100 to $500) loans to business people there, so they can expand their stocks, or to farmers, to provide seed and fertiliser.  The loans are paid back out of increased profits, and then relent to the next in line, and so on. It's a great way to make a small amount of money stretch out to do a lot of good.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited November 5, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[jerome1232]

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.

Don't get me wrong 2RM, charity is great. I *love* charities and what they do. I would prefer reliance on private charity over gorvemernt welfare and I commened you for your level of empathy.

 

I feel however that you ignore the good that simply spending money can do for an economy in the form of jobs and such to enable those who can do better for themselves. Many don't want to rely on the charity of others. Some would prefer you to buy luxury handbags so that the luxury handbag maker could make a living and feed their familes. They get the sastisfaction of earning the fruits of their labor rather than reliance on your donation to a charity which then helps them pay their bills.

 

That's what I like about economic liberty [free markets], you can choose to donate your excess to charity, another can choose to inject his excess into the economy, each doing good they way they see best.

[Guest]

So what happens to the economy when everyone is spending only what they absolutely must to survive, and sending the rest elsewhere?

[Guest]

Don't get me wrong 2RM, charity is great. I *love* charities and what they do. I would prefer reliance on private charity over gorvemernt welfare and I commened you for your level of empathy.

 

I feel however that you ignore the good that simply spending money can do for an economy in the form of jobs and such to enable those who can do better for themselves. Many don't want to rely on the charity of others. Some would prefer you to buy luxury handbags so that the luxury handbag maker could make a living and feed their familes. They get the sastisfaction of earning the fruits of their labor rather than reliance on your donation to a charity which then helps them pay their bills.

 

That's what I like about economic liberty [free markets], you can choose to donate your excess to charity, another can choose to inject his excess into the economy, each doing good they way they see best.

 

This is what I do.

 

Pam knows that I don't clean my own house.  A group of 4 "struggling with English so they don't have too many job options" legal immigrants come to my house and whip my place to shape in under 2 hours.  In exchange, I can spend the 2 hours making money using my talents so I can pay them...

 

And over the weekend, an elderly couple in my ward who are in their late 70's, retired, but with not much retirement pay from SS because they came into the US only 5 years ago, gave me 4 siopao's - one for each member of my family - to break our fast with.  It touches our hearts for this sweet couple who doesn't have much share their food with us.  This gave my husband an idea - he ordered 200 siopao's at $2.50 each (it costs about a buck to make the thing when I make it) deliverable when able.  These things freeze really well and it takes only 5 minutes to heat it up and put it in everyone's lunch boxes or serve at ward parties.

 

So yeah, we don't just give our money to faceless people (although we do contribute to the Make A Wish and St. Jude's), but we mostly do these kinds of things to help people we know who could use opportunities for labor.

 

But see, my husband and I are fortunate enough to have wiggle room in our budgets to do a lot of these things.

 

The Steve Jobs of the world with their mega-millions?  Gosh, you can't count how many people's lives have been blessed with steady income all over the world because Steve Jobs was brilliant enough and had millions of dollars to risk on an investment to make something amazing that everyone else thought was crazy...

Edited November 5, 2014 by anatess

[Backroads]

Creating and buying only necessities goes against the power of the human mind. Why should the artistry of that maker of handbags be ignored?

[FunkyTown]

To the OP:

 

I agree with you.

 

Not about forcing the haves of the worlds with the have-nots, but that there needs to be a change in the way we think. Frankly, I don't care if Bob the Builder wants to live in a mansion in Beverly Hills with six swimming pools and a hundred cars. Let 'im.

 

The problem is that things we could never have imagined twenty years ago are beginning to be reality: Catoms(Programmable atoms), the Oculus Rift, meat that has never touched a living being, improvements to automation and artificial intelligence. For ten thousand years, mankind's biggest inventions were putting ink on wooden blocks to press letters on papers and domesticating wildlife. Then, in the span of a hundred years, we went from horse and buggy for the majority to cars, we went from balloons to jet-fighters to rocket ships that took us to the moon. We went from leeches to cloning technologies. That century was huge.

 

This next century we're in will make the last centuries discoveries look tame.  We need to change as a culture. The super-wealthy who think they run the world can continue to have whatever wealth they want in the future. My dream is that we will look on those who need those things as somewhat sad and quaint, the last vestiges of a time that is now irrelevant.

 

I think that's what God wants for us: To grow past our childish ways instead of hold down other people and demand they be nicer. I think that the people with power now are more afraid of what God wants than of another tyranny designed to take from others rather than give of ourselves: The first rids them of all their power while the second is just another faction to ally with.

[2ndRateMind]

Having had a little time to digest your various posts, I am wondering if the law of consecration is an issue for Latter Day Saints, given that it - well if not directly contradicts, at least generates friction with, the neo-liberal culture of the US. This is not a dig, but a genuine enquiry. How do you guys think on this consecration thing?

It's a communitarian notion, that fits ill, to my mind, with rugged individualism of the self-reliant pioneer ideal I believe to be an important icon for you, socially, economically and politically.

 

Creating and buying only necessities goes against the power of the human mind. Why should the artistry of that maker of handbags be ignored?

 

 

I am merely proposing, dear Backroads, that until everyone gets enough to eat, fresh water to drink, clothing, shelter and warmth, sanitation, primary education and health care, then these, and not luxury handbags, should be our universal priority.

 

 

 

 

I feel however that you ignore the good that simply spending money can do for an economy in the form of jobs and such to enable those who can do better for themselves. Many don't want to rely on the charity of others. Some would prefer you to buy luxury handbags so that the luxury handbag maker could make a living and feed their familes. They get the sastisfaction of earning the fruits of their labor rather than reliance on your donation to a charity which then helps them pay their bills.

 

That's what I like about economic liberty [free markets], you can choose to donate your excess to charity, another can choose to inject his excess into the economy, each doing good they way they see best.

 

 

Uh huh. But instead of producing more and more luxury handbags, Jerome1232, workers could be feeding themselves and their families by producing for the basic needs I outlined above. That is, they could, if those basic needs were expressed as an economic demand, which requires that those whose basic needs are currently unfulfilled, have the money to spend on them. And that requires a redistribution of wealth, however accomplished.

 

 

So what happens to the economy when everyone is spending only what they absolutely must to survive, and sending the rest elsewhere?

 

 

So Eowyn, would that be the US economy? Are we talking about some worry the richest economy in the world might have that others meet their basic needs at the expense of some of this wealth? My own feeling about this (coming from another 1st world nation) is that some poor people will be made less poor, more resilient, better able to invest in their own and their children's future, and that this is wholly 'a good thing', if only because they will not be so reliant on emergency support from us in case of war, famine, pestilence and premature deaths. And who knows? Should the economies of the developing world strengthen, they may even become useful trading partners, enriching us all.

 

Nevertheless, I urge you to see this thing, not in terms of patriotic national self-interest, but with the dispassionate impartiality of a global citizen.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited November 6, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Backroads]

Except if everyone is keeping only what they need to survive, building skills and ways to generate income needed to rise from poverty becomes impossible. If a man keeps only what he needs to feed and shelter him for one day he is back at square one the next. You spoke of business loans - those could not exist under your system because that would mean more money than one needed.

We are looking at this from a global perspective. Taking away the ability to create wealth and livelihood ruins the economy, be it the United States, United kingdom, Narnia, or a starving island. And that helps no one.