Economic Inequality: It’s Far Worse Than You Think

[tesuji]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I believe I've debated (if you an call it that) with you before on Facebook.  Your manner, your unwillingness to make definitive statements, and now you're quoting Nibley without acknowledging apostles' statements.  Do I sound at all familiar to you?

I have no idea what you're talking about

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, tesuji said:

I have no idea what you're talking about

Don't worry. I de-friended Carb because I got tired of his left wing rants. 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Don't worry. I de-friended Carb because I got tired of his left wing rants. 

You only say that because Obama is too conservative for me.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You only say that because Obama is too conservative for me.

That and you left the Green Party for similar reasons. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That and you left the Green Party for similar reasons. 

What are you talking about?  I never left the green party.  They made me the national council president.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What are you talking about?  I never left the green party.  They made me the national council president.

LOL! That's awesome. 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, tesuji said:

I have no idea what you're talking about

Apparently.  But I think I understand where you're coming from now. I came across someone with the exact same "feel" as you about 8 years ago on Facebook.

[Backroads]

I've been thinking about the OP, and this idea has been touched upon, but I'll respond anyway.

I think our best path towards the "no poor among them" tesuji mentions is by living the gospel, not forcing any particular idealistic economic system. The family is the foundation of society. Bad homes, lousy communities... these are not the ingredients for a strong society. Angry kids in tough homes will have trouble doing their best, making money, serving society. Yes, it's harder for them because they come from a less privileged background. Not impossible, but yeah, they have a few odds stacked against them.

What will fix this is sharing the gospel, encouraging gospel living, building relationships with the people in our communities, serving one another. People who care about each other are much more likely to help each other out when life tosses out lemons.

[tesuji]

Quote

"And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind" - Moses 7:18

How far we are from this. This thread proves it to me.

Edited June 29, 2016 by tesuji

[priesthoodpower]

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

How about because wealthy people tend to be more charitable than poor people?  Who donates more money to charity rich or poor?  If you were to take all the donations of the 20% vs 10% of the income of the 80%, you'd see that more money is being donated to charity than if everyone donated 10%.  And that's assuming all the poor would donate 10% if they had more -- not true.

How about the wealthy will invest more money than spend it?  When poor people have money, they spend it and it goes down a hole.  It is consumed.  Nothing is multiplied.  When a wealthy person invests money that money produces something in the economy and wealth is multiplied, not only to the investor, but to the economy as a whole.  The CEO having that wealth actually blesses many more lives than if that wealth were given to poor people.

The great secret to wealth is that of understanding what an investment really is.  It is spending money on something that will produce rather than consume.  A poor person's mentality is to spend everything in a consumptive way.  A rich person's mentality is to buy as much as possible that will produce more wealth.  That wealth is not just his own.  By its very nature it will grow the economy.

Those who make a lot of money off of non-producing items (gambling comes to mind) aren't growing the economy.  There is nothing produced.  Nothing is multiplied.  Such wealth is a result of many losing so one can gain.  A free market system is based on the idea of production, not need, not labor.

Another perspective is the rich CEO that owns a fortune 500 company will do all their manufacturing in China to save money, how is that helping the US economy? Then that same rich CEO will hide half his money in off shore accounts. How is that helping the US economy? Yeah he may invest or spend millions in the US economy but percentage wise only 50% of the money that he controls is put back into the US economy.

A poor person that only makes 20k in a year which is barely enough for food and rent will end up putting 100% of their earnings back into the US economy. Poor peoples money does not go down a hole, who would ever believe that? if they bought cigaretts they just help the tabacco industry make money. Even if they went to a bar and gambled $5k and lost it, the winner of that $5k will still end up spending it on food or what ever.

The rich person cannot grow the economy if there is no people to consume his product or service but that doesnt matter because the Rich people now days are so greedy and gaming the system that they dont even need consumers anymore they are just producing money out of thin air (high-tech valuations) or strong arming their product/service into the market (monolopy).

And because poor people dont know how to connive like the rich do, the inequality gap will continue to grow

 

 

Edited June 29, 2016 by priesthoodpower

[Guest]

6 hours ago, tesuji said:

How far we are from this. This thread proves it to me.

You know, for a person who keeps saying they don't want to accuse or judge, you sure seem to accuse and judge a lot.

All this thread seems to say to me is that you and LP believe that income inequality is evil and the rest of us don't see it as a problem.  There have been, what, 15 people participating?  Two outliers.  That sounds pretty unified to me.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

5 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

Another perspective is the rich CEO that owns a fortune 500 company will do all their manufacturing in China to save money, how is that helping the US economy? Then that same rich CEO will hide half his money in off shore accounts. How is that helping the US economy? Yeah he may invest or spend millions in the US economy but percentage wise only 50% of the money that he controls is put back into the US economy.

That is actually a very logical and sound point.  I'm happy to address it.

1) The economy is a global economy, not just a national one.  So foreign work and foreign investments eventually come around and help the US.
2) Why is there less emphasis on keeping things in the US?  Government regulations, taxation, and legislation that requires too much of corporation, companies, and individuals.  Get the government out of the way and the US would be 10 times stronger.
3) When we have money in foreign markets, we're also helping people in other countries through real work and real products rather than through government handouts.

5 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

A poor person that only makes 20k in a year which is barely enough for food and rent will end up putting 100% of their earnings back into the US economy. Poor peoples money does not go down a hole, who would ever believe that? if they bought cigaretts they just help the tabacco industry make money. Even if they went to a bar and gambled $5k and lost it, the winner of that $5k will still end up spending it on food or what ever.

You don't seem to be incorporating the concept of the economic principle of "consumer" vs. "producer" into this statement.  Study it for a while and you'll understand why this statement is completely wrong.

5 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

The rich person cannot grow the economy if there is no people to consume his product or service but that doesnt matter because the Rich people now days are so greedy and gaming the system that they dont even need consumers anymore they are just producing money out of thin air (high-tech valuations) or strong arming their product/service into the market (monolopy).

This is partially right but mostly wrong.

1. You're assuming an awful lot about rich people.  Somewhere in the late 20th century it became a popular thing in our culture to depict all rich people as greedy and evil and all poor people as good and generous.  Remove that incorrect assumption from the equation and apply it to the statement above.  What are you left with?  An empty statement.
2. "Gaming the system" and producing money out of thin air is an evil that I'd already addressed as evil in previous posts.  Such mechanisms do not produce any new goods or services.  To gain something from society when you're not producing any goods or services through your head or your hands, is theft.  It is dishonest.  It damages the economy in the long run.
3. Real 100% monopolies do not exist without government sanction.  Any other business may have 99% of the market.  But the 1% little guy keeps the 99% honest.  They have to keep their prices low or else the little guy will kick them off their perch.

5 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

And because poor people dont know how to connive like the rich do, the inequality gap will continue to grow

There we go again "connive".  Bash the rich.  Again, take that false assumption out of the statement and what are you left with?  Do you honestly not know a single poor or middle-class person who has never been dishonest or tried to trick people out of money or a car or anything?  I just bought a car from a lower middle-class guy who assured me it was in perfect working order.  I took it to the mechanic for state inspection to work the title transfer.  We had $1500 worth of repairs just to get it to pass inspection.  You really think he was being honest?  He wasn't lying just so he could get my money?

Poor people can connive just like anyone else, including the rich.

[Guest]

WHY IS THE INCOME GAP GROWING?

First, I'm not sure it is.  But that's another story.  If we're going to assume it is (and it's not necessarily a bad thing on its own) then what is the explanation?

One word:  HOPE.

LP was wondering just how poor I was when I said I knew what it was to be broke.  I was poorer than anyone on this board has ever been.  I was dead broke.  And I've also had several episodes in life where I was left with something.  But that was still poorer than what others consider poor on this thread.  The difference was that with each episode, I always had an expectation and hope that things would get better.  I, with God's aid, would come back again.

Today's culture always harping on things like income inequality and "the Man" keeping the poor down and so on takes hope away from the poor.  Without hope the poor will always be poor.  

If you believe that you simply can't get ahead in this economy, you won't get ahead in this economy.  
If you believe "the evil rich people" are hoarding all the money so I can't have any" then you're not going to get any, and you believe that the only way you can get some is by taking it (stealing) from the rich people.  
If you believe you can only do that which your parents did and no better, then you're never going to do better than your parents.  
If you believe as a minority or a female that racism and sexism is rampant and will never allow you to get ahead, you're never going to get ahead.

I know things are tough in today's economy.  The economy is always tough.  But people continue to get ahead even in the great depression and the great recession.
I know many rich people are fairly selfish and materialistic.  But I also know many wealthy who are quite generous and could leave all their wealth if it were required of them.
I know some kids who are never going to exceed their parents' station.  But I know some kids will exceed anyone's wildest expectations.
I know racism and sexism is rampant.  But I know people who succeed in spite of it.

If you deny the possibilities, you deny hope to those struggling to get a leg up.  Give them hope not excuses and you'll see a shrinking of the wage gap.

[estradling75]

From what I have been able to tell or otherwise get from my studies... The Economy of the Celestial kingdom is very straight forward.  Everyone Labors for the Glory of God, and Everyone has sufficient for their needs...  Now a lot of people fixate on the latter part while ignoring the requirement of the first part....  But it is the first part that make the last part possible and without it, it simply can not work.

Look to the examples we have on the various attempts to establish Zion.

The city of Enoch after many wars and destruction the city is established of faithful followers.  Zion is established and the city is taken to Heaven.  And thus persevered

The Nephites... the wicked are destroyed.  Christ comes and everyone converts...  Zion is established and lasts until a "rising generation" who is not converted comes along and Zion fails.

New Testament Church.  Among the converts Zion is established and quickly run into problems of people being greedy... How long it lasts we don't know for sure but it does fail.

The Restored churches efforts... The LDS church has tried a few times and it always fails because not everyone is willing to Labor for the Glory of God.

 

If you want to establish Zion and reap the economic benefit thereof it seems to me the very first step is converting people to the idea of working for the Glory of God and then limiting such system to those who have been converted, and are willing to do so...   And that does nothing to really help those living a Terrestrial or lower standard

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

From what I have been able to tell or otherwise get from my studies... The Economy of the Celestial kingdom is very straight forward.  Everyone Labors for the Glory of God, and Everyone has sufficient for their needs... 

There is a problem with this premise.  "Economics" deals with the choices we need to make with "scarce" goods.  There is no scarcity in the Celestial Kingdom.  Therefore all our economic principles go out the window.

In the "economy" of the Celestial Kingdom, there is only one commodity that is "scarce" by the economic definition -- the souls of men.  If we focus on that, we'll begin to understand the economy of Heaven.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There is a problem with this premise.  "Economics" deals with the choices we need to make with "scarce" goods.  There is no scarcity in the Celestial Kingdom.  Therefore all our economic principles go out the window.

In the "economy" of the Celestial Kingdom, there is only one commodity that is "scarce" by the economic definition -- the souls of men.  If we focus on that, we'll begin to understand the economy of Heaven.

While true... the whole point of this thread is to whine about how we are not meeting the "Celestial Standard.."  But the simple fact is that the "Celestial Standard" can't be imposed on someone.  It has to come from within.  No amount of earthly laws, taxes or wealth "re-distribution" will bring this about.  Only conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ can make this happen

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

While true... the whole point of this thread is to whine about how we are not meeting the "Celestial Standard.."  

I'm not certain about that.  Is "being a Zion people" the same as a "Celestial Standard"?  I figured that being a Zion people must be done on earth where scarcity is an issue.  Economically, we can't meet the Celestial standard because there is no scarcity there.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Guest

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not certain about that.  Is "being a Zion people" the same as a "Celestial Standard"?  I figured that being a Zion people must be done on earth where scarcity is an issue.  Economically, we can't meet the Celestial standard because there is no scarcity there.

D&C 105

 5 And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.

 

The Scriptures say otherwise

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

D&C 105

 5 And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.

 

The Scriptures say otherwise

I interpret that to not include economic principles (at least, those dealing with scarcity) but spiritual ones.  How can it?

Edited June 29, 2016 by Guest

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I interpret that to not include economic principles, but spiritual ones.  How can it include economic principles when there is no economics in the CK?

Because Zion on earth has to deal with economic principles...  Zion on earth per the scripture must be built on Celestial principles.  It can't be built on nothing... You can semantically argue away the celestial kingdom having an economy by your defining of words, but then you have to replace it with something... Do you have a better replacement then the one I gave?

 

[Backroads]

I interpreted tesuji's original post as more spiritual/gospel centered in intent than on economics. The rest of us dragged in pure economics.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Because Zion on earth has to deal with economic principles... 

True.

Zion on earth per the scripture must be built on Celestial principles.  It can't be built on nothing...

True.

You can semantically argue away the celestial kingdom having an economy by your defining of words,

What???  Where is this coming from?  It wasn't just a semantic argument to argue away any true principles.  I was trying to specify what details we're dealing with.

but then you have to replace it with something... Do you have a better replacement then the one I gave?

CHOICE is the common thread.  Economics deals with it.  The gospel deals with it.  And we have it in the Celestial Kingdom.  What choices do we make?  How do we make them?  What principles do we base those choices on?  This is where the Celestial principles comes in.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I interpreted tesuji's original post as more spiritual/gospel centered in intent than on economics. The rest of us dragged in pure economics.

Who says economics is not a spiritual field of study?

Economics really is the science of choices dealing with scarce goods and services.  Choice is very central to the gospel.

The entire premise of the OP was that income disparity is an evil in and of itself.  I dispute that notion.  That is certainly an area where economics and gospel overlap.  And I dispute the notion it is evil based on both gospel and economic principles.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I interpreted tesuji's original post as more spiritual/gospel centered in intent than on economics. The rest of us dragged in pure economics.

I gave her a gospel answer on page 1.  There's several gospel answers littered all over this thread.  But tessuji is more sensitive to the non-gospel answers.  I think she just likes to be able to say "we are all anti-Zion because we talk about politics or economics".

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

CHOICE is the common thread.  Economics deals with it.  The gospel deals with it.  And we have it in the Celestial Kingdom.  What choices do we make?  How do we make them?  What principles do we base those choices on?  This is where the Celestial principles comes in.

And what are the Choices that a member of the Celestial Kingdom is going to make by definition of the term?.... "To labor for God"...  Clearly...  So to form Zion on Earth based on the principles of the Celestial Kingdom what must those choices be????     Again "To labor for God"