Sign in to follow this  
Guest Scott

Doesn't sit well with me

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
13 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Depends on what your organization does, and what the hurricane relief agency does. 

I'm not sure about that. If you claim to be a Christian church and demand money from your believers than yes, you owe it to them and to Christ to spend a large portion of said donated money on charities. When atheists/non members ask "Well you spend millions on church buildings but nothing on homeless shelters and hospitals" the LAST thing you want to say is "Yeah you are right." 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If you claim to be a Christian church and demand money from your believers than yes, you owe it to them and to Christ to spend a large portion of said donated money on charities. 

I agree with your overall sentiment, with one correction: You owe it to Christ to help the poor a lot.  The more you look, the more you might understand sometimes that can be quite different than spending it on charities.  And help can often look a lot different than just spending money.

Also, there are almost as many different ideas about how to best "help the poor", as there are poor folks.  Improving economic conditions in an area, helps the poor by bringing in jobs and raising the tide which raise all boats and all that.  Using fast offerings solely as a short-term safety net helps folks in extremes, and also supports self-reliance.  Giving a dollar to the guy with a cardboard sign helps him get his daily fix - he sure considers that help.  

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I agree with your overall sentiment, with one correction: You owe it to Christ to help the poor a lot.  The more you look, the more you might understand sometimes that can be quite different than spending it on charities.  And help can often look a lot different than just spending money.

Also, there are almost as many different ideas about how to best "help the poor", as there are poor folks.  Improving economic conditions in an area, helps the poor by bringing in jobs and raising the tide which raise all boats and all that.  Using fast offerings solely as a short-term safety net helps folks in extremes, and also supports self-reliance.  Giving a dollar to the guy with a cardboard sign helps him get his daily fix - he sure considers that help.  

I see where you are coming from 100%. I do still see it differently though. Remember that appearances matter. So when this reporter interviews him, if he pulled out a picture of a hospital in rural Africa that helps AIDS patients, it would make the private jet questions much easier to respond to. 

Reporter "So what about your private jet?"
Televagelist "Sure, I have one. But let's talk about the hospital my church built in the poorest section of Brazil. Here is a picture."

See what I mean?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
13 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Indeed.  For starters, here's our website:  https://www.ldscharities.org/

I wasn't talking about our church, for the record. I have full confidence we give a proper amount to charities.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mores said:

Trying the red herring.  Well, let's make sure we know what we're talking about.

As a matter of commerce, no it is none of our business.  As a matter of morality, it is "society's" business.

I did not think my example was really a red herring but as I stated "a very extreme" example.  Our laws very carefully and clearly define legal business transactions.  A term you may be familiar with is "quid pro quo".  Very often this terms relates to business deals (purchases and exchanges) where part of the transaction may not be entirely transparent.  Having myself to endure a rather intrusive IRS audit - I know for a fact stating a matter of commerce to be none of anyone else's business is not at all accurate or lawful.  One of the most powerful agencies in our federal government is the Federal Trade Commission whose whole and single purpose is to oversee matters of commerce that you are claiming are none of the government's or anyone else's business.  Part of the act that created the FTC goes beyond what may be thought of as legal but ensures that anyone conducting business treat all parties "fairly" - which also means you cannot discriminate based on certain demographic factors.

It may not be a big deal concerning penny candy but the FTC is very important in dealing with organized crime and illegal drug distribution.  Also you cannot purchase or even build from scratch an automobile and then licence to drive it in the USA without providing all transactional information in obtaining the vehicle (similar to building a house) - misrepresenting (hiding - deliberately or unintentionally, some part of the acquisition) is a crime.  And as I said in reference to quid pro quo - it is not just about the amount of money changing hands but can involve "favors" or promises.

Are you talking about something else?  Something that I have not considering or I am missed?  Or perhaps something very different and I am completely "off base" concerning?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
Just now, Traveler said:

I did not think my example was really a red herring but as I stated "a very extreme" example. 

Again I'm finding myself having to define terms and I'm wondering if it is worth it.  But as I believe you to be sincere, I'm going to try again.

It is a "red herring" because you're bringing up a point that diverts attention away from the real issue by pointing at something that seems really important but doesn't really change or inform the issue at hand.  The extreme example was nothing more than an attempt to poke at emotions and get us to think of something other than the core issue.

The core issue is whether a business transaction that happened with someone else is our business or not.  And the fact is that in matters of commerce, other people's business is other people's business.  When you invoke a CRIME into the commerce, that is no longer commerce.  It is a CRIME.  And you're trying to conflate the two to make a point that doesn't change the argument.

Just now, Traveler said:

Our laws very carefully and clearly define legal business transactions. 

EXACTLY.

Just now, Traveler said:

A term you may be familiar with is "quid pro quo".  Very often this terms relates to business deals (purchases and exchanges) where part of the transaction may not be entirely transparent.  ...

Now you're actually making MY point.

Again, you're talking about what many would consider a CRIME, not commerce.  It always includes coercion or the use of force.  Murder would also require the use of force or coercion.  Thus it is a CRIME.  Just commerce is always with common consent.

As long as there is no coercion involved it really is no business of anyone else's.  Commerce by common consent.  No coercion, no crime.

Just now, Traveler said:

Are you talking about something else?  Something that I have not considering or I am missed?  Or perhaps something very different and I am completely "off base" concerning?

I hope my explanation of coercion vs common consent answers that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mores said:

Again I'm finding myself having to define terms and I'm wondering if it is worth it.  But as I believe you to be sincere, I'm going to try again.

It is a "red herring" because you're bringing up a point that diverts attention away from the real issue by pointing at something that seems really important but doesn't really change or inform the issue at hand.  The extreme example was nothing more than an attempt to poke at emotions and get us to think of something other than the core issue.

The core issue is whether a business transaction that happened with someone else is our business or not.  And the fact is that in matters of commerce, other people's business is other people's business.  When you invoke a CRIME into the commerce, that is no longer commerce.  It is a CRIME.  And you're trying to conflate the two to make a point that doesn't change the argument.

EXACTLY.

Now you're actually making MY point.

Again, you're talking about what many would consider a CRIME, not commerce.  It always includes coercion or the use of force.  Murder would also require the use of force or coercion.  Thus it is a CRIME.  Just commerce is always with common consent.

As long as there is no coercion involved it really is no business of anyone else's.  Commerce by common consent.  No coercion, no crime.

I hope my explanation of coercion vs common consent answers that.

I think I am understanding our differences - I think we are indeed talking about two possibly different principles concerning what is right and wrong.  I will try to take this a different direction using symbolism of light (symbolizing transparency and openness) and darkness ( symbolizing secret and no one's business or concern).  For me and my understanding of things - phrases like "It is no one else's business" is a red flag.  To demonstrate my thinking let us turn to John 3:20-21 and consider principles taught by Jesus:

"For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wroght in G-d."

 

If the teachings of Jesus are true - why would anyone say or think something (anything) is not anyone else's business?  I think I know an exception and why - but it is not really and completely an exception and does follow if one understand the "eternal" scheme of things.

 

The Traveler

 

Added - it is not at all what a person does or does not do as much as it is the effort to hide or cover what they are doing - It is the act of cover that I am suggesting is evil - perhaps more than what was done - even if what was done is considered or argued to be good.  

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MormonGator said:

So when this reporter interviews him, if he pulled out a picture of a hospital in rural Africa... "But let's talk about the hospital my church built in the poorest section of Brazil. Here is a picture."

And then said pastor (or whatever religious figure he is) can be roasted for his geographic illiteracy instead!

Edited to add: Just messing around. I have high regards for @MormonGator.

Edited by SilentOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
18 hours ago, Traveler said:

I think I am understanding our differences - I think we are indeed talking about two possibly different principles concerning what is right and wrong.  I will try to take this a different direction using symbolism of light (symbolizing transparency and openness) and darkness ( symbolizing secret and no one's business or concern).  For me and my understanding of things - phrases like "It is no one else's business" is a red flag.  To demonstrate my thinking let us turn to John 3:20-21 and consider principles taught by Jesus:

"For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wroght in G-d."

 

If the teachings of Jesus are true - why would anyone say or think something (anything) is not anyone else's business?  I think I know an exception and why - but it is not really and completely an exception and does follow if one understand the "eternal" scheme of things.

 

The Traveler

 

Added - it is not at all what a person does or does not do as much as it is the effort to hide or cover what they are doing - It is the act of cover that I am suggesting is evil - perhaps more than what was done - even if what was done is considered or argued to be good.  

I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from and how it fits in with what I'm trying to say.  Here's the fundamental difference we're having.

You are conflating three issues.  I tend to separate them.

  • Legal issues about crime and punishment
  • What is morally right in the eternal scheme
  • Proper and free commerce.

When considering commerce, I'm always reminded of the scriptures in both the D&C and the Bible regarding the commandment to "make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness."

I hope we've already covered all the differences between what is morally acceptable/unacceptable vs. what should be made punishable by law (which usually has the ultimate potential to execute the guilty party for even minor offenses).

While it is rare that any of these is completely devoid of overlap, I separate them when and how I can.  And the example I offered was that in a transaction, I agree to be honest in MY dealings with the person with whom I'm dealing.  And I demand that they are honest with me.  What he does with someone else (as a matter of commerce) really is none of my business.  I may still have concerns morally or legally regarding the situation.  But we're talking commerce.

If you're unable to compartmentalize or make efforts to separate them, then you'll never be able to understand me.  And we may as well call it quits on this exchange.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
19 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I'm not sure about that. If you claim to be a Christian church and demand money from your believers than yes, you owe it to them and to Christ to spend a large portion of said donated money on charities. When atheists/non members ask "Well you spend millions on church buildings but nothing on homeless shelters and hospitals" the LAST thing you want to say is "Yeah you are right." 

If the pastor somehow misrepresented where the money was going, then there would be a problem.  That's just lying and can be convicted of fraud.

But a pastor that lives in luxury is not an isolated phenomenon.  We read of priestcraft in the BoM.  So, yeah.  It happens.  And we don't believe in it.  But if the world believes it is ok, then they believe it is ok.

I doubt that the parishoners look at this guy's lavish lifestyle and think that he got his money from anything other than their donations.  As long as it is free will offering, then I don't see a problem with that from a legal or societal standpoint.  I only see a problem with that from a theological standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mores said:

I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from and how it fits in with what I'm trying to say.  Here's the fundamental difference we're having.

You are conflating three issues.  I tend to separate them.

  • Legal issues about crime and punishment
  • What is morally right in the eternal scheme
  • Proper and free commerce.

When considering commerce, I'm always reminded of the scriptures in both the D&C and the Bible regarding the commandment to "make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness."

I hope we've already covered all the differences between what is morally acceptable/unacceptable vs. what should be made punishable by law (which usually has the ultimate potential to execute the guilty party for even minor offenses).

While it is rare that any of these is completely devoid of overlap, I separate them when and how I can.  And the example I offered was that in a transaction, I agree to be honest in MY dealings with the person with whom I'm dealing.  And I demand that they are honest with me.  What he does with someone else (as a matter of commerce) really is none of my business.  I may still have concerns morally or legally regarding the situation.  But we're talking commerce.

If you're unable to compartmentalize or make efforts to separate them, then you'll never be able to understand me.  And we may as well call it quits on this exchange.

You are correct - we see things very differently.  

. As for crime and punishment - I do not believe in punishment.  Rather I believe in discipline, responsibility and consequences.   I would say that I am greatly influenced by Frederic Bastiat and his pamphlet "The Law". (Which is required reading at the J Reuben Clark Law School - at BYU)  If you like you can purchase his publication at Amazon for under $5.00.

. I do not see any difference between morality in the short term (here and now) and in the eternal scheme of things.  From time to time I may reference directly or indirectly eternal perspective in reference to morality - but I see no reason to compartmentalize to two concepts.   For example I believe we all live and behave to a set of rules that define our individual morality.  And I believe that if and when someone decides (for whatever reason) to alter their personal rules of morality - that become their new rule.  No one ever breaks their own personal moral rules - ever.  I am interested in how others have decided their own moral rules - especially the last time they changed a rule and why.  I am, however, very concerned with that person that wants to keep their moral rules secret and away from any scrutiny - especially if they are trying to hide such things from themselves or G-d.    I do support and encourage (myself and others) to often take inventory of their moral rules and why they have have chosen them.  I believe that by being open and willing to discuss one's personal moral rules and why is critical to becoming a Saint of G-d.

. Proper and free commerce.  I am not sure if we disagree or not - I am seeking clarification and I want to be sure.  I believe "proper and free" includes the element of "openness".  I am confused when you imply that openness is completely compartmentalized and is not, in any way, associated with "proper and free".  I believe that openness is a critical and necessary element for capitalism to succeed in a free (and open) society.  I believe one's word is their bond, contract and covenant and if they are not open (especially with their word) - I do not know how or why anyone would trust them in a commercial transaction.   I have learned by personal and sad experience that trust is more important to me than money.  That trying to have commerce void of trust is ALWAYS more expensive than putting trust before price.    In this matter - if I could be so blunt; I would compare the importance of trust in commerce - to the importance of trust in marriage.  If someone was dating someone and considering marriage and their partner told them, "How I treat others of the opposite sex is none of your business".  That is definitely a deal breaker that I value in such high regards - I would not and do not keep my personal moral code of such a thing secret but proudly and openly announce it to the world and recommend for others.  I have attempted to be clear on this subject and as open as possible.  I am not so concerned that you may disagree as I am why you believe something must be kept secret.  Why do you think there should be secrets in any relationship of trust (contract)?  Would you share a personal experience? or give an example?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

  I believe "proper and free" includes the element of "openness".  I am confused when you imply that openness is completely compartmentalized and is not, in any way, associated with "proper and free".  I believe that openness is a critical and necessary element for capitalism to succeed in a free (and open) society.

You want ALL financial information to be readily available for any transaction that ever occurs?  How long would the line at the supermarket be if we did that?  Buying a candy bar would take an hour or more.  Is that what you really want?

And for the purposes of propriety, it is not your business how much it costs me to provide you a product because that means I need to tell you how much all my employees make and how much I make.  It's none of your business how much I make.  Do you go around asking every person you deal with what their salary is?  I was always taught that was considered rude and intrusive.  Yet, that is exactly what you're proposing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mores said:

You want ALL financial information to be readily available for any transaction that ever occurs?  How long would the line at the supermarket be if we did that?  Buying a candy bar would take an hour or more.  Is that what you really want?

And for the purposes of propriety, it is not your business how much it costs me to provide you a product because that means I need to tell you how much all my employees make and how much I make.  It's none of your business how much I make.  Do you go around asking every person you deal with what their salary is?  I was always taught that was considered rude and intrusive.  Yet, that is exactly what you're proposing.

In an ideal world I believe that costs to provide a product (including taxes) should be included with products in the same manner ingredients are labeled.  I believe governments should also disclose their costs.  For example, I believe citizens should know that Social Security monies are used to finance secret military "Black Ops" and that there are no congressional oversights.  Now that you know this little fact - wouldn't you like to know how much of your future Social Security was spent under the previous 4 or 5 presidents?  Especially with an election coming up?  I also believe all personal tax filing should be public.  I believe anyone should be able to look up personal tax information.

I also believe operational costs of a business should be a matter of public record (and I believe it should be public record who accesses the records).  Yes I believe I should be able to look up a business and view its financial records (especially if I am doing business with them or planning to invest in their company) - and it should be public record what the owners and operators are making (not just money amounts but services and benefits they receive).  I do not understand why such things should be a secret.  I believe business should make payroll information available to the public that indicates their employee skills and pay levels.  As an employee of a company I believe I should know what skill levels are  recognized and compensated and I would like to know how my skills are evaluated.  This information is not for purposes of criminal investigations - but I would love it so I could better determine if I want to do business with them, work for them or invest in their company - or avoid them.

A side note here - my father once said to me that one of two things a person that thinks they are honest will look you straight in the eye and lie about is how well they spend (budget) their own money.  It is my understanding that the stress of this falsehood is involved, in some degree or another, in almost all divorces.   But I do realize I am somewhat different than most folks - my beloved wife tells me so every day.  I do not know how much I make - I seldom (never) think on such things.  Often in reviews I was told what I make - and I would quickly forget.  My wife handles that - she likes to worry about such things.  I do not know what I currently make under my current contract.  If someone asks for my services I will say $100 per hour.  But currently I have no time  or interest for any additional contracts.  In case you are wondering I am a consultant and the only employee of my consulting company.  I have had some other employees in the past but recommend they work for themselves and if a customer needs more help - I will recommend them.

I also believe all things will be made known in the next life.  From my understanding of scripture - I do believe G-d and his servants will require a full and opening accounting of what we did with money and a great many other things.  I believe the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth thing will come exclusively from those that think and believe such stuff is none of anybody else's business.   Part of the reason I post is because I believe these things to be so and as a warning to those that think such things are no one's business - to consider another possibility prophetically proclaimed in the scripture they claim to believe.  If you believe scripture teaches otherwise - I would be glad for you to point it out to me.

If you disagree I am most curious why.  If all things will be known eventually anyway - why be concerned if such stuff gets out now?  My thinking is - that everybody would be better off preparing to live and be so as soon as possible - which is right now.   I very much believe we should sit in counsel with those we trust and avoid secrets.  I believe undisclosed secrets will likely come out at a most inconvenient time and hurt trust.

And thank you very much - not just for the discussion so far but your willingness and kindness to walk this path with me.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traveler - you bill $100/hour for consulting.  Consulting is a very low overhead business.  Why would you charge that?  Are you disclosing your costs to your clients?  Wouldn't it be better if you only charged $40/hour?  Maybe you would have more customers / contracts.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SilentOne said:
22 hours ago, MormonGator said:

So when this reporter interviews him, if he pulled out a picture of a hospital in rural Africa... "But let's talk about the hospital my church built in the poorest section of Brazil. Here is a picture."

And then said pastor (or whatever religious figure he is) can be roasted for his geographic illiteracy instead!

No, I'm pretty sure Africa is a country in Brazil. There're Brazilians of 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I would say that I am greatly influenced by Frederic Bastiat and his pamphlet "The Law". (Which is required reading at the J Reuben Clark Law School - at BYU)  If you like you can purchase his publication at Amazon for under $5.00.

Or you can read it for free here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
15 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, I'm pretty sure Africa is a country in Brazil. There're Brazilians of 'em.

 It's actually in Asia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

In an ideal world I believe that costs to provide a product (including taxes) should be included with products in the same manner ingredients are labeled.

 

As I indicated earlier, to do so would be mathematically impossible.  Do you not understand mathematical realities?  I thought you were a robotics engineer or something.  Do you not understand the cyclical nature of the economy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Traveler said:

In an ideal world I believe that costs to provide a product (including taxes) should be included with products in the same manner ingredients are labeled.  

This is dumb.  The cost to provide/produce a product has ZERO relationship to its price.  Basic economics in a capitalist economy show Price as a factor of Demand versus Supply.

Now, I used to work for grocery chain.  The projected cost for the chain to change the labeling of their produce to provide just ONE DATA - Country of Origin - was MILLIONS of dollars.  Of course, they buy their bananas from whoever meets their quality standard for bananas for the cheapest price - this changes almost every day and so you may have a bunch of bananas from one country in the same bin as bananas from a different country.  Even the 3rd party bananas (e.g. Chiquita) can have Chiquita bananas from different countries.  Having each grocery store in the chain keep up with the Country of Origin JUST FOR BANANAS is a nightmare.  Now multiply that with every single produce the grocery store carries.  And that's part of the reason your produce has gone up in price.

So now you're going to magnify that by a gazillion by forcing companies to track and change labels for every single ingredient in their inventory everytime the cost of any ingredient changes.  You're basically inflating the cost of producing something by a magnitude of gazillions for no other reason than... I don't even know what the reason is.  People who think they should have the power to control how much money private businesses make are Fascists.

 

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe governments should also disclose their costs.  For example, I believe citizens should know that Social Security monies are used to finance secret military "Black Ops" and that there are no congressional oversights.  Now that you know this little fact - wouldn't you like to know how much of your future Social Security was spent under the previous 4 or 5 presidents?  Especially with an election coming up?  I also believe all personal tax filing should be public.  I believe anyone should be able to look up personal tax information.

Now, this one is different.  This is what is called Audits and it is already a necessary function of government.  Transparency of this information would be good since the citizenry is what funds these activities and that funding is mandatory - something entirely different from the product of a business that you are not required to buy.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 2:42 PM, MormonGator said:

I'm not sure about that. If you claim to be a Christian church and demand money from your believers than yes, you owe it to them and to Christ to spend a large portion of said donated money on charities. When atheists/non members ask "Well you spend millions on church buildings but nothing on homeless shelters and hospitals" the LAST thing you want to say is "Yeah you are right." 

I disagree. If you are running a church (Christian or otherwise) your number one mission is to further God's work - however your faith tradition defines that. I'm aware that many secularists (and spiritual-but-not-religious) who confuse "church" with "charity" get rubbed the wrong way over it, but I chalk that up to an inability to see another's perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2019 at 2:26 PM, anatess2 said:

This is dumb.  The cost to provide/produce a product has ZERO relationship to its price.  Basic economics in a capitalist economy show Price as a factor of Demand versus Supply.

Now, I used to work for grocery chain.  The projected cost for the chain to change the labeling of their produce to provide just ONE DATA - Country of Origin - was MILLIONS of dollars.  Of course, they buy their bananas from whoever meets their quality standard for bananas for the cheapest price - this changes almost every day and so you may have a bunch of bananas from one country in the same bin as bananas from a different country.  Even the 3rd party bananas (e.g. Chiquita) can have Chiquita bananas from different countries.  Having each grocery store in the chain keep up with the Country of Origin JUST FOR BANANAS is a nightmare.  Now multiply that with every single produce the grocery store carries.  And that's part of the reason your produce has gone up in price.

So now you're going to magnify that by a gazillion by forcing companies to track and change labels for every single ingredient in their inventory everytime the cost of any ingredient changes.  You're basically inflating the cost of producing something by a magnitude of gazillions for no other reason than... I don't even know what the reason is.  People who think they should have the power to control how much money private businesses make are Fascists.

 

Now, this one is different.  This is what is called Audits and it is already a necessary function of government.  Transparency of this information would be good since the citizenry is what funds these activities and that funding is mandatory - something entirely different from the product of a business that you are not required to buy.

I thought to respond to your post.  As a software Eng. and acquainted with database operations - I am sure you understand that anything recorded can be recalled when one know the relational "keys" to the recorded data.  I have work with some companies and know that they track their inventory carefully.  Not for customers but for their own purposes; especially if a recall of product is necessary.  Keebler carefully tracks all the ingredients in their products.  They know where each chocolate chip in every cookie came from – even which pallet, truck, provider and date it was shipped.  They also track in batches where their products down to a box of cookies are shipped and how it was distributed.  I know because I help design their system. 

Likewise with Nestles that has over 2,000 brands of food products.   Also Sara Lee tracks their products – including their produce in their processing facilities.  I also designed a system for IBP Meats – but that company has been sold a couple of times and I do not know what they are called now.  The IBP system maintained which bovine produced each product and they could trace it through the stockyards, feeding lots and trucking to the very farm it came from.  They knew exactly how each bovine was graded by the government and tracked quality by individual cow down to the leather sold to auto manufacturing and upholstery.  We even tracked raw product shipped to cosmetics and pharmaceutical companies.

All this was done not for customer use but so any drop in quality could be mitigated for maximizing profits.   The real problem is that our government agencies have diligently worked for decades to developing and hiding taxing systems.  Whatever anyone in the USA purchases is already taxed between 40% to 60% on average.

What every citizen should know is that every penny taken out of the economy as taxes by the government; takes that economy away from capitalism and free markets.  We do not have a capitalistic economy in the USA – and though it is not actually socialistic or communistic – it is not even close to free and open capitalism because of heavy taxation.   Also this kind of taxation is extremely regressive and places the greatest burden on the poorer classes.  It is a social economic political trap that hurts the poor the most, the middle class next and favors the wealthy class the most.  But worse of all it; breeds corruption – especially in government bureaucracies and elected officials.  And not least of all it is deceptive - leaving many uneducated how intrusive and oppressive the government actually is towards its own citizens.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2019 at 1:26 PM, anatess2 said:

This is dumb.  The cost to provide/produce a product has ZERO relationship to its price.

This is simply not true. You will never, ever see 1-troy-ounce 24k gold bars sold for ten cents apiece, except maybe in a bizarre one-off. If a good or service is to be offered on an ongoing basis, the compensation must be no lower than the cost of production. Sure, you can raid a stash and sell off the contents at 1% of the cost, but that's not an ongoing service plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2019 at 10:20 AM, anatess2 said:

It wasn't clear because you said, "high-end watches" which plays more to vanity than   Not all Pilot's Watches are "high-end" and most pilots buy "high-end" Brietlings not because they're "high-end" but because they are functional to a pilot.

“High-end” doesn’t necessarily refer to vanity over function, but I can see how one might interpret it that way.  In the context of my post, I thought it was implied that pilots would purchase them for reasons of functionality. However, what I actually said was that it is common for pilots to buy “high-end” watches.  Brietling would be considered a “high-end” watch just as Rolex and Omega are considered “high-end.” Pilots also use Rolex and Omega. Ergo, it is common for pilots to use “high-end” watches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this