The Morality of Wealth

[Ahab]

And how do you propose to "getting rid of poverty"?

Let's talk about what is actually possible with the wealth of this world, shall we?

Right now, there is enough wealth in this world for all who are "poor" to become at least "middle-class" if the "rich" would just share what they have, equally.

Crunch the numbers, and you'll see that is true.

If every person who was "rich" gave to the "poor" with the goal of giving until the poor had as much as everyone else, we would now have a world filled with the "middle-class" with there being no "rich" and no "poor" among us.

It's really possible, and all that it takes is for the rich to do as they should while everyone strives to keep everything in balance.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Who is this "we" you speak of?

When our Lord comes back, he'll set things straight, and my goal is to be among the 'we" of his people.

I am talking about the real world today. Not what it will be like when Jesus comes back. That is a significant addition to the puzzle right there.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let's talk about what is actually possible with the wealth of this world, shall we?

Right now, there is enough wealth in this world for all who are "poor" to become at least "middle-class" if the "rich" would just share what they have, equally.

Crunch the numbers, and you'll see that is true.

If every person who was "rich" gave to the "poor" with the goal of giving until the poor had as much as everyone else, we would now have a world filled with the "middle-class" with there being no "rich" and no "poor" among us.

It's really possible, and all that it takes is for the rich to do as they should while everyone strives to keep everything in balance.

Simply spreading the wealth will not solve the problem. I am sorry you can't see this. The issue is so complex (In today's world) that it really needs a live venue to be discussed. Thanks for taking a stab at it.

[Ahab]

Simply spreading the wealth will not solve the problem. I am sorry you can't see this. The issue is so complex (In today's world) that it really needs a live venue to be discussed. Thanks for taking a stab at it.

I once felt the same way, about the "live venue" thing, but now that I understand what it would take for it to work it's actually very easy to "discuss" it in a blurb.

... and I've already said enough for you to be able to understand it.

[elguanteloko]

Driving home from lunch today I was listening to NPR. They were interviewing Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont and an avowed socialist. Among his various observations he asked if it was "moral" (his word) for 1% of the population to "earn" (again, his word) 23% of the wealth.

That got me wondering why it would be immoral if, indeed, those people (and I am most certainly not one of them) earned the money they have. Doesn't that fact that it was "earned" mean that it is rightly theirs?

So, is that why it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? Because being rich is inherently immoral?

I guess I don't like Mr. Sanders view that money fairly earned can be tainted by the simple fact of its amount. Where is that cut-off? Who gets to determine when I have too much money and when I become immoral because of it?

C.I.

So, since you are posting this on a mormon forum I'll assume you are alluding Christ's standards/teachings when talking about 'morality'; plus, you mention the "camel through the eye of a needle" thing. Here's my take:

Christ's standard seems to be that if you are rich then you can't go to heaven. Simple. Why not? Because being rich entails that you are not following Christ's word in giving what you can to help the poor. You MAY be helping the poor but not to Christ's standard.

Now, being rich (the type of rich Christ didn't like) and having an enormous income are NOT the same thing; the crux is how you use your income (and with what intention, clearly, but that's another issue). You can have an annual income of $4,000,000 and give the vast majority of it to help the extremely needy (those that are on the verge of starvation, for example) while only taking what you need to survive without risking anything of comparable moral value (i.e. you are not placing yourself in serious risk of starvation or seriously risking your own security). Why is this type of person with such an enourmous income not the type of rich Christ didn't like? Because he gives what he has to alleviate the need of those that really have it. He clothes the naked, he feeds the hungry, and he gives sight to the blind to the best of his ability. Also, and please notice this, this type of "rich" isn't rich at all... will he buy a Lexus or a small car that just serves the purpose of transportation? Will he buy a $30,000 piano while he realizes he can save literally thousands of lives with that money? Will he buy a $300,000 house or will he live in a very modest house? This person, when you look at him, will be indistinguishable from the other ones who get only enough income to live safely.

The non-Christian rich, however... well, that's most of us who will read this.

[Deborah]

Right now, there is enough wealth in this world for all who are "poor" to become at least "middle-class" if the "rich" would just share what they have, equally.

What is your hang up with class, which is a political tag that keeps changing depending on who politicians want to please.

[Ahab]

So, since you are posting this on a mormon forum I'll assume you are alluding Christ's standards/teachings when talking about 'morality'; plus, you mention the "camel through the eye of a needle" thing. Here's my take:

Christ's standard seems to be that if you are rich then you can't go to heaven. Simple. Why not? Because being rich entails that you are not following Christ's word in giving what you can to help the poor. You MAY be helping the poor but not to Christ's standard.

Now, being rich (the type of rich Christ didn't like) and having an enourmous income are NOT the same thing; the crux is how you use your income (and with what intention, clearly, but that's another issue). You can have an annual income of $4,000,000 and give the vast majority of it to help the extremely needy (those that are on the verge of starvation, for example) while only taking what you need to survive without risking anything of comparable moral value (i.e. you are not placing yourself in serious risk of starvation or seriously risking your own security). Why is this type of person with such an enourmous income not the type of rich Christ didn't like? Because he gives what he has to alleviate the need of those that really have it. He clothes the naked, he feeds the hungry, and he gives sight to the blind to the best of his ability. Also, and please notice this, this type of "rich" isn't rich at all... will he buy a Lexus or a small car that just serves the purpose of transportation? Will he buy a $30,000 piano while he realizes he can save literally thousands of lives with that money? Will he buy a $300,000 house or will he live in a very modest house? This person, when you look at him, will be indistinguishable from the other ones who get only enough income to live safely.

The non-Christian rich, however... well, that's most of us who will read this.

If you're not a Mormon, yet, you're very close to the kingdom.

I really like you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you're not a Mormon, yet, you're very close to the kingdom.

I really like you.

Hmmmm. The writing is on the wall Ahab.

[Ahab]

What is your hang up with class, which is a political tag that keeps changing depending on who politicians want to please.

The tag symbolizes something that is true, Deborah.

There are those who have very little, and then there are those who have a LOT (way more than they need), and then there are those in the middle.

... kinda like the bear's bed that Goldilocks found, which was "just right".

[Ahab]

Hmmmm. The writing is on the wall Ahab.

Which wall?

I don't see any walls where I am... unless the sides of a cubicle count.

[TAO]

Hey guys... it seems REALLY pointless to be arguing over something like this. God doesn't object to you getting rich. He objects to you not doing as he commands. And he commands that we don't idolize money, and that we take care of the poor. For a good many of us, it means giving up alot of our money and time. So yah, let's not argue over this.

[LeSellers]

Right now, there is enough wealth in this world for all who are "poor" to become at least "middle-class" if the "rich" would just share what they have, equally.

Crunch the numbers, and you'll see that is true.

Well, you make the claim, so demonstrate it.

There is not enough wealth in the world to make everyone middle class (which is a political construct any way).

So, consider this a CFR.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

The longer this sort of discussion goes on, the more I am convinced that an observation I made three decades ago is accurate: most people have no idea what money is, nor where it comes from.

Money (legally and morally obtained) is nothing more than a certificate that the holder (let's say it's you) have made someone else happy (or that you inherited it, or received it as a gift), in fact happier than anything else that person could have been in any other way at the time you received it.

Let's say that there are five people, each with $100 in their pockets. Each also has a garden in his back yard and that each raised certain vegetables, fruits, or flowers. There is nothing else available in their markets (no coats, no sugar, no newspapers, no underwear, noting else). This is just for simplicity, the idea presented here applies in all situations, but it gets very complex.

Alexander has Apples.

Brandon has Brussels Sprouts.

Calvin has Cabbages.

Darrel has Daisies.

Elbert has Egg Plants.

Each can supply a limited amount of the commodity in his garden (soil fertility and size, water all constrain production), and each has enough to "consume" and make available to others.

Now, put yourself in each one's position, and decide where you will spend your $100. Most will go first for apples, because not counting myself, I don't know too many people who like eggplant or Brussels sprouts. I am not fond of flowers of any kind, nor do I like cabbage much. However, I do know that cabbage is healthy, so I might eat it even while finding it unpalatable.

Your shared preference (with B, C, & D) for the apples will mean that you will spend more of your money for Alexander's apples for two reasons:

• You like them more, so you want ("demand") more.
• Alexander will have to make some sort of decision on who gets them because he only has a limited quantity. The easiest, and most equitable way to make that decision is to let all those who want them to "bid the price up". Thus each apple you do buy will cost more.

The result is that some people will get more apples, some less, but the number each has will reflect directly how much he wants the apples. Those who get fewer apples may be unhappy, but their lack of happiness cannot be total because they could have bid more for the apples. Those who get the apples will be happier than they were before the purchase, but obviously they will have less money. That means they will not be able to purchase flowers or vegetables.

After the apples are all bought, people will then move on to their next best choice. Let's assume it's the daisies. Darrell will sell all of his daisies in the same way. The people who buy them will be happier than they were, but they will have less money. Since we can safely assume that those who bought apples will still have some money , they may choose to buy flowers, too, but these folks will have the least amount of money to buy veggies.

Cabbage, being the next on our assumed list of preferences (keeping in mind that this hypothetical order of merit is not very reasonable in the real world

[Analytics]

I guess I don't like Mr. Sanders view that money fairly earned can be tainted by the simple fact of its amount.

In most cases, it

[Jeff K.]

Life spans

Life spans

According to some who haven't provided a CFR and cast aspersions upon entire groups of people without a shred of evidence beyond an apparent covetousness, we are doing worse. Indeed the centralization of wealth is making things worse for the general population, or so they "claim".

And yet our life spans are increasing as more becomes available to us. 40 years ago we made do with things that we can't imagine today, color TV was a luxury, computers for homes were unheard of, clothing was more expensive, and food was also, indeed starvation occurred in pockets throughout the world. India, Bangledesh, China, Africa, these sprouts of starvation killed millions.

So now what happens? Starvation when it occurs are almost exclusively state induced, but the general lifestyle in the world has improved as reflected in the life expectancy grid.

And yet, those who cast their covetous eyes on others cry that things are worse of. I have enough of a landscape scene of history to know that in general, even with the problems we have today, things are indeed better off than they were in my youth, and those days were better than my father's days.

The world needs to be more righteous, but such righteousness is not measured by what we have or don't have, both of which are irrelevant to the Lord. Rather it deals with what we have and how we are inspired to use it. One should not listen to the petty jealosies of men who say if you have something you must give it away rather than use them. We do not casually toss a saw to a man who knows nothing of carpentry, nor should we give money to an alcoholic. Both actions fall into the hands of the adversary and are measures of enslavement.

Be closer to the Lord and let Him inspire you as to what you should do with your increase. He will inspire you much more than the pettiness of men.

[kicks]

Driving home from lunch today I was listening to NPR. They were interviewing Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont and an avowed socialist. Among his various observations he asked if it was "moral" (his word) for 1% of the population to "earn" (again, his word) 23% of the wealth.

That got me wondering why it would be immoral if, indeed, those people (and I am most certainly not one of them) earned the money they have. Doesn't that fact that it was "earned" mean that it is rightly theirs?

So, is that why it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? Because being rich is inherently immoral?

I guess I don't like Mr. Sanders view that money fairly earned can be tainted by the simple fact of its amount. Where is that cut-off? Who gets to determine when I have too much money and when I become immoral because of it?

C.I.

I would like to know the exact context of Bernie's statement. I agree with a lot of Bernie's views and I would posit that the context of the conversation was probably different than how you describe it. He most likely had mentioned something along the lines that he feels that it is immoral when a small percent of the population controls more wealth than the larger perecentage when rampant poverty and the suffering of hungry children exist (and I would agree). I believe, that on some level, it is immoral when a small percentage of people can afford six mansions and three yachts while children die and suffer because of malnutrition and lack of healthcare, among other reasons. Of course, many of the solutions to combat this problem may be immoral as well.

[justdreamin]

Driving home from lunch today I was listening to NPR. They were interviewing Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont and an avowed socialist. Among his various observations he asked if it was "moral" (his word) for 1% of the population to "earn" (again, his word) 23% of the wealth.

That got me wondering why it would be immoral if, indeed, those people (and I am most certainly not one of them) earned the money they have. Doesn't that fact that it was "earned" mean that it is rightly theirs?

So, is that why it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? Because being rich is inherently immoral?

I guess I don't like Mr. Sanders view that money fairly earned can be tainted by the simple fact of its amount. Where is that cut-off? Who gets to determine when I have too much money and when I become immoral because of it?

C.I.

If you are really interested in an answer, you should go to this web site http://www.themoneymasters.com/faqs/ and start at the FAQ. It is very clear how a certain percentage of the population obtains their money, why the middle class is going to disappear (hint: the people who produce all the real wealth in the world are in debt to those who merely lend out the money that represents the wealth. This, in my opinion, is immoral) and how fractional reserve banking and the "non-linear" interest bearing system we use now is due to re-set or implode (depression) in the next 5+/- years as it's life expectancy is about 85 years. If this happens there may be a differnt question posed. Can we retain our morality when we have nothing and need to survive? Will you steal or take advantage of another? The bottom line for me is that in spite of the circumstance, rich or poor, the issue of morality is in the heart and soul of the individual. Just what I think....

[Deborah]

He most likely had mentioned something along the lines that he feels that it is immoral when a small percent of the population controls more wealth than the larger perecentage when rampant poverty and the suffering of hungry children exist (and I would agree).

But then you get to the issue of who is the proper person to judge such immorality. If a person has honestly earned his wealth I believe he has the right to use it however he will, whether I agree with it or not. The judgment of those decisions is then between him and God.

Why are Bernie, or you or a bureaucracy in a better position to tell someone, who had used their talents and time to build wealth, how he should distribute that wealth, especially when we know for a fact that many of the very rich have many charities to which they contribute.

I think we are in a very precarious position when we start becoming judges of what we think we know, when what we know may be based on just that, outward appearances. Furthermore we've already seen the level of who is considered rich continually decrease and soon it's going to be in the middle class' pocketbook, which it already is to a great extent.

[Duncan]

But then you get to the issue of who is the proper person to judge such immorality. If a person has honestly earned his wealth I believe he has the right to use it however he will, whether I agree with it or not. The judgment of those decisions is then between him and God.

Why are Bernie, or you or a bureaucracy in a better position to tell someone, who had used their talents and time to build wealth, how he should distribute that wealth, especially when we know for a fact that many of the very rich have many charities to which they contribute.

I think we are in a very precarious position when we start becoming judges of what we think we know, when what we know may be based on just that, outward appearances. Furthermore we've already seen the level of who is considered rich continually decrease and soon it's going to be in the middle class' pocketbook, which it already is to a great extent.

Something that really, really bothered me when I was a missionary was when we worked in this one area of my mission in California. The ward was ridiculously welathy, I can't even comprehend how much they had. We tracted in this bad apartment block, bad but not skid row. Anyways we taught this one guy who had a job but it probably just paid the bills and left little else and he really needed a lot of help, new clothes, glasses, dental work, furniture. The thing is was he was a graduate of USC (he showed us his Degree thing) and he had been a leader in the American Army in Vietnam and did two tours and survived. he was a nice guy! In the ward was another guy with a similar background, Vietnam Vet, University Educated but SUPER, SUPER wealthy (he made you know it too as did his wife) So we invited the brother from the ward to meet him just to have a member there and they can talk about 60's California and the war because you know we can't, but as soon as we pulled up to the building the brother was like "i'm not going in there this is a new suit, It may get dirty" Like as if and even IF you did, get it dry cleaned and don't worry about it. Anyways long story short, he never came in, made a couple of more disparaging remarks, the guy we were teaching was kind of upset that this brother couldn't come (we never told him why he couldn't come) and he never joined the Church. That Christmas, I wasn't expecting anything from the ward whatsoever and am grateful for anything and everything people gave us as missionaries, but the only people who gave us some kind of a treat was this one family who was broke. I was really upset about that guy who wouldn't help or not even just come in and visit with this man, like heaven forbid you talk to a poor person.

[Jeff K.]

I was one of the poorest people I knew in the US. Our ward was not a rich ward. We never compared ourselves and our lifestyles to another ward. For our Branch President, who worked in the coal mines, such a thing was equivalent to the sin of coveting. It is a lesson that has always remained with me.

The argument you are making is not about wealth, but about people who take wealth and place it in their hearts. And such should be condemned. A poor family in another ward in North Carolina needed clothes, and there were no white shirts. A more affluent member of the ward purchased white shirts, she knew that they would accept something new since their pride would stand in the way. So she washed them and rumpled them, she cut off the Nordstrom tag, and she placed them in the middle of the pile of clothes. The next Sunday all three boys had these beautiful white shirts, they looked no different from anyone else. The love of sister was even greater towards the family because she helped them. Is she less righteous for her wealth or did she know how to apply that wealth to strengthen the kingdom of the Lord.

It is not the material possessions that make us righteous or unrighteous. It is what we do with the talents given us, or whether or not we work as a servant for the Lord rather than for ourselves. And even while I accumulated wealth in my life (with my wife) we both held and continue to hold that this wealth is preparatory for the Lords needs when called upon, as we have covenanted to do.

I say do good where you can. Be prepared to release your material possessions to the Lord, and do not condemn or condone anyone for what they have materially since it is neither your place, nor does the wisdom exist in mortal man to decide such things.

[Deborah]

I was really upset about that guy who wouldn't help or not even just come in and visit with this man, like heaven forbid you talk to a poor person.

And he will be accountable for his lack of charity, and by that I am not talking about money but about his attitude of superiority. Charity and consecration are so much more than giving away money or clothes. To have gone in and sat with that poor man in his dirty house and shared stories would have been a great act of charity, something this rich man missed out on and something the poor man would have appreciated far more than any handout.

I think we need to widen our vision of what consecration means. Sometimes giving handouts isn't the greatest kindness we can do and some people may even be offended by it. But to give of our time and attention and to truly show that one cares, now that is true charity.

[Bernard Gui]

A friend in a previous ward owned a huge construction/demolition company and had oodles of money.

He and his wife lived in modest home in and older neighborhood. They wore inexpensive clothes to

church, drove middle-of-the-line Fords. To meet them, you would not know of his wealth. Yet as a

bishop, if there ever was a need for anything or anyone in the ward, I could ask and he supplied it without hesitation.

He secretly funded numerous missions and made Christmas joyous for many families. Our ward

was low-middle class, widows, and poorer ethnic neighborhoods. He and his wife are rich people who will be in the

Celestial Kingdom.

Bernard

[Analytics]

But then you get to the issue of who is the proper person to judge such immorality. If a person has honestly earned his wealth I believe he has the right to use it however he will, whether I agree with it or not. The judgment of those decisions is then between him and God.

Why are Bernie, or you or a bureaucracy in a better position to tell someone, who had used their talents and time to build wealth, how he should distribute that wealth, especially when we know for a fact that many of the very rich have many charities to which they contribute.

I think we are in a very precarious position when we start becoming judges of what we think we know, when what we know may be based on just that, outward appearances. Furthermore we've already seen the level of who is considered rich continually decrease and soon it's going to be in the middle class' pocketbook, which it already is to a great extent.

How many investment bankers who made seven or eight or nine figures over the last 10 years "honestly earned" their wealth?

How many CEOs that get seven or eight or sometimes nine figure bonuses, and don

[Deborah]

If Buffett is right and that is what they are doing, is that moral?

I don't agree with Buffett, and if anyone is using deceptive methods to gain their wealth they should be subject to the law. The rich don't become rich if they don't bring others along with them. And there are rich people who treat their employees fairly, pay them good wages and don't break any laws. So to apply this rule to a whole group is disingenuous. Maybe Buffett is saying more about himself than anyone else.

[LeSellers]

How many investment bankers who made seven or eight or nine figures over the last 10 years "honestly earned" their wealth?

Absent fraud or coercion, all of them. The vast majority, I'd guess upwards of 95%, are fraud-free, and none used coercion.

How many CEOs that get seven or eight or sometimes nine figure bonuses, and don