Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
zerinus

Secret Combinations Vs. Conspiracy Theories:

Recommended Posts

I believe bad things happen which the government uses to promote its agenda. I do not believe that the government is behind every evil thing that happens.

Exactly! Remember the famous quote by Ralf Emanuel: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste" .

or restated by Hillary Clinton:

or how about the same idea expressed in the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) Report where they talk about a New Pearl Harbor show here:

"New Pearl Harbor" Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[13]

Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner,[39][40][41] investigative journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[42] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[43] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Share this post


Link to post

Zerinus, you may have missed my earlier post. I asked for specific examples of where ETB was wrong on the topic of secret combinations. Do you have any examples?

Share this post


Link to post

Zerinus, you may have missed my earlier post. I asked for specific examples of where ETB was wrong on the topic of secret combinations. Do you have any examples?

I did notice it, but it was not one that needed to be answered. This is what you said in that post:

Zerinus, You keep saying that what Benson said is not supported by history.

I don't recall that I kept saying that.

That he was somehow obsessed with a conspiracy theory that didn't exist.

There is some truth in that.

The problem with your argument is that he was absolutely correct.

About what?

Rather than provide a link to one of his talks (I've read them all already) why don't you provide some specific examples of where you think he was wrong.

I already did, in posts #18, #22, #38, #40, #42.

You may really want to walk his words back because you don't agree with them, but excuse me for saying that it's just not your prerogative to do so.

To do what? I am entitled to disagree with him, and I do.

Share this post


Link to post

For those who may be interested, I wanted to clarify what David Chandler is all about. Remember, zerinus said: “The makers of that video you posted [see below] know what they are doing. They are skilful at their job, and know the story they are telling is not true. They are out to deceive; and you are giving in to their deception.” Rather unkind comments in my view, borne, I think, of pre-judgment and not really knowing much about Mr. Chandler or the work he has done.

Here is the video again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgN080yySe0

Aside from making a few videos similar to the one above, Mr. Chandler is known principally for his investigation of the fall rate of WTC Building 7, a 47 story building that collapsed at 5:20 pm on 9/11 in about 6.5 seconds, very close to free-fall. Many people have never heard of the collapse of this building, even 10 years after 9/11. It was not hit by a plane, and suffered very little damage and developed fires on only 3-5 floors, according to the official NIST report on the building. Chandler used simple motion-analysis software for his investigation.

His significant finding was that about 2.5 seconds of the initial collapse sequence was in free-fall time. What this means is that about 105’ feet of the building, or 8 stories, had to be almost instantaneously removed for this to happen, normally only achieved by applying an external force. Gravity alone won’t do it.

To Chandler’s credit, he brought this up with NIST investigators during their public preview of their final report on Building 7. To the NIST investigators credit they acknowledged this fact and ended up putting it into an Appendix in the final version of their report, albeit sans any discussion of the implications of this nagging ‘little’ fact.

Why is this important to this thread? It’s another big piece of evidence that the official story of the events of 9/11 has problems. Actually, big problems, the implication of which is that the official conspiracy theory may not be casting a broad enough net to account for what happened that day.

The question I wonder about, is how many of you reading this would want to avoid thinking about this implication because you might be labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist’?

This thread has had a lot of readers, but few have wanted to jump in. To me, this is a strong indicator of how touchy the subject is, especially when 9/11 is thrown into the mix. Probably akin to looking at a gorgon. The fear of being labeled a conpiracy theorist is just the final touch.

Share this post


Link to post

For those who may be interested, I wanted to clarify what David Chandler is all about. Remember, zerinus said: “The makers of that video you posted [see below] know what they are doing. They are skilful at their job, and know the story they are telling is not true. They are out to deceive; and you are giving in to their deception.” Rather unkind comments in my view, borne, I think, of pre-judgment and not really knowing much about Mr. Chandler or the work he has done.

Here is the video again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgN080yySe0

Aside from making a few videos similar to the one above, Mr. Chandler is known principally for his investigation of the fall rate of WTC Building 7, a 47 story building that collapsed at 5:20 pm on 9/11 in about 6.5 seconds, very close to free-fall. Many people have never heard of the collapse of this building, even 10 years after 9/11. It was not hit by a plane, and suffered very little damage and developed fires on only 3-5 floors, according to the official NIST report on the building. Chandler used simple motion-analysis software for his investigation.

His significant finding was that about 2.5 seconds of the initial collapse sequence was in free-fall time. What this means is that about 105’ feet of the building, or 8 stories, had to be almost instantaneously removed for this to happen, normally only achieved by applying an external force. Gravity alone won’t do it.

To Chandler’s credit, he brought this up with NIST investigators during their public preview of their final report on Building 7. To the NIST investigators credit they acknowledged this fact and ended up putting it into an Appendix in the final version of their report, albeit sans any discussion of the implications of this nagging ‘little’ fact.

Why is this important to this thread? It’s another big piece of evidence that the official story of the events of 9/11 has problems. Actually, big problems, the implication of which is that the official conspiracy theory may not be casting a broad enough net to account for what happened that day.

The question I wonder about, is how many of you reading this would want to avoid thinking about this implication because you might be labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist’?

This thread has had a lot of readers, but few have wanted to jump in. To me, this is a strong indicator of how touchy the subject is, especially when 9/11 is thrown into the mix. Probably akin to looking at a gorgon. The fear of being labeled a conpiracy theorist is just the final touch.

There are just as many articles and videos debunking the conspiracy theories of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth". Here is one:

While I was looking, I found the following video of a TV news reporter interviewing one of these conspiracy nuts by the name of Jesse Richard, editor of TvNewsLIES.org. The interesting part of this video starts about half way down in the middle of the interview, when the reporter asks Jesse Richard to provide some detailed facts behind what he thinks is wrong with the Government report on 9/11. He doesn't provide anything by way of facts and figures, but just wild fantasies which better fit in a fairy tale story than credible argument. This is the typical mindset of a conspiracy theorist. No brains, just fantasies. The interview can be seen here:

Edited by zerinus

Share this post


Link to post

The dictionary defines conspiracy as two or more people conspiring (breath with; breath together => act secretly) to commit evil or break the law.

I think it should be noted that "committing evil" doesn't necessarily involve the breaking of any law, though, or at least not any laws of the land.

Many things which are legal are evil, along with the people who promote those evil actions.

Why would people who discover a true conspiracy want to not stop the conspirators??

Because a lot of people can gain some benefit or some type of advantage over other people by siding with some conspirators.

My favorite example is how some people use money to take advantage of some other people, based on either their love or desire to have money for things in this world.

Nobody really needs any money, you know... considering the fact that all things in this world are the result of some service(s) which people provide and all people can provide their services without the use of any money... so an economic system that hinges on the use money is a system that can easily give sway to oppression.

Share this post


Link to post

My favorite example is how some people use money to take advantage of some other people, based on either their love or desire to have money for things in this world.

Nobody really needs any money, you know... considering the fact that all things in this world are the result of some service(s) which people provide and all people can provide their services without the use of any money... so an economic system that hinges on the use money is a system that can easily give sway to oppression.

Interesting concepts.

How would a large modern industrial economy (like the U.S.) work under such an economic model? How would a large manufacturing company like General Motors for example, which employs hundreds of thousands of workers, and has to compensate them somehow, work? How would they dispose of the goods they manufacture, and at what price? How would they determine that price?

How would they raise capital to invest in their company? If they wanted to expand, and build a new factory in Utah for example, and employ thousands of workers there to make cars, how would they finance that investment? Under the present economic model, they would issue shares or stock. People would buy their stock, and that would enable them to raise capital to build a new manufacturing plant in Utah. And those stock holders would expect to be compensated by obtaining a share of the company's profits, according to the proportion of the shares they held. But if money didn't exist, firstly how would they raise the needed capital, and secondly how would they pay dividends to their share holders?

Another way they can raise capital is through the banks (and other financial institutions); and banks run on money. Banks don't have any money of their own. The money they have is the money that their clients have deposited with them. If there were no money, there would be no banks either.

And how would they pay the companies from whom they would buy the heavy machinery, the presses, the machine tools etc. to build the new plant?

Most car parts are actually outsourced to other companies in other parts of the world who manufacture them to order and send them to the company who ordered them. How would they be paid, or compensated? How would the shipping companies who transported the manufactured components from somewhere in the Far East for example be paid or compensated?

How would the accounting system work in such an arrangement? Accounts are essential in the management of a large modern manufacturing company, otherwise the company wouldn't know at what price to sell their products, and whether they were making losses or profits? If they where making losses, and didn't know it, they wouldn't survive very long, would they!

And if they had a good year, and had surplus of income from the sale of their products, they might want to save that in a savings account of some description so that they have capital on hand to expand or fix problems that might arise in the production process. If money didn't exist, how would they save that extra income, and where? How would they save for a rainy day? What kind of banking system, if any, could be devised to take care of those needs?

In fine, how would a modern advanced industrialized economy work if money (as a medium of exchange, of keeping accounts, and of determining capital worth) didn't exist? The only alternative to a "monetized" economy that I am aware of is a "barter" economy, where goods and services are exchanged directly; but that could only work in a very primitive economy. I don't see how it can be made to work in an advanced industrialized economy such as we have in the world today. I presume you have worked out an answer to those questions, and I would be interested what they are.

Edited by zerinus

Share this post


Link to post

In fine, how would a modern advanced industrialized economy work if money (as a medium of exchange, of keeping accounts, and of determining capital worth) didn't exist?

Basically, people would be helping other people out of the charity of their hearts, rather than to "get gain" in some kind of "worldly" way.

The only alternative to a "monetized" economy that I am aware of is a "barter" economy, where goods and services are exchanged directly; but that could only work in a very primitive economy.

Why do you suppose there must needs be some sort of "exchange" of goods and services? I know it would be "nice" or "charitable" if other people helped you to do or get some things, but you could do something for someone else out of the charity of your own heart rather than to get something tangible from the person you could choose to help.

I don't see how it can be made to work in an advanced industrialized economy such as we have in the world today.

What we need to do in this world now is to take another step forward, rather than idealize today's worldly system as the best system that can possibly exist today.

Share this post


Link to post
Why do you suppose there must needs be some sort of "exchange" of goods and services? I know it would be "nice" or "charitable" if other people helped you to do or get some things, but you could do something for someone else out of the charity of your own heart rather than to get something tangible from the person you could choose to help.

There are shortages of things, of everything (except air). Because of that, we must exchange in order to find out what the best uses of the available limited commodities are, rather than just allowing someone to arbitrarily use it/them for things that are not needed as much as for other things that are needed more.

Flour and sugar make a fair-to-middlin' glue for wallpaper. But how does anyone know if a better use for them is bread? We know because people are more willing to trade their labor (represented by the dollars they get paid) for bread than they are for a wallpaper paste that mice love to eat. You might say that bread, being a food, is more valuable than glue. That is true in most cases, but it does not resolve the issue. Why? Because people still use flour'n'sugar for paste, and some people cannot tolerate the gluten in wheat flour anyway, making flour of now value to them at all. (BTW, the words "glue" and "gluten" are related. Just a fun fact, professor.)

Why would anyone risk his life for crab in "The Most Dangerous Catch" if he did not believe that someone else would want those for food, and he, in turn could buy bread and automobiles?

I use the example of "price gouging" in New Orleans/Miami/Houston/ Biloxi before and after a hurricane. Plywood goes up in price, not because the seller chooses to raise prices (although he does so to his benefit), but because people who want to board up windows are in competition with people who want to build children's picnic benches. At some point, the person wanting to build benches will say, "They're not worth that much, I'll let these other guys board up their houses." If there were no monetary (or other economic) exchange, the first one there would get the plywood, and the windows would go unprotected. It's the same with gasoline. People who want to flee the hurricane's path are willing to pay more for transportation than people who want to mow their lawns or Cruise Main Street.

Those higher prices, by the way, attract more plywood to the affected area because sellers in other places see an opportunity to gain more than they can earn selling "at home". This importation, in due course, lowers the price of plywood or gasoline, or anything else the people there need.

Prices perform a necessary function: they make sure that scarce resources do not get wasted, but are put to their highest and best use. They "move" resources to places they are needed rather than letting them languish in places they are unneeded (or used wastefully). People who pipe dream of a money-less society simply do not understand the fundamental natures of people and of scarce resources.

No one, in six thousand years, has come up with a better plan. Socialist countries are notorious for wasting scarce resources because no person, no committee of persons, can keep track of all the inputs to an economy and the needs of the people who form it. Individuals can, on an individual basis, do so because no one person can affect the economy in any meaningful way. So even if ten, or ten thousand, people are wrong, there will not be malallocations. Every human attempt at communalism has failed because of malallocations. These problems always look like greed and envy, but, at their base, it is that those in charge misjudges, and wastes the commune's captial.

Giving things away does not solve the problem. It makes it worse, in fact.

The Lord may be able to make things work, but, as I understand it, the way He will do so is not to force people to do anything, but He will make scarce resource plentiful, so there will be no need to allocate them at all. Isn't that what "the earth will be renewed and receive its paradasaical glory" means? We jess' ain't there, yet.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
What we need to do in this world now is to take another step forward, rather than idealize today's worldly system as the best system that can possibly exist today.

If, in six thousand years (during which men have been anxiously seeking this "other step"), they have tried hundreds of alternatives, on what basis can we have any faith that you, or anyone else, will succeed? No one alive today is any smarter than people who lived in the past. The only advantage we have today is our ability to look back on the failures of those who've gone before us.

The answer to my question is, "There is no such basis."

Additionally, we must ask, "Forward, toward what?"

It may be more blessed to give than to receive, but most want to receive nonetheless.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post

No one, in six thousand years, has come up with a better plan.

Actually, many people have, even though some people don't like the "better" way.

Try considering someone who doesn’t have any money if you can’t see how an economic system that requires no money is better than a system that requires the use of some money.

Suppose a person with no money needs or wants something in this world; something tangible. She goes out into the world looking for what she needs or wants and eventually finds some of that stuff along with the so-called “owner” of that so-called “property”.

In an economic system that doesn’t require the use of any money, the fact that she doesn’t have any money doesn’t matter, because no money is needed for her to get some of that stuff. All she needs to find is someone who has charity and is able to give her some of that stuff.

On the other hand, an economic system that requires the use of some money makes it necessary for her to go and get some money before she can get some of that stuff.

It’s not rocket science, folks. Charity beats money to smitherines.

Share this post


Link to post
Charity beats money to smitherines.

Except it does not work. It cannot work. It has never worked, no matter how many times it's been tried (and it has been).

You ignored all the points I made only to re-assert your original position.

When, and only when, there is no shortge of things (including services) that have multiple alternative uses can we forgo the use of money (or other trade process). This will not happen until Christ returns and renews the earth. I await that day, but until then, I will still cash my paycheck.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, many people have

CFR

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

Basically, people would be helping other people out of the charity of their hearts, rather than to "get gain" in some kind of "worldly" way.

Why do you suppose there must needs be some sort of "exchange" of goods and services? I know it would be "nice" or "charitable" if other people helped you to do or get some things, but you could do something for someone else out of the charity of your own heart rather than to get something tangible from the person you could choose to help.

What we need to do in this world now is to take another step forward, rather than idealize today's worldly system as the best system that can possibly exist today.

I am not questioning the virtue of doing something for someone else out of the kindness of your heart rather than for money. I am talking about the logistics of running a large scale industrialized economy without the lubricant of money. How do you build a 747 jumbo jet; or a Windows operating system; or an Apple iPhone; or an Intel silicon chip etc. for someone out of the kindness of your heart, without the industrialized structure that should support it; and how can you build such structure without the lubricant of money?

Share this post


Link to post

Except it does not work. It cannot work. It has never worked, no matter how many times it's been tried (and it has been).

I know for a fact that you have received many gifts from people due to their charity without you having to pay them anything in monetary terms.

Think about it, rather than stubborning disagreeing with me.

You ignored all the points I made only to re-assert your original position.

I didn't ignore all your points, actually. I waved at them as they passed by.

When, and only when, there is no shortge of things (including services) that have multiple alternative uses can we forgo the use of money (or other trade process). This will not happen until Christ returns and renews the earth. I await that day, but until then, I will still cash my paycheck.

Lehi

I still work for money, too, Lehi. Mainly because there are some people in this world who will accept nothing but cold hard cash from me, which means I have to do something to get it, at least sometimes, rather than always working for others only due to my own charity.

I still work for charity, too, though... meaning I do things for others out of the charity of my heart without accepting any money from some people I do work for.

In this world I think most of us operate in both economies, sometimes working for money, and sometimes working due to our charity for others.

Charity is still the best system, though, and someday we'll be able to live in a place without the use of any money at all.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not questioning the virtue of doing something for someone else out of the kindness of your heart rather than for money. I am talking about the logistics of running a large scale industrialized economy without the lubricant of money.

Anything people do for money today they could also do without the use of any money. All it takes is working without accepting any "money" for the work we do.

How do you build a 747 jumbo jet; or a Windows operating system; or an Apple iPhone; or an Intel silicon chip etc. for someone out of the kindness of your heart,

You do the work without accepting any money for the work you are doing.

without the industrialized structure that should support it; and how can you build such structure without the lubricant of money?

Does the word "volunteer" mean anything at all to you?

If not, start out thinking everybody would be working as "slaves" of other people, except they would actually be free and doing the work because of their charity.

Sheesh, people. It's not that hard to figure out if you would just think about it a little more.

Money is good for nothing at all except to trade it for something else of some real value, like the work people do either as a service or to produce some kind of product.

Now all we need to do is take money out of the equation while still doing the work that still needs to be done in this world.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
I know for a fact that you have received many gifts from people due to their charity without you having to pay them anything in monetary terms.

Think about it, rather than stubborning disagreeing with me.

Not quite sure what "stubborning" means, but I think you were trying to insult me. Nonetheless, I disagree with your premise.

The fact that there are acts of free-will giving does not change the fact that an economy cannot work with out some form of trade for the reasons I outlined earlier. Principally, no, entirely, because there are more human needs and wants than there are resources to fill them.

I didn't ignore all your points, actually. I waved at them as they passed by.

Of course.

You thought them insignificant because ... ?

I still work for money, too, Lehi. Mainly because there are some people in this world who will accept nothing but cold hard cash from me, which means I have to do something to get it, at least sometimes, rather than always working for others only due to my own charity.

Which illustrates my point. Charity will not work in this world. Until the Lord reestablishes Paradise, we will always have more needs than resources.

I still work for charity, too, though... meaning I do things for others out of the charity of my heart without accepting any money from some people I do work for.

But your own example shows that an entire economy cannot and does not work based on charity. (P.S.: It's not because of greed, per se, that it won't work. It's the superabundance of needs, and the relative paucity of ways to meet them.)

In this world I think most of us operate in both economies, sometimes working for money, and sometimes working due to our charity for others.

Charity is still the best system, though, and someday we'll be able to live in a place without the use of any money at all.

You're fighting a strawman.

No one has said there is no benefit to charity. But an entire economy cannot function based on that alone. The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thererof, to be sure, but when there are two people and one loaf of bread, who gets it and how is the decision made? That's what money does for us. It makes those decisions possible without arbitrary notions of some superpowerful entity(typically government, which takes half the read as the price for imposing its decison on the others).

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post

Not quite sure what "stubborning" means, but I think you were trying to insult me. Nonetheless, I disagree with your premise.

I meant to write "stubbornly", and it wasn't meant as an insult as much as my appraisal of your currect state of mind based on what I can see of it.

The fact that there are acts of free-will giving does not change the fact that an economy cannot work with out some form of trade for the reasons I outlined earlier. Principally, no, entirely, because there are more human needs and wants than there are resources to fill them.

I think you might be close to getting into the concept of what I refer to as "sharing", rather than hoarding things all to one's self.

How else do you think everyone will ever be able to have all things in common?

Of course.

You thought them insignificant because ... ?

... there are better ideas to be had.

Which illustrates my point. Charity will not work in this world. Until the Lord reestablishes Paradise, we will always have more needs than resources.

I never meant to imply that all of our needs could be met in this lifetime, but I do know that all of us could get everything we need to live after the manner of happiness while we are here.

But your own example shows that an entire economy cannot and does not work based on charity. (P.S.: It's not because of greed, per se, that it won't work. It's the superabundance of needs, and the relative paucity of ways to meet them.)

Something's gotta give if a group of us are ever going to become one while having all things in common, don't you think?

You seem to think of you having your stuff, while everyone else has their stuff, but I see it all as the same stuff that we could all share.

No one has said there is no benefit to charity. But an entire economy cannot function based on that alone.

Yes, it can, and I will rejoice on the day you will see that.

The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thererof, to be sure, but when there are two people and one loaf of bread, who gets it and how is the decision made?

The decision should be made based upon charity, rather than upon any other consideration.

That's what money does for us. It makes those decisions possible without arbitrary notions of some superpowerful entity(typically government, which takes half the read as the price for imposing its decison on the others).

While you have a high regard for money, I have an even higher regard for charity because I know it actually works much better.

Share this post


Link to post

Anything people do for money today they could also do without the use of any money. All it takes is working without accepting any "money" for the work we do.

You do the work without accepting any money for the work you are doing.

Does the word "volunteer" mean anything at all to you?

If not, start out thinking everybody would be working as "slaves" of other people, except they would actually be free and doing the work because of their charity.

Sheesh, people. It's not that hard to figure out if you would just think about it a little more.

Interestingly, there is a model that looks like that, that we can compare it with today. A computer operating system is a very complicated piece of kit. Microsoft has become rich on building the most popular one today. But there is also a free alternative, called Linux. It is entirely built by volunteers, contributing to it from all over the world. It has its fans who swear by it, and would not swap it with Windows for the love of money! I love it too myself, especially because I like the philosophy of it; and I always have a spare computer with Linux installed on it which I like to play around with. But I prefer to use Windows because Linux, great though it is, is still not as good as Windows. I know its fans will jump on me like a ton of bricks for saying that! :) But it really isn’t as good. And they have had plenty of time to make it as good (and those contributing to it are not without talent; they are geniuses to be able to do it at all). So experience seems to show that doing things with the commercial discipline produces better quality products than just doing it by volunteer work.

Money is good for nothing at all except to trade it for something else of some real value, like the work people do either as a service or to produce some kind of product.

That is a lot of use! It is a medium of exchange. Let’s suppose I grow potatoes for a living. But for my own personal requirements, I need more than just potatoes. I need a home, I need clothes, I need furniture, I need a computer, and lots more besides. Now one way of getting them would be to take my surplus potatoes to an “exchange square” of some description, a “market place,” and trade them for what I need. Somebody else comes along who makes computers, or clothes, or furniture etc., and I trade my surplus potatoes with their surplus computers, or surplus shoes, or surplus homes, etc.; which would be an extremely inefficient way of doing it. The other way would be to use a precious commodity (like gold) as a medium of exchange. I would exchange my potatoes for its equivalent value in gold (which is lighter and easier to carry or store), and then exchange that gold for whatever else I needed. That gold is used purely as a medium of exchange, and is called money. It is used to facilitate the exchange of goods. That is why it has been called the "lubricant of the economy". It is like the oil you put in your care. Your car would quickly seize up if you did not put any oil in it. That is the primary function that money serves in an advanced economy. Now I think you are going to find it very hard to convince me that the fist method of exchange is superior to the second one.

There are of course other uses of money, such as for book keeping, for determining the value of capital and investments, and for other financial transactions such as banking and insurance.

Edited by zerinus

Share this post


Link to post

LeSellers, I think Ahab is right on this one, I must say...

Think about one's parents charity to oneself =). How much they spent to raise just one person. Charity gets everything started, because charity brings love with it =D.

Surely God has charity to us too =D. Those two things are the greatest forces on Earth =).

Non-offensive Wishes,

TAO

Edited by TAO

Share this post


Link to post
LeSellers, I think Ahab is right on this one, I must say...

First, please call me Lehi. I'm proud to carry my grandfather's name.

Second, I have never denegrated Charity (unless it's the false and illusory kind controlled by government). Please do not imply I don't believe in it nor want to practice it.

You mention parental charity. I think I have a fair grasp of that, as we have seven children and 27 grandchildren. Between us, my Jacquie and I have ten siblings and nearly fifty nieces and nephews. I've seen it up close and personal and recognize it nearly every time.

Think about one's parents charity to oneself. How much they spent to raise just one person. Charity gets everything started, because charity brings love with it.

This has nothing to do with the conversation.

No economy can function without some sort of trading because there are limited resources on the earth and there are unlimited human wants and needs.

You are not comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and aardvarks.

Surely God has charity to us too =D. Those two things are the greatest forces on Earth

I haven't denied that. It has nothing to do with my position. I will state it again, in clearer terms, I hope, so there will be no further misunderstanding.

No complex economy (a group of many people each with a unique set of skills, resources, and wants) can prosper without a system of trading (typically involving money) because not only do the people differ, but the resources needed to meet their needs and wants do not exist in sufficient abundance that all can be satisfied. Only a system of (relatively) unfettered, honest trading, free from fraud and coercion, can meet the greatest number of needs and waste the least possible amount of material and other resources. Prices (expressed in any convenient unit) are the most effective way of communicating to the people holding resources what they should be doing with them so as to meet the greatest number of the highest priority needs.

Charity cannot do this because, as I have said a dozen times in this topic, there are not unlimited resources available to meet all the needs and wants of the people in the economy. Given that some needs will inevitably remain unmet, prices identify the needs of highest priority and will thus direct the holders of the resources to apply them to the most urgent needs.

If I still need to make this point more clearly I do not know how I would do so, but if anyone has not understood by this point, I will be more than happy to attempt it again and again until only those who do not undeerstand English, French, or Italian have failed to grasp this idea.

Again, I am not saying that charity is not a good idea, I am saying that charity cannot meet the greatest number of needs nor does it meet the highest priority needs found in an economy.

Individual charity is great. But no economy can exist based thereon unless there are also unlimited resources available that can be employed to meet all the needs of the community. And, in this world, this is simply not the case, and will never be.

Non-offensive Wishes,

Even were I foolish enough to be offended, I don't see anything in here I could be offended by.

The only argument I am seeing is a strawman. No such entity could pose any sort of threat to me.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post

Interestingly, there is a model that looks like that, that we can compare it with today. A computer operating system is a very complicated piece of kit. Microsoft has become rich on building the most popular one today. But there is also a free alternative, called Linux. It is entirely built by volunteers, contributing to it from all over the world. It has its fans who swear by it, and would not swap it with Windows for the love of money! I love it too myself, especially because I like the philosophy of it; and I always have a spare computer with Linux installed on it which I like to play around with. But I prefer to use Windows because Linux, great though it is, is still not as good as Windows. I know its fans will jump on me like a ton of bricks for saying that! :) But it really isn’t as good. And they have had plenty of time to make it as good (and those contributing to it are not without talent; they are geniuses to be able to do it at all). So experience seems to show that doing things with the commercial discipline produces better quality products than just doing it by volunteer work.

One of my sons happens to be a wiz with both Linux and Microsoft, and he says Linux is a whole lot better. Do you expect me to take your opinion over his opinion? Good luck with that one. Maybe you just don't know enough about how to use Linux as he does.

That is a lot of use! It is a medium of exchange. Let’s suppose I grow potatoes for a living. But for my own personal requirements, I need more than just potatoes. I need a home, I need clothes, I need furniture, I need a computer, and lots more besides. Now one way of getting them would be to take my surplus potatoes to an “exchange square” of some description, a “market place,” and trade them for what I need. Somebody else comes along who makes computers, or clothes, or furniture etc., and I trade my surplus potatoes with their surplus computers, or surplus shoes, or surplus homes, etc.; which would be an extremely inefficient way of doing it. The other way would be to use a precious commodity (like gold) as a medium of exchange. I would exchange my potatoes for its equivalent value in gold (which is lighter and easier to carry or store), and then exchange that gold for whatever else I needed. That gold is used purely as a medium of exchange, and is called money. It is used to facilitate the exchange of goods. That is why it has been called the "lubricant of the economy". It is like the oil you put in your care. Your car would quickly seize up if you did not put any oil in it. That is the primary function that money serves in an advanced economy. Now I think you are going to find it very hard to convince me that the fist method of exchange is superior to the second one.

There are of course other uses of money, such as for book keeping, for determining the value of capital and investments, and for other financial transactions such as banking and insurance.

If everything was available without the use of any money, with exchange based on charity rather than on an "exchange" of some goods or services, I'd be able to go to wherever I needed to go to get whatever I needed to get, to the extent it was available, without needing to "exchange" something to get what I needed.

Your way, you'd have to "exchange" something to get what you needed, so that's why a system based upon charity is better.

With charity, you don't have to give something to get something else, because the person who gives due to charity is giving because he/she sees the need for you to have what you need. To the charitable, there is no "what do I get out of it" involved in the process. The needs of the receiver are all that matter, and all that's required by those who extend charity is the ability to actually "give" what is needed... without money, and without price, to the extent the charitable have the power to give.

Think about it some more, because it looks like you still don't get it.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post

Charity cannot do this because, as I have said a dozen times in this topic, there are not unlimited resources available to meet all the needs and wants of the people in the economy.

The fact that there are a limited number of resources shouldn't mean we should base our decisions on what to give and who to give it to based upon how much "money" some people have. Money is totally worthless except to trade it for something else of some real value, so we're not adding anything of real value by putting "money" into an economy, however much "money" we are able to put into it. All that does is control who gets what and how much they get from the work people do, collectively, and those kinds of decisions should be based upon charity rather than on how much "money" a person has.

But, alas, I know that's why some people love money!

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
The fact that there are a limited number of resources shouldn't mean we should base our decisions on what to give and who to give it to based upon how much "money" some people have. Money is totally worthless except to trade it for something else of some real value, so we're not adding anything of real value by putting "money" into an economy, however much "money" we are able to put into it. All that does is control who gets what and how much they get from the work people do, collectively, and those kinds of decisions should be based upon charity rather than on how much "money" a person has.

You clearly do not know what money is.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post

One of my sons happens to be a wiz with both Linux and Microsoft, and he says Linux is a whole lot better. Do you expect me to take your opinion over his opinion? Good luck with that one.

That is not hard! If Linux is better than Windows, why are 90% of computers worldwide running on Windows, and around 1% running Linux? Here are some stats for you to consider. Do you think all those hard nosed commercial companies would be willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars licensing Windows when they could get it for free in Linux? Do you think all those cash strapped schools and charities would be crazy to license Windows if they could get it for free in Linux? Even the Church prefers to use Windows! A few months ago when I visited the temple I was invited to go into their offices to help me sort out a problem I was having with the genealogical data I had entered on the Church's website. I noticed that they were still using Windows XP! So it seems the Church prefers to pay for the use of an outdated version of Windows rather than using the latest releases of Linux for free! So if your son is so smart, perhaps he should go and save the Church a lot of money by persuading them to abandon Windows and adopt Linux instead!

Maybe you just don't know enough about how to use Linux as he does.

That is a typical response one expects from Linux fans. A good operating system is one that is intuitive to use and just works, without you having to worry about what is under the hood. It is like a good, well designed car. All the controls are well placed and intuitive, and it just works, without you having to be a mechanic to be able to drive it. Linux is made by geeks for geeks. They are only interested in themselves. They are too arrogant to think about the non-technical housewife, the grandmother, the schoolteacher, or the company employee. They are like the arrogant car mechanic who thinks that anybody who can't fix cars like he can doesn't deserve to own or drive a car! It takes a commercial organization like Microsoft to worry about needs of its customers rather than the selfish instincts of its software engineers. That is why they can produce something that everybody wants, rather than something that is clunky and hard to use, and is only good for the geeks that made it.

If everything was available without the use of any money, with exchange based on charity rather than on an "exchange" of some goods or services, I'd be able to go to wherever I needed to go to get whatever I needed to get, to the extent it was available, without needing to "exchange" something to get what I needed.

And if there was a limited supply, who would decide who gets a share and who doesn't?

Your way, you'd have to "exchange" something to get what you needed, so that's why a system based upon charity is better.

With charity, you don't have to give something to get something else, because the person who gives due to charity is giving because he/she sees the need for you to have what you need. To the charitable, there is no "what do I get out of it" involved in the process. The needs of the receiver are all that matter, and all that's required by those who extend charity is the ability to actually "give" what is needed... without money, and without price, to the extent the charitable have the power to give.

And where would the investment come from to build the expensive plants and acquire the expensive and specialized heavy duty machinery to manufacture more of the goods that are of greatest demand?

Edited by zerinus

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...