Is wealth a sin?

[ttribe]

When have we ever talked about a complex economic environment? Have I been missing something?

That's the point. You are oversimplifying the complex.

What I see when we talk about economics is a focus on talking about money, or the lack of it, along with a few comments about how it might be good to get rid of it altogether, and when any ecomonic system is reduced to money, it's simply about whether you have it and how much you have of it and whether how much you have is as much as I or anyone else has.

It's very simple: Do we all have the same amount of money, or do some of us have more than some others?

That's just the thing, it's not that simple. Not everyone should have the same amount of money.

That's all you need to see to see if things are fair under the economic systems we have now.

No, not at all. The principal reasons - 1) not everyone needs the same amount of money; and 2) not everyone deserves the same amount of money.

No, it wasn't an accusation, but if the shoe fits feel free to wear it.

Wow. I'm speechless.

[Ahab]

That's the point. You are oversimplifying the complex.

Tell me how, rather than just saying I am. I think you're overcomplicating the simple.

Not everyone should have the same amount of money.

Says you. Don't you think I should have at least some say on this issue, too, to be fair?

1) not everyone needs the same amount of money;

I'm fine with totally getting rid of all money, as long as everyone else does too, so maybe we should talk about wealth rather than money, because they're not the same thing, even though one supposedly represents the other.

And yes, I'm saying we should talk about it, in a rational and fair discussion, rather than you speaking for everyone and whatever needs you think others have.

So, rather than making that statement, let's put it in the form of a question:

Does everyone need the same amount of wealth, as all other people?

Or, better yet, instead of talking about needs, how about if we talk about wants, instead, and again in the form of a question:

Does everyone want the same amount of wealth, as all other people?

There. Let the discussion begin, and I'll begin with what I think.

Yes, I really want all people to have the same wealth as each other,

2) not everyone deserves the same amount of money.

Again, let's put that in the form of a question, instead of you making a statement to speak for everyone:

Does everyone deserve the same amount of wealth, as all other people?

Me: Yes, I think so, or if we're all equally undeserving, I think it would be nice if all of us were, even if we don't deserve it.

Wow. I'm speechless.

Don't worry. I'm sure you'll say something else pretty soon.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Does everyone deserve the same amount of wealth, as all other people?

Me: Yes, I think so.

THey tried this already, it was a miserable failure. It was called the USSR.

[Ahab]

THey tried this already, it was a miserable failure. It was called the USSR.

I don't see that as a comparable example to what I think things will be like on a Celestial planet, like this Earth will be someday, where everyone will own everything just as God does while everyone shares everything.

Perhaps it can only work in a global society where everyone on the planet will share everything.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't see that as a comparable example to what I think things will be like on a Celestial planet, like this Earth will be someday, where everyone will own everything just as God does while everyone shares everything.

Perhaps it can only work in a global society where everyone on the planet will share everything.

Well a celestial planet you will just be able to create what ever you want. Remember that we are not on a Celestial planet. Unless every one or at the very least most of the people were on board to share all they had it wont work.

How else was I to take your comments? We are speaking of the here and now. They tried that a few years ago it didn't work.

[Ahab]

Well a celestial planet you will just be able to create what ever you want.

Yes, because we'll all have equal access to all of the resources without being worried about needing to have "money".

Remember that we are not on a Celestial planet.

I know, but we could all live like we were, aside from there still being death in the world.

Unless every one or at the very least most of the people were on board to share all they had it wont work.

I don't see it that way, because I think we could still extend charity to those who didn't share what they have with others.

All it takes is a community that will share everything they have, because of their charity for others, and while the more people have means they have more they can share, we could all share everything that we have, from this moment.

For example, consider what would happen if everyone in the Church shared everything they have with each other, all over the world.

Collectively, we've got quite a bit of stuff that we could all share with each other, including the various kinds of professional quality work we could do in our labors, and while I think we do a pretty good job now, I still see a lot of inequity in the Church which could be corrected, voluntarily, without anyone needing to command that we try to do better. All it takes is charity, in our hearts, with the desire to help everyone in the Church to be as well off as everyone else.

[LeSellers]

Even if someone gives someone else some work to do, otherwise known as an employer giving an employee a job, both the employer and the employee should be as well off as each other and all of the other employees, otherwise the employer and the employee(s) are on unequal terms, and that isn't right, considering it takes both the employer and the employees to create the wealth of that business enterprise.

They must have an unequal relationship precisely because the employer is the one running all of the risks. the employee can foul up costing the employer a great deal. The employee can simply fail to show up and the employer has to cover the shortage. The employee has no obligation to make the enterprise work, and has no interest in making it do so except as he is compensated for his time and labor.

Why should the employer take all of the risks and then earn less (taking into account the fact of the employment of capital is a form of labor, capital is derived from earlier labor that was not spent but became savings) than someone who has no risk and who can dissolve the relationship at any time with no personal repercussions?

Too many times the owner or CEO of a company receives a really fat sum of money while they seek to pay the (other) employees as little as possible, which isn't fair, and therefore not right.

The owners of the company also seek to pay the CEO as little as possible. He and they agree to a compensation package that is sufficient to keep him on the job but which is the lowest rate possible.

Do you purposefully shop at Nordstrom, or do you shop at Mervyn's? Why?

Let's assume two heads of lettuce, one at the store next door and one at a store three blocks away. The nearby store sells the lettuce for $1.23, the more distant retailer sells it at 63

[ERayR]

I see that some who have posted in this thread have a misunderstanding of basic economics. If you work for a company and they pay you more than you produce they will soon go out of business. If you are making widjets for them to sell at $1.00 each and you can make ten in an hour and it costs $2.00 an hour to run the plant they can not pay you more than $8.00 an hour. Theoretically it is the same for management. If one manager leads his company to continued growth and a continued rise in profits then he is worth a percentage of those profits. If you are making the widjets and can increase your productivity to say twenty in an hour you are worth more than the worker who can only produce ten an hour.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't see it that way, because I think we could still extend charity to those who didn't share what they have with others.

Charity and making sure we all have equal stuff is not the same thing.

[Ahab]

They must have an unequal relationship precisely because the employer is the one running all of the risks.

If the employees received a fair share of the rewards from the labors, equal to the rewards of the employer/owner, neither party would want to do anything to jeopardize the success of the company.

the employee can foul up costing the employer a great deal.

Those costs could be shared by both the employers and the employees, equally.

The employee can simply fail to show up and the employer has to cover the shortage.

Whereas the employer can fail to show up and still receive just as much of a rewards from all the employee's labors?

If both parties were in it together, equally, both would share both the costs and the benefits with nobody gaining an advantage.

The employee has no obligation to make the enterprise work, and has no interest in making it do so except as he is compensated for his time and labor.

That's why it's important to reward the employees just as well as the employer/owner.

Why should the employer take all of the risks and then earn less (taking into account the fact of the employment of capital is a form of labor, capital is derived from earlier labor that was not spent but became savings) than someone who has no risk and who can dissolve the relationship at any time with no personal repercussions?

Why, indeed. Why not share the risks while offering equal rewards?

The owners of the company also seek to pay the CEO as little as possible. He and they agree to a compensation package that is sufficient to keep him on the job but which is the lowest rate possible.

Seeking to pay people as little as possible doesn't offer much incentive to the success of the business, except in oppressive circumstances where if people don't work they don't eat or have any place to call home, and if you were to ask most employees if they feel like they're being paid their fair share of the rewards of the business while the CEO makes a TON more money than they do, what do you think they would tell you?

Pretty much something like this:

No, but what else can we do? We can't make them pay us any more, and we can't afford to be out of work. So, I guess this is it.

Do you purposefully shop at Nordstrom, or do you shop at Mervyn's? Why?

No, neither one, because I have found better and cheaper places to shop, when I have to shop, otherwise I'd rather not spend any money. And why would I rather not spend any money, you may ask? Because I hate money, and what it has done to this world, while not having much of it myself.

Let's assume two heads of lettuce, one at the store next door and one at a store three blocks away. The nearby store sells the lettuce for $1.23, the more distant retailer sells it at 63

[ttribe]

And why would I rather not spend any money, you may ask? Because I hate money, and what it has done to this world, while not having much of it myself.

At the risk of coming off badly, I believe this statement provides explanatory context to some of the previous comments.

[Ahab]

Charity and making sure we all have equal stuff is not the same thing.

When you see that someone else doesn't have as much as you do, and you think what you have is a good thing, charity is what prompts you to want to share what you have with them so that they will then have as much as you do.

I know they could choose to refuse it, perhaps because they really didn't like what you had, or perhaps because of their pride, but it would still be a good thing for you to offer them what you believe is a good thing while being willing to share it with them, equally.

[Ahab]

I see that some who have posted in this thread have a misunderstanding of basic economics. If you work for a company and they pay you more than you produce they will soon go out of business. If you are making widjets for them to sell at $1.00 each and you can make ten in an hour and it costs $2.00 an hour to run the plant they can not pay you more than $8.00 an hour. Theoretically it is the same for management. If one manager leads his company to continued growth and a continued rise in profits then he is worth a percentage of those profits. If you are making the widjets and can increase your productivity to say twenty in an hour you are worth more than the worker who can only produce ten an hour.

I know that's what they teach in colleges and universities, and in business, but I see something wrong with a philosophy that promotes paying a CEO millions of dollars in salary and even more in benefits while most of the other employees receive much, much, much less pay while all of them are doing their "job". And it's not so much the money, but the fact that it fosters the promotion of very different standards of living among the rich vs the poor.

They're all promoting to the success of the business, even though they do different levels of work, and I think all of them should receive an equal share in the success of the business, because all of them, together, are making it successful.

[ttribe]

They're all promoting to the success of the business, even though they do different levels of work, and I think all of them should receive an equal share in the success of the business, because all of them, together, are making it successful.

Do you, or do you not, agree that the degree of importance to the success of the organization is variable across workers?

[Ahab]

Do you, or do you not, agree that the degree of importance to the success of the organization is variable across workers?

Please rephrase your question while using the Church in an analogy.

[ttribe]

Please rephrase your question while using the Church in an analogy.

No. You were talking about a business, I phrased my question within the appropriate context.

[Ahab]

No. You were talking about a business, I phrased my question within the appropriate context.

I think my whole point can be explained by saying I believe business organizations should operate under the same principles as the Church, which has the potential to operate perfectly without any money, just as I believe we will do things in heaven.

In this world, we need money only because people and governments of this world require money as a means of exchange, but all people and all governments could also operate without any money, just as the Church will in heaven.

I hope you understand me now.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

When you see that someone else doesn't have as much as you do, and you think what you have is a good thing, charity is what prompts you to want to share what you have with them so that they will then have as much as you do.

No, charity does not prompt me to share with them so we all have queal stuff. Charity prompts me to look out for the general needs of my brothers and sisters. That means that if some one on the corner is begging for food I give it to them. I don't go over to him and give him one of my TV's because I have a few of them and he has none. If a man ask for a fish what does a TV profit him? Having equal stuff has nothing what so ever to do with charity. And having all thing in common as the LoC states is not the same as having equal stuff either. The 2 are not the same.

I know they could choose to refuse it, perhaps because they really didn't like what you had, or perhaps because of their pride, but it would still be a good thing for you to offer them what you believe is a good thing while being willing to share it with them, equally.

I reject your premise, so the rest of your post makes no sense to me. Thanks though.

[ttribe]

I think my whole point can be explained by saying I believe business organizations should operate under the same principles as the Church, which has the potential to operate perfectly without any money, just as I believe we will do things in heaven.

In this world, we need money only because people and governments of this world require money as a means of exchange, but all people and all governments could also operate without any money, just as the Church will in heaven.

I hope you understand me now.

I understood you the first time, but the fact is you tried to project a set of behaviors onto a business in support of your argument about CEO pay. Your suggested behaviors called for equality of pay (truly 1=1 under your previous definition) for all members of the business. I asked a simple question in the context of a business - is there variation of the importance of contribution to the success of the business amongst the workers? Yes or no?

[Ahab]

No, charity does not prompt me to share with them so we all have queal stuff. Charity prompts me to look out for the general needs of my brothers and sisters. That means that if some one on the corner is begging for food I give it to them. I don't go over to him and give him one of my TV's because I have a few of them and he has none. If a man ask for a fish what does a TV profit him? Having equal stuff has nothing what so ever to do with charity. And having all thing in common as the LoC states is not the same as having equal stuff either. The 2 are not the same.

What would you call it if you not only gave that beggar on the street corner some food, but also a place for him to sleep, complete with a bed and a TV and some clean clothes, while also helping him to get a job. I'd call that charity, too. Why wouldn't you?

You were the one who said you liked 'The Blind Side', weren't you? They set that boy up, big time!

I reject your premise, so the rest of your post makes no sense to me. Thanks though.

Okey dokey. You've always had the right to disagree with me, and you still do, even now.

[Ahab]

I understood you the first time, but the fact is you tried to project a set of behaviors onto a business in support of your argument about CEO pay. Your suggested behaviors called for equality of pay (truly 1=1 under your previous definition) for all members of the business. I asked a simple question in the context of a business - is there variation of the importance of contribution to the success of the business amongst the workers? Yes or no?

Alright, I'll add in my own analogy of the Church, since you won't.

Yes, those who work for a business do offer variations of important contributions toward the success of that business, but the rewards for helping the business to be successful could be spread across all employees equally just as they will be in the Church, with anyone who works with all of their might receiving the same rewards, regardless of their "job", or calling.

[ttribe]

Alright, I'll add in my own analogy of the Church, since you won't.

Yes, those who work for a business do offer variations of important contributions toward the success of that business, but the rewards for helping the business to be successful could be spread across all employees equally just as they will be in the Church, with anyone who works with all of their might receiving the same rewards, regardless of their "job", or calling.

Ultimately (as in the afterlife), all who serve will receive the same reward (thus Christ's parable), but that does not mean (at all) that all receive the same rewards in the midst of service. Primarily, because it is not necessary. For example, I currently serve as a clerk in a bishopric. My calling does not require the time commitment that is required of the Bishop. I see how he is blessed for his service and how he is truly physically sustained. I, however, require no such "equal" reward insomuch as my service does not require the same sacrifice. Thus, there is no equality (as you've defined the term), but we have both received exactly what we needed and deserved.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What would you call it if you not only gave that beggar on the street corner some food, but also a place for him to sleep, complete with a bed and a TV and some clean clothes, while also helping him to get a job. I'd call that charity, too. Why wouldn't you?

You were the one who said you liked 'The Blind Side', weren't you? They set that boy up, big time!

Okey dokey. You've always had the right to disagree with me, and you still do, even now.

THat is one aspect of chairty, but it does not encompass the whole of charity. Again having equal stuff is not charity. And what you described above is not sharing so you all have equal stuff.

[Ahab]

THat is one aspect of chairty, but it does not encompass the whole of charity. Again having equal stuff is not charity. And what you described above is not sharing so you all have equal stuff.

In 'The Blind Side' that family all lived in the same house, so they all had that in common, and they all received the same benefits from the father who owned those Taco Bell's, and what not. You could argue that those businesses were only in the father's "NAME", or perhaps in the "NAME" of both the Father and the Son, er, excuse me, the father and his wife, but they all got to share in all of the blessings of those businesses, even though the father was the one who provided all of that for all of them.

[ttribe]

In 'The Blind Side' that family all lived in the same house, so they all had that in common, and they all received the same benefits from the father who owned those Taco Bell's, and what not. You could argue that those businesses were only in the father's "NAME", or perhaps in the "NAME" of both the Father and the Son, er, excuse me, the father and his wife, but they all got to share in all of the blessings of those businesses, even though the father was the one who provided all of that for all of them.

But he didn't share the business rewards equally with his employees, did he? Why is that?