The Morality of Wealth

[Jeff K.]

Its a good thing we don't take Colbert seriously or rely on him for our moral compass. After all, the next time you shove a 20 into the hands of an alcoholic, the one thing you aren't doing is helping that man. But then those who watch Colbert et al. aren't known for their intellectual and spiritual prowess.

[Bikeemikey]

The real problem is that you can "earn" money with out "generating value".

Economies are sustained by the generation of value. We "earn" by being able to sell that "value" for more than it cost to generate it. As such, some say that there is arguably an inherent immorality in such a system as all "earning" takes place when we sell something for more than it cost.

This is possible due to different perceptions of value. "Value" is not constant and can vary dramatically based on community, geography, etc. Taking advantage of varying levels of value is how we "earn".

Some of the issues with the most recent economic meltdown had to do with people in certain positions of advantage being able to manipulate "value" or the perception of "value" such that "earnings" become far more speculative. The greater the distance between the market cost of "value" and the real cost of that same "value" the bigger the economic "bubble".

When an economy becomes increasing based on inherently dangerous and overly speculative "betting" on value that in no way is grounded in true market viability, in order to help limited group of business interests and people derive substantial wealth, we have reached a point that is both is extremely dangerous and immoral. Such behavior can, and has had, much greater negative social impact than murder and a large number of other extreme criminal behaviors.

The outcomes of such economic activity endanger the larger community while providing benefit to only a select few.

This again has nothing to do with whether the accural of wealth is inherently immoral. Only certain manners of earning wealth are immoral.

[Analytics]

It isn't a hypothetical. It is real life. There are Luthern investment funds, hedge funds run by investment groups that are primarily made of nuns.

Okay, I'll rephrase the question. Do these real life nuns have an unfair advantage over the little guys?

And many other groups. Again you lack the knowledge in finance to know this is accurst.

You think it is accurst that a group of nuns run an investment fund? And you need knowledge of finance to know this?? lol

Stock trading is NOT a zero sum game sinse values increase based on demand which is based on a several variables including returns on investment, new technology, new ideas, management techniques. These and other factors drive up and down the value of stocks. Of course if you know nothing about stocks, you would probably assume incorrectly that it is a zero sum game.

Factors drive up and down the values of stocks, therefore it isn't a zero sum game? That's your argument? That's like saying that factors drive up and down the odds at the racetrack, therefore betting on horses isn't a zero sum game.

You toss out a number of words whose industry and work, I believe you are completely ignorant of.

You've demonstrated on this board that you believe many things that are false.

High frequency trading - for short term investments? Not a idea for most, but some do it. Does it "drain" the investment pool? Only of bad investors and it provides additional capital.

High frequency trading provides additional capital? To whom? The investment bankers who systematically milk money out of the markets this way?

I think I have a fairly good idea as to how the problems occurred and more to the point the sequence of events and the depth of impact for each event. As a former CFO, as a former Vice President of Finances...

Why did they fire you?

... as a private investor, and as someone who has made money on my investments, I dare say my knowledge far exceeds yours in what "goes on" and what doesn't.

Gosh, not only does your knowledge exceen mine, but it far exceeds mine? By how far, exactly?

You come across as somebody who doesn

[Analytics]

But based on what you have posted, regardless of your "philosophical" position, I am very aware of what you don't know or are not talented at, and that includes finances.

You are wrong about so many things that you know nothing about. It's funny.

I never worry about the wealth of others the way you do. I worry about what I can do for others. Your "philosophical approach" is little more than a veneer for coveting the luck, pluck, or talent of others and how they should be cut down for their success. I don't care about "their" success. I care about what I do with my talents. I suggest you do the same. It will help you sleep better at night instead of worrying about other people's money.

How much time do you think I spend worrying about other people's money? How broke do you think I am?

I'm not aware of any light between my view of the economy and Warren Buffett's. Do you think his philosophical approach is little more than a veneer for coveting the luck, pluck, or talent of others and how they should be cut down for their success?

[Analytics]

The real problem is that you can "earn" money with out "generating value".

I don't even know if that is a problem per se. But it is an accurate observation of the real world.

And it does raise the question, should people set out to "earn" money without generating value, just because they can legally do so?

When an economy becomes increasing based on inherently dangerous and overly speculative "betting" on value that in no way is grounded in true market viability, in order to help limited group of business interests and people derive substantial wealth, we have reached a point that is both is extremely dangerous and immoral. Such behavior can, and has had, much greater negative social impact than murder and a large number of other extreme criminal behaviors.

The outcomes of such economic activity endanger the larger community while providing benefit to only a select few.

Well said.

[mercyngrace]

Its a good thing we don't take Colbert seriously or rely on him for our moral compass. After all, the next time you shove a 20 into the hands of an alcoholic, the one thing you aren't doing is helping that man.

Wouldn't a wiser charitable contribution be food, clothing, housing, an opportunity to clean himself up through rehab or counseling, then love and fellowship until the man loves himself enough to make better choices?

Handing over a $20 is the easy way out in my book.

(I know you are well aware of this Jeff, I'm just making the observation.)

[Analytics]

Wherein have I judged you? I have repeatedly stated that I am seeking to understand the principles contained in the scriptures and that they apply to me!

* edit * I want to add here that the reason I mentioned lying, adultery, and other sins in the comment you replied to above, was specifically to make this point. This is a discussion about a precept. We judge behaviors for our own benefit. We have to know which course we personally should follow. We don't judge other individuals based on their behaviors because we can't know their motivations - their thoughts and intents. To suggest that we cannot judge behavior, especially in the context of understanding the scriptures, would be to suggest that there is no law and Lehi tells us where that leads. Now you may disagree with my understanding of the law, and that is certainly fodder for discussion, but to suggest that the mere act of discussing the law is judgmental and condemnatory is not logical.

Jeff, it's clear that you feel strongly about this topic but you are making false judgments and flawed assessments the likes of which I've already mentioned are flowing from BOTH sides of this argument. Can you not discuss this issue without those...

I think you expressed the point in red very well. The morality of our economic system and the decisions people make about money are valid topics of discussion.

[Jeff K.]

The real problem is that you can "earn" money with out "generating value".

Economies are sustained by the generation of value. We "earn" by being able to sell that "value" for more than it cost to generate it. As such, some say that there is arguably an inherent immorality in such a system as all "earning" takes place when we sell something for more than it cost.

This is possible due to different perceptions of value. "Value" is not constant and can vary dramatically based on community, geography, etc. Taking advantage of varying levels of value is how we "earn".

Some of the issues with the most recent economic meltdown had to do with people in certain positions of advantage being able to manipulate "value" or the perception of "value" such that "earnings" become far more speculative. The greater the distance between the market cost of "value" and the real cost of that same "value" the bigger the economic "bubble".

When an economy becomes increasing based on inherently dangerous and overly speculative "betting" on value that in no way is grounded in true market viability, in order to help limited group of business interests and people derive substantial wealth, we have reached a point that is both is extremely dangerous and immoral. Such behavior can, and has had, much greater negative social impact than murder and a large number of other extreme criminal behaviors.

The outcomes of such economic activity endanger the larger community while providing benefit to only a select few.

This again has nothing to do with whether the accural of wealth is inherently immoral. Only certain manners of earning wealth are immoral.

The "real" problem?

Earning money without generating value is a quaint notion but not really a true one.

Value is based on percieved demand for a product or service. Value is subjective to the person who gives you the money. I don't place a high value for instance on a 286 AT computer (beyond semtimental reasons), therefore I do not give money for it, and the person who has built it has earned little or nothing.

So what one person values, another does not. Want to pay 10,000 dollars for a dinner with the president? Some consider that a bargain, others would not pay such money. So when you say 'generate value', one wonders what exactly you mean since you seem to be using the term incorrectly.

But lets move on from the basics, and lets discuss the somewhat vague "people in power manipulated value". If you mean insider trading, it always has been illegal and will continue to be. If you mean the property bubble, well that wasn't manipulation so much as stupidity by a semi official government agency. They simply wanted more people to own homes so without studying the consequences they had fannie mae and freddie mac lower FICO requirements. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac inturn sold those debts in bundles to banks who sold the debts to other banks (these were called mortgage backed securities and there are other securities backed by different assets), it is one of hundreds of hedge fund markets out there.

The vague assertion that some people manipulated the system is way off since even those with a great deal of knowledge were not sure which bundles had good loans and which had bad ones. The mess was spontaneous and its roots go back to government actions.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 20 December 2010 - 11:39 AM, said:

It isn't a hypothetical. It is real life. There are Luthern investment funds, hedge funds run by investment groups that are primarily made of nuns.

Okay, I'll rephrase the question. Do these real life nuns have an unfair advantage over the little guys?

No, neither do Goldman Sachs or Merrill Lynch. You see you presume they do, but know nothing about the business.

Jeff K., on 20 December 2010 - 11:39 AM, said:

And many other groups. Again you lack the knowledge in finance to know this is accurst.

You think it is accurst that a group of nuns run an investment fund? And you need knowledge of finance to know this?? lol

I think you are ignorant of the subject matter and so your opinion based on ignorance is reflected in your posts. Of course being reduced to looking for spelling errors puts you in that special small minded catagory, but we already know that. And yes there are several investment groups some of which include nuns. Those familiar with finance have even followed (some of have shadowed their investment strategy) do you need to know finance to know this? You need to know finance to be aware of it since it generally falls below the radar of those who are ignorant of the system. You are a prime example of such. You also overlook that all of these different groups that use funds, derivatives and so on are made up on individuals who aren't, as you imply, greedy or amoral in some way.

Jeff K., on 20 December 2010 - 11:39 AM, said:

Stock trading is NOT a zero sum game sinse values increase based on demand which is based on a several variables including returns on investment, new technology, new ideas, management techniques. These and other factors drive up and down the value of stocks. Of course if you know nothing about stocks, you would probably assume incorrectly that it is a zero sum game.

Factors drive up and down the values of stocks, therefore it isn't a zero sum game? That's your argument? That's like saying that factors drive up and down the odds at the racetrack, therefore betting on horses isn't a zero sum game.

Sigh, factors expand the economic horizon. I suppose computers have remained the same price for the last 20 years because investments have not been used to expand innovation, management techniques and significant other factors. Again your lack of knowledge is telling. Based on your criteria Apple still only sells computers. Or was it investment in their stock that allowed them to innovate and their management style which changed when Jobs came back hmmmmm..... Again I cannot tell what you do know, but it becomes apparent to me what you don't know.

And your ignorance feeds your viceral covetousness as you try to tell others what to do with their money rather than worrying about yourself.

Jeff K., on 20 December 2010 - 11:39 AM, said:

You toss out a number of words whose industry and work, I believe you are completely ignorant of.

You've demonstrated on this board that you believe many things that are false.

That I believe deserves a CFR. So far you haven't even been close to correct. As I have indeed demonstrated and you have yet to counter.

Jeff K., on 20 December 2010 - 11:39 AM, said:

High frequency trading - for short term investments? Not a idea for most, but some do it. Does it "drain" the investment pool? Only of bad investors and it provides additional capital.

High frequency trading provides additional capital? To whom? The investment bankers who systematically milk money out of the markets this way?

All trading provides capital since you purchase the stock. I suggest you look it up in the dictionary. If you can't understand the basics why are you play acting at knowing markets and investments?

Quote

I think I have a fairly good idea as to how the problems occurred and more to the point the sequence of events and the depth of impact for each event. As a former CFO, as a former Vice President of Finances...

Why did they fire you?

Typical of the ignorant when they lose an argument. Lets see ad hom about spelling, speculation about being fired.... hmmm... I think you have pretty much conceded the position and are left with insults.

Quote

... as a private investor, and as someone who has made money on my investments, I dare say my knowledge far exceeds yours in what "goes on" and what doesn't.

Gosh, not only does your knowledge exceen mine, but it far exceeds mine? By how far, exactly?

You come across as somebody who doesn

[Jeff K.]

Wouldn't a wiser charitable contribution be food, clothing, housing, an opportunity to clean himself up through rehab or counseling, then love and fellowship until the man loves himself enough to make better choices?

Handing over a $20 is the easy way out in my book.

(I know you are well aware of this Jeff, I'm just making the observation.)

Indeed, and the best way to provide jobs is through investment and a system of investment ath will ensure an incentive method for all involved.

When the servants were given talents, they did not give them away. they "invested" them or put them to some use which would increase the value for their master. Analytics is the person who buries his talent because he believes it is a zero sum game and therefore he cannot concieve of an increase. Most of the rest of us have seen that fallacy put to rest long ago.

I do not consider giving an alcoholic 20 dollars to be easy since it will be held against me in the last day. I would have knowingly helped destroy a man. I would, and have, helped in more profound ways including helping to create jobs were none existed before (oh wait analytics says its a zero sum game... tsk tsk) and on an individual basis helping people find a job through my own contacts.

I agree there are many better ways.

[mercyngrace]

I do not consider giving an alcoholic 20 dollars to be easy since it will be held against me in the last day. I would have knowingly helped destroy a man.

Whoa. Not only do I disagree, I find this statement reflective of an extremist position that is not in keeping with the gospel. In fact, the 2nd article of faith assures us that we are not responsible for another's sins. So if I give charity in good faith, my act is rewarded regardless of how the recipient behaves. I also find this statement to be in conflict with King Benjamin's counsel to impart without judgment as to how the beggar came by his circumstance and the Lord's injunction to go and do likewise, in emulation good Samaritan, who freely offered aid to a stranger without knowing beforehand what circumstances had befallen him.

Do you really believe, Jeff, that God would punish you for trying to lift another? Do you punish your child for trying to help his sibling, even if the efforts seem wasted?

edit: I find it fascinating that the parable of the talents is consistently treated as if it were about money despite the fact that it is sandwiched (Matt 25) between the parable of the ten virgins and the parable of the goats and sheep - both parables that depict the separating of those who truly follow God from those who follow in word only. A careful look at the parable shows that it isn't about money at all but about a certain type of individual - an unprofitable servant (see Matt 25:30) who is cast out for not doing the will of His master. This parable is perfectly in keeping with the theme of the chapter. Those who do His will inherit His reward. Those who don't are left outside the wedding, cast out into the darkness, and sent from His left hand to an everlasting punishment. So what is His will? It's covered in verses 35-40 and clarified in Matt. 18:14 where the Savior refers to His lost sheep and declares "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."

[Analytics]

You see you presume they do, but know nothing about the business

[Jeff K.]

Whoa. Not only do I disagree, I find this statement reflective of an extremist position that is not in keeping with the gospel. In fact, the 2nd article of faith assures us that we are not responsible for another's sins. So if I give charity in good faith, my act is rewarded regardless of how the recipient behaves. I also find this statement to be in conflict with King Benjamin's counsel to impart without judgment as to how the beggar came by his circumstance and the Lord's injunction to go and do likewise, in emulation good Samaritan, who freely offered aid to a stranger without knowing beforehand what circumstances had befallen him.

Do you really believe, Jeff, that God would punish you for trying to lift another? Do you punish your child for trying to help his sibling, even if the efforts seem wasted?

edit: I find it fascinating that the parable of the talents is consistently treated as if it were about money despite the fact that it is sandwiched (Matt 25) between the parable of the ten virgins and the parable of the goats and sheep - both parables that depict the separating of those who truly follow God from those who follow in word only. A careful look at the parable shows that it isn't about money at all but about a certain type of individual - an unprofitable servant (see Matt 25:30) who is cast out for not doing the will of His master. This parable is perfectly in keeping with the theme of the chapter. Those who do His will inherit His reward. Those who don't are left outside the wedding, cast out into the darkness, and sent from His left hand to an everlasting punishment. So what is His will? It's covered in verses 35-40 and clarified in Matt. 18:14 where the Savior refers to His lost sheep and declares "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."

We are not responsible for another man's sins. That is true. But we are responsible to the extent that we make that sin available and even encourage the man. For instance I could be making illicit drugs, but if I don't give them to a man, am I free of rsponsibility? No. If I give a man the means by which he can imbibe more easily in his alcoholism, knowing that is where my money will be spent. Then yes, I think I will be held responsible for it. I am helping that man become an alcoholic or a drug abuser because I know that is what it goes for.

We are not held responsible for the sins of others, but comission is itself a sin we commit. In effect we abuse our stewardship by doing so.

Your review of King Benjamin is correct but does not apply in this case. I do not ask how the alcoholic became an alcoholic, or the drug addict fell to his addiction. These are for them alone to contend with.

Nor might I add did the Samaritan simply give money and walk away. Indeed I view the giving of money without thought to consequences to be the equivalent of tossing the coins at the injured man. The coins do not help, but the person tossing them freed of his consciousness. The Samaritan did something quite different. he did not merely toss coins, and he did not merely make an unquestioned gesture. The Samaritan took the time to see what the mans needs were, and how he might acommodate those needs. I see alms giving in the same way. I do not give to just any charity because some are ineffective. I also provide help that is measured to help and not simply tossed to the vagaries of the user and his potentially diminished capacity. It shows you care more when you take the time to help than when you toss a 20 and move on.

I agree, it isn't about the money, it is about helping in the best way possible. Enabling someone is not the best way and it only helps the person dig a deeper grave, the difference being that if you give that person the money you help them, the same as if you put a bottle in his hand or a needle in his vein.

[Jeff K.]

Okay. For example, you said

[USU78]

SO . . . if my spouse is gravely ill, I must spend or give away all I earn and save/invest nothing against the possibility that I may predecease her? Supposing I do, how is she supposed to live? Caretakers cost a lot of money. Medical bills can suck up a whole lot of wealth in a very short period of time. Medicaid will surely seize the house. Or should we simply euthanize her? Makes better economic sense, and we can donate the balance to . . . who was more deserving again?

USU "Fuming" 78

[Jeff K.]

Mercy:

In regard to the parable of the talents. There is no single message or meaning in parables. The talents represent many things. They represent spiritual gifts which we are supposed to develop. They represent the gospel, and how its value must be shared, they represent the stewardship of our blessings upon this earth and how we are suppose to act with those blessings (materialistically and spiritually). The recurring theme therefore is one in which we are to be careful in what we do so that all we do increases the Lord's kingdom. The talents are what we have to work with, we can toss them away into the ground, or we can seek the greatest increase for our Lord, one that is celebrated by our Lord and Master. I see helping the poor with that same view.

[mercyngrace]

We are not responsible for another man's sins. That is true. But we are responsible to the extent that we make that sin available and even encourage the man.

Then give the alcoholic food. Or clothes. Or time. Or job training.

For instance I could be making illicit drugs, but if I don't give them to a man, am I free of rsponsibility? No. If I give a man the means by which he can imbibe more easily in his alcoholism, knowing that is where my money will be spent. Then yes, I think I will be held responsible for it. I am helping that man become an alcoholic or a drug abuser because I know that is what it goes for.

Jeff, I honestly don't even know how to respond to these claims of omniscience. You may suspect that someone will misuse aid. You may reliably predict it. But you don't know. For that matter, you may be inclined to employ a well-dressed, respectable looking man who goes home and uses his paycheck for immoral and illicit purposes. Are you guilty for abetting him in his sins also?

We are not held responsible for the sins of others, but comission is itself a sin we commit. In effect we abuse our stewardship by doing so.

So you are more responsible for possibly providing a man the means to sin but not responsible for walking by as he goes hungry?

Your review of King Benjamin is correct but does not apply in this case. I do not ask how the alcoholic became an alcoholic, or the drug addict fell to his addiction. These are for them alone to contend with.

But withholding aid based on previous choices is exactly what you are doing when you look at a man, see his past behavior and refuse future aid based on an educated guess about his possible future behavior. You are judging how he came by his circumstance and denying aid on that basis. King Benjamin's counsel is perfectly applicable.

Nor might I add did the Samaritan simply give money and walk away. Indeed I view the giving of money without thought to consequences to be the equivalent of tossing the coins at the injured man. The coins do not help, but the person tossing them free of his consciousness. The Samaritan did something quite different. he did not merely toss coins, and he did not merely make an unquestioned gesture. The Samaritan took the time to see what the mans needs were, and how he might acommodate those needs. I see alms giving in the same way. I do not give to just any charity because some are ineffective. I also provide help that is measured to help and not simply tossed to the vagaries of the user and his potentially diminished capacity. It shows you care more when you take the time to help than when you toss a 20 and move on.

Jeff, do you realize that you just said exactly what I said a few posts back?

I agree, it isn't about the money, it is about helping in the best way possible. Enabling someone is not the best way and it only helps the person dig a deeper grave, the difference being that if you give that person the money you help them, the same as if you put a bottle in his hand or a needle in his vein.

I think I'm the one who said giving $20 was the easy way out. Real help requires more an investment off much more than mere money.

If you don't mind, let's move on from this line of discussion -- I'm not sure we disagree all that much and I think we may just be talking past one another. Besides, I have other questions that I find far more interesting and I'd love to hear your answers.... (cont'd next post)

[mercyngrace]

Jeff,

How does creating jobs help this hypothetical alcoholic on the street? Will he get hired? Will the availability of jobs help him overcome his addiction? How exactly does this charity trickle down to the people who are currently unemployable? How does it reach those who are permanently unemployable due to mental, emotional, or physical disabilities? How does it feed and clothe people when there is surplus labor?

It's my opinion that we shouldn't let ourselves be satisfied with incidental charity. That's part of the problem. Socialists and Marxists expect the government to create social justice through coercive redistribution of wealth and capitalists expect the economy to create social justice in the form of equality of opportunity. But God expects us to do it individually and purposefully in a meaningful and personal way that requires life-altering love and self-sacrifice on behalf of beloved spirit siblings. No system, political or economic, has the power to exalt us - only pure love and grace, an underserved kindness, can do that. If we really want to embody the love of Christ, we can't be content with trickle down kindness or forced charity.

As a nation, we need to take back our responsibility from the government and begin caring for and watching over all the people in our lives with tender mercy. We need to treat as neighbors as we would want to be treated, in good times and bad. We need to stop seeing people as "alcoholics" (or any other -ites) and see them as brethren while gratefully thinking "There but for the grace of God, go I." That's the reality of it. We can't relegate our moral duty to an economic system any more than we can rightfully expect the government to see to it.

(Putting my soapbox away now... This topic is near and dear to my heart and I know I get carried away sometimes so I hope you take my passion for what it is and nothing more.)

[Analytics]

Beyond the ad homs you haven't given one financial fact, actually you have had to be corrected several times. You aren't sure what investments are, you don't know hedge funds either, and you mix up your terms. You say I "literally could not be more wrong", and yet, you haven't been right once. You haven't expanded your horizons young man, have only fortified your darkness.

If you ever want to learn about finance, and investments and how they work for the betterment of all when done correctly and legally feel free to drop me a line....

The only thing I clearly don't know is what in the heck you are talking about.

The fact of the matter is that you pontificate about your beliefs as if they were the gospel-truth, with your argumentation consisting of two parts: 1- assertions that you are an all-around financial genius, and 2- assertions that I know absolutely nothing. How exactly does one you argue with that? It seems you want me to sit down at your feet and say,

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 20 December 2010 - 08:26 PM, said:

We are not responsible for another man's sins. That is true. But we are responsible to the extent that we make that sin available and even encourage the man.

Then give the alcoholic food. Or clothes. Or time. Or job training.

Exactly, and on occasion I have done exactly that.

Quote

For instance I could be making illicit drugs, but if I don't give them to a man, am I free of rsponsibility? No. If I give a man the means by which he can imbibe more easily in his alcoholism, knowing that is where my money will be spent. Then yes, I think I will be held responsible for it. I am helping that man become an alcoholic or a drug abuser because I know that is what it goes for.

Jeff, I honestly don't even know how to respond to these claims of omniscience. You may suspect that someone will misuse aid. You may reliably predict it. But you don't know. For that matter, you may be inclined to employ a well-dressed, respectable looking man who goes home and uses his paycheck for immoral and illicit purposes. Are you guilty for abetting him in his sins also?

It isn't omniscience, but it should not be blindness either. As to accountability, I think I will be accountable for what I know or believe. I think I will be held accountable if I think my money will go for a nefarious purpose and yet I still give that money to someone, a sin of commission if you will.

Quote

We are not held responsible for the sins of others, but comission is itself a sin we commit. In effect we abuse our stewardship by doing so.

So you are more responsible for possibly providing a man the means to sin but not responsible for walking by as he goes hungry?

I would offer food, and have offered food coupons (free cheese burger) but not money, because I know that it is likely to be turned for a worse purpose than sustinance, so I take the steps to avoid wasting money and hurting the individual.

Quote

Nor might I add did the Samaritan simply give money and walk away. Indeed I view the giving of money without thought to consequences to be the equivalent of tossing the coins at the injured man. The coins do not help, but the person tossing them free of his consciousness. The Samaritan did something quite different. he did not merely toss coins, and he did not merely make an unquestioned gesture. The Samaritan took the time to see what the mans needs were, and how he might acommodate those needs. I see alms giving in the same way. I do not give to just any charity because some are ineffective. I also provide help that is measured to help and not simply tossed to the vagaries of the user and his potentially diminished capacity. It shows you care more when you take the time to help than when you toss a 20 and move on.

Jeff, do you realize that you just said exactly what I said a few posts back?

It is consistent to the position I have always had. I don't give cash to alcoholics because I know they are weak. I won't shove a 20 into the hands of someone I am pretty sure will abuse the 20 and make themselves worse.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

How does creating jobs help this hypothetical alcoholic on the street? Will he get hired? Will the availability of jobs help him overcome his addiction? How exactly does this charity trickle down to the people who are currently unemployable? How does it reach those who are permanently unemployable due to mental, emotional, or physical disabilities? How does it feed and clothe people when there is surplus labor?

It's my opinion that we shouldn't let ourselves be satisfied with incidental charity. That's part of the problem. Socialists and Marxists expect the government to create social justice through coercive redistribution of wealth and capitalists expect the economy to create social justice in the form of equality of opportunity. But God expects us to do it individually and purposefully in a meaningful and personal way that requires life-altering love and self-sacrifice on behalf of beloved spirit siblings. No system, political or economic, has the power to exalt us - only pure love and grace, an underserved kindness, can do that. If we really want to embody the love of Christ, we can't be content with trickle down kindness or forced charity.

As a nation, we need to take back our responsibility from the government and begin caring for and watching over all the people in our lives with tender mercy. We need to treat as neighbors as we would want to be treated, in good times and bad. We need to stop seeing people as "alcoholics" (or any other -ites) and see them as brethren while gratefully thinking "There but for the grace of God, go I." That's the reality of it. We can't relegate our moral duty to an economic system any more than we can rightfully expect the government to see to it.

(Putting my soapbox away now... This topic is near and dear to my heart and I know I get carried away sometimes so I hope you take my passion for what it is and nothing more.)

On a linear basis:

As demand for workers increases, the requriements or minimum standards (ie the knowledge which is not essential but can provided with training) are reduced. The opportunity for the individual, even an alcoholic will increase and many do simply need a long term job to crawl out of their present circumstances.

Non linear basis, as the economy increases with jobs and hence prosperity for all, more income becomes available through organizations to help those in need. Not just alcoholics but families and others who need those opportunities. A rising tide, as they say, raises all boats.

I am a strong believer in personal responsibilitiy which includes helping as well as seeking help. I agree with that view.

[Jeff K.]

The only thing I clearly don't know is what in the heck you are talking about.

The fact of the matter is that you pontificate about your beliefs as if they were the gospel-truth, with your argumentation consisting of two parts: 1- assertions that you are an all-around financial genius, and 2- assertions that I know absolutely nothing. How exactly does one you argue with that? It seems you want me to sit down at your feet and say,

[Analytics]

Look I am tired of dealing and re-explaining simple economics. I really don't care if you like the way I spell or not, or if you somehow think I was fired or not. YOU DON'T KNOW ECONOMICS AND FINANCE, its a waste of my time going over the basics with someone who just doesn't know or care.

I knew if I tried to actually discuss ideas with you that you'd refuse to discuss ideas and would just continue insult me. The all CAPS is quite effective at expressing how sure you are of something you couldn't know about because you don't know me.

Your comment about corporations reflects that. I have known corporations that care a great deal and have people behind them that care. Again, your experience, is empty of any real knowledge of corporations.

You have no idea what's on my resume. Why do you think my experience is empty? Is it the same basis you have for knowing that your church is true?

You don't know capitalism, finance, economics or corporations, but I am sure you are really really good at judging them.

It's really, really important for you to avoid talking about ideas with me, but rather win by ad hominem. Why is that?

I am trying not to be harsh, but I really don't have the time or desire to go back to the basics and slowly build up. Suffice to say, regardles of your opinion of me, my positions have required me to know what things like zero sum games are, and how values increase and what the economic horizon consists of. It takes too long to go through each definition as you chaotically flit between them without knowing what their definitions entail.

I'm sure you've had wonderful positions in the past. But I can't help but wonder why you make such appears to your own authority based upon what you did in the past rather than upon what you do now.

[mercyngrace]

On a linear basis:

As demand for workers increases, the requriements or minimum standards (ie the knowledge which is not essential but can provided with training) are reduced. The opportunity for the individual, even an alcoholic will increase and many do simply need a long term job to crawl out of their present circumstances.

Non linear basis, as the economy increases with jobs and hence prosperity for all, more income becomes available through organizations to help those in need. Not just alcoholics but families and others who need those opportunities. A rising tide, as they say, raises all boats.

I am a strong believer in personal responsibilitiy which includes helping as well as seeking help. I agree with that view.

But what do you do in the mean time? What do you do for the man who is starving TODAY? For the child who is naked TODAY? For the sick who is perishing TODAY? For the captive who needs visiting TODAY? Do you let them starve while the market picks up?

There is a rising tide alright. It's described in Ezekiel as healing water that issues forth from the temple. The love of God, His presence in our lives, as visualized through the parted veil, is supposed to change our very nature such that we become the people described in Mosiah. People who are familiar with their substance and treat all men as brethren. People who will not suffer the beggar to go hungry.

Jeff, I understand what you believe about economics and in principle, I don't disagree that the theory can have a positive, albeit limited effect (you still haven't explained how the infirm, aged, or unemployable are saved by the creation of jobs). But, regardless of its' potential for good, it is not exalting. Exaltation comes through self-abasement and through extending the same mercy we receive to others, regardless of whether they deserve it or even whether they'll receive it or misuse it. It has to be intentional and intensely personal. That's how Christ was exalted, He set aside His rights to the kingdom in order to descend below all things for the salvation of others and because of that He was exalted. (Philipians 2)

Consider this excerpt from Luke 18:

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous (meritocracy), and despised others (esteemed others as less than themselves or see them as undeserving for whatever reason):

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

What's really fascinating in this parable is that the Pharisee is actually doing all the required things. Surely he gives alms and the Lord explicitly indicates that the Pharisee tithes. Why does he remain unjustified? In nothing doth a man offend God, D&C 59:21, tells us, except when he fails to acknowledge God's hand in all things. So the moment you think you've "earned" anything, you're climbing the stairs of the rameumptom or beginning the prayer of the Pharisee.

When you give charity through your human resources department, you are giving to the deserving and for your own gain. Would not the fabled Pharisee do the same? (Matt 5:46-47)

Enough rambling My kids are starting to look at each other with ravenous looks so I'd better go make breakfast...

[LeSellers]

I moved the last comment to the beginning of this response for effect.

What, specifically, do you think I am wrong about? When you criticize me here, please address my actual views.

Wilco.

One of the things we