Secret Combinations Vs. Conspiracy Theories:

[zerinus]

Okay, I'll come out a little bit (more?)

What I get out of our Lord's warning to beware of evil and conspiring men seeking to control [things] is pretty much in line with what I get out of our Lord's message to not be of the world... even though we live in it and the elements of our physical bodies are composed of the dust of this Earth.

In other words, watch out to make sure we don't become "worldly", or like those "of the world" who, as I see it, primarily concern themselves with "getting gain" and exercising some kind of "control" in this world which I see as usually being accomplished through politics which affects systems of economy.

My favorite example is how our "worldly" economic system now requires the use of "money"... which can be used in a good way too, I know, but which more often than not involves some type of oppression. People should do things for others simply because they want to do things for others, when motivated out of the charity of their own hearts, rather than because they need some "money" to survive in this world.

Satan is the one who introduced the concept of money, you know, and how people can get anything in this world with it.

Those who follow the Lord aren't motivated by any love or high regard for "money", and they don't really want to exercise power over others, either.

What I haven't yet quite understood is whether you are opposed to excessive wealth (or any amount of wealth); or whether you are opposed to "money" as a thing in itself. "Money" itself, as I see it, is nothing more than a means of exchange. It is an economic "tool" to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. And as such it can only be a good thing. It is like any other tool, such as a spanner or screwdriver; and as such it can only be a good thing.

My understanding of the scriptures is that God is opposed to excessive wealth (at the expense of others), not "money" as such. Wealth is not always money. Most wealth is held in the form of property, or stock, or other valuables or commodities. It is excessive wealth that is often condemned in scripture. Even that is not strictly accurate. Excessive wealth is condemned in scripture when it is either (a) unlawfully obtained, or (b) when it is hoarded or coveted, and not generously spent on others, especially on the poor and the needy. That is the only time when wealth is condemned in scripture. And "money" itself, as an economic tool, is never condemned.

I conclude that your opposition to the concept of "money," as far as I can understand it, is mistaken; and your assertion that it is the invention of Satan is definitely false doctrine. Satan does not invent anything that is useful or good. Money is a useful tool, and therefore it is good. It is like a spanner. A spanner is useful, and therefore it is good. Whoever invented the first spanner must have been inspired of God! Likewise, whoever invented the first money invented a useful thing, and therefore something good. You can obviously use any kind of tool for a good purpose or a bad purpose. You can use a spanner to build a bomb, or to fix somebody's bike. But that is a different thing entirely. If a tool is useful, then it is good; and if it is good, then it can only come form God, not from the devil.

Edited July 7, 2011 by zerinus

[LeSellers]

Yes [money] does [involve oppression more often than not]. Ask everyone you know who works for money if they would still do that work if they were no longer paid with any money, and most of them will tell you that they would rather do something else, instead. I know some people are fortunate enough to do some type of work they would still do even if they didn't get paid any money, but most people who work for money do that type of work just because they need some way to make some money to get the things they want in this world.

That is pure, unadulterated twash! (I made that word up, but I'll bet you know what it means.)

The only people who can "afford" to do without working for money are those who are wholly self-sufficient.

Joseph Smith worked for money, Brigham Young worked for money. I'd bet you that they did not enjoy digging wells, nor even making cabinents. But they could not feed themselves and their familes with only the resources they could muster without employment for money.

It's the plain and simple truth, Lehi.

If it's so plain, if it's so simple, why are so many people unable, like me, to see it?

I submit that it's neither plain nor simple, and it is most assuredly not the truth.

People work for someone else who pays them with money because they don't have enough resources of their own to get what they want and/or need in this world,

BINGO!!!

They are not self-sufficient. Indeed, in the modern age, no one can be, unless he decides to forego most of the things we take for granted: "No phone, no lights no motor cars, not a single luxury, like Robinson Crusoe, as primative as can be."

and because money is almost a necessity to be able to get anything in this world. I know there are those who give to others based on the charity in their own hearts, but most people don't get enough of what they need without needing to work for money, which means they then need to find someone to do some work for who will pay them some money for work. And at that point, what you have is an employer/employee relationship, where the employee is subservient to the employer. That's oppression, bro, even though some people willingly sell themselves into that type of slavery.

Your view of oppression is skewed beyond anything rational.

Employment is a trade. I offer my efforts, skills, and experience along with my time in exchange for money (which I can exchange later for bread, shoes, electricity, and entertainment, inter alia. If I don't accept the rate of exchange (one hour of work for $25 or $250) then I do not have to take it.

All exchanges involve what economists call "opportunity costs". In other words, once I spend that hour in exchange for the $85 the boss pays me, I cannot use it in anyother way. I've given up the possibility of using to play with my grandchildren, to weed my garden, to build an airplane or a raft. I must have valued the $85 more than anything else I could have used that time for or else I would not have used it that way. If I could have traded my hour for $106, doing something else I hated, I would be faced with a choice. Not only do I have to choose whether to spend the time working for money instead of playing chess with my neighbor, I have to decide whether doing something I hate is worth the $21. If I decide it is, then I'll take the new offer. If not, I'll stay where I am.

In no case am I exploited or oppressed. I made the choice. In fact, because I value the $37 dollars I get for one hour of my work more than I would doing anything else, I am taking advantage of my boss. He could probably get my time and effort for $34. But I am not telling him that, am I? (Of course, he might decide that my skills are worth $41, so he's "taking advantage" of me. Hmmm, we're both getting more than we are willing to pay. Odd ain't it?) And because both of us have made the trade, we are both better off, both happier.

Yes, and the goal of most employees is to try to please their masters well enough to get what they want to get from their masters... whether it be money, or health benefits, or whatever other kind of perks the employer is holding out to them as a carrot to induce them to work.

And that's ... bad?

How? They, the employer and the employee, are getting what they want out of the relationship. Moreover, they are both better off because of the trade.

Money wouldn't be necessary if people did what they did out of charity.

As I have said before, this may be true, but it fails to address the issue of waste.

If I decide to give my work for nothing but my charity, how in the world can anyone claim that I used my time in the best way? And how do I know this person deserves my charity? If I sell my work (or tomatoes), I know the person getting it/them has done something useful for society becuase someone else paid him for it. A freeloader probably has not. Doesn't the scripture say the idler shall not wear the clothes nor eat the bread of the laborer? If the person has money, he has done something; if he has none, it's a good bet he didn't do anything.

There's a whole lot of stuff going on in this world that you don't seem to realize. The "world" is the way it is because of Satan's influence, and he has been very busy.

Oh, now I see what you mean. I'm blind and naïve. I haven't seen anything evil or nasty in my 63 years on this planet. Right.

I hate [money] because I want to totally get rid of all that I have in exchange for something better, given the fact that I can see it's pretty much worthless, in itself.

I know what you are saying, but money is an abstract. It represents actual wealth, things people have made or done for other people. That's why it has value. At least up until about 1932 when we went off the Gold standard. Now money is only valuable because the state says it is. It still has value, so far, because its circulation is limited to trades between people who've done something valuable. But when the printing presses start rolling, as they are doing right now, all that value will be lost.

Most who "use it as a tool" use it in trade to someone else in exchange for something else they want, instead.

DUH!! That's what money is.

Do you want someone to do some kind of work for you? Well, you could offer some "money", but on the other hand you could just ask if someone would do it for you.

And nothing would get done.

Most who love money really don't want charity, though... which is sad, because charity is a whole lot better.

That's a non sequitor.

Yeah, sure, just sell yourself into some form of slavery while hoping your master will be well pleased with what you do for him, or offer to him.

Once again, you belittle work. We are commanded to work.

If I can't make my boss happy, I should not be working for him. If he doesn't make me happy, by paying me, I should not be working for him.

Personally, I'd rather be in a situation where I do only what I want to do out of the charity of my own heart.

And if that's all you'd do, then I suggest you would not do much, and neither would anyone else.

Lehi

Edited July 7, 2011 by LeSellers

[Ahab]

The only people who can "afford" to do without working for money are those who are wholly self-sufficient.

... or those who have enough friends who will work on the principle of charity to help them have all of the things they want and/or need, as far as it is in their power.

Joseph Smith worked for money, Brigham Young worked for money. I'd bet you that they did not enjoy digging wells, nor even making cabinents. But they could not feed themselves and their familes with only the resources they could muster without employment for money.

Yes, they could have, and often did, even though they still had to work for money sometimes.

If you'll stop to think about it for a while I think you'd be able to see that all of the things we both want and need come from what we call either "natural" resources or "the resources people produce by doing some kind of work." Money isn't a factor that needs to enter into it at all, and if enough people had either some natural resource(s) or were willing to do some kind of work, that group of people could collectively produce everything that most groups produce now without money ever needing to come into the picture.

Say, for example, that a bunch of people collectively had some land, which has other natural resources on it, including water and minerals. Now suppose that group collectively also has some farming equipment, along with some lots of different kinds of seeds to produce different kinds of foods, along with a lot of livestock from which more livestock could be produced. Keep going with that idea, imagining all kinds of things a large group of people could have, collectively, including the ability to produce all kinds of things which many take for granted in our modern age.

All it takes is enough people who are willing to work together while sharing all of their rescources, producing more resources as they are able. Money wouldn't be necessary at all. It would be like one big family without nobody in the family having to pay to eat their meals or borrow the car(s) or whatever else they have in their collective. As long as everybody worked and had charity in their hearts, everybody would see to it that everything they had was distributed as well as it could be distributed, with everybody owning everything collectively.

If it's so plain, if it's so simple, why are so many people unable, like me, to see it?

It seems to me that you're having a very difficult time separating yourself from what I see as a very high regard for money. You seem to think that when anyone does any kind of work, that person should be paid with money, as if that's a necessary element in any economy. It's really not, though, even though some people can't seem to imagine being able to live without it.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Ahab

[Ahab]

What I haven't yet quite understood is whether you are opposed to excessive wealth (or any amount of wealth); or whether you are opposed to "money" as a thing in itself. "Money" itself, as I see it, is nothing more than a means of exchange. It is an economic "tool" to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. And as such it can only be a good thing. It is like any other tool, such as a spanner or screwdriver; and as such it can only be a good thing.

My understanding of the scriptures is that God is opposed to excessive wealth (at the expense of others), not "money" as such. Wealth is not always money. Most wealth is held in the form of property, or stock, or other valuables or commodities. It is excessive wealth that is often condemned in scripture. Even that is not strictly accurate. Excessive wealth is condemned in scripture when it is either (a) unlawfully obtained, or (b) when it is hoarded or coveted, and not generously spent on others, especially on the poor and the needy. That is the only time when wealth is condemned in scripture. And "money" itself, as an economic tool, is never condemned.

I conclude that your opposition to the concept of "money," as far as I can understand it, is mistaken; and your assertion that it is the invention of Satan is definitely false doctrine. Satan does not invent anything that is useful or good. Money is a useful tool, and therefore it is good. It is like a spanner. A spanner is useful, and therefore it is good. Whoever invented the first spanner must have been inspired of God! Likewise, whoever invented the first money invented a useful thing, and therefore something good. You can obviously use any kind of tool for a good purpose or a bad purpose. You can use a spanner to build a bomb, or to fix somebody's bike. But that is a different thing entirely. If a tool is useful, then it is good; and if it is good, then it can only come form God, not from the devil.

Money, when used as money, is good for absolutely nothing at all except to trade it for something else. There is no real value in "money" at all, and people with charity could come up with the best way to share all of their resources without ever having to use anything like what we call "money".

Come to the point where you can see that, and then we can talk about this issue some more.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Ahab

[HeatherAnn]

Okay, I'll come out a little bit (more?)

What I get out of our Lord's warning to beware of evil and conspiring men seeking to control [things] is pretty much in line with what I get out of our Lord's message to not be of the world... even though we live in it and the elements of our physical bodies are composed of the dust of this Earth.

In other words, watch out to make sure we don't become "worldly", or like those "of the world" who, as I see it, primarily concern themselves with "getting gain" and exercising some kind of "control" in this world which I see as usually being accomplished through politics which affects systems of economy.

My favorite example is how our "worldly" economic system now requires the use of "money"... which can be used in a good way too, I know, but which more often than not involves some type of oppression. People should do things for others simply because they want to do things for others, when motivated out of the charity of their own hearts, rather than because they need some "money" to survive in this world.

Satan is the one who introduced the concept of money, you know, and how people can get anything in this world with it.

Those who follow the Lord aren't motivated by any love or high regard for "money", and they don't really want to exercise power over others, either.

Interesting. Thanks, Ahab.

As mentioned, I think wealth is neutral to an extent - within a certain society. How money is used - & the intent is more significant, morally.

Money doesn't always compensate fairly. Some, who work hard, but either lack education or opportunity, may struggle financially, while some play a sport for a few years & are set for life. Obviously, those living out in the bush in Africa, or maybe strict Omish may be at a disadvantage in dealing with people who use money, since they generally don't circulate money in their lives as much. You're right, that money, in itself has no value, but it's like an agreed token of exchange. And I don't know of a better common valuable token used as an economic exchange system. Maybe spiritually, we literally reap what we sow, but life involves more interplaying of powers, more practical needs & less awareness.

I've wrestled with the idea of wealth. After visiting countries with extreme poverty, I've felt guilty for enjoying common luxuries.

We donate, but is that enough? What is enough?

I was raised with certain luxuries, so would that be loving to myself to deny those?

Greg Mortenson lived in his car for a while, to save money to build a school in the mountains of Pakistan.

Is that what a truly loving person would do, or do we need to balance caring for ourselves & others more?

When I think of wordly, I think of pride. Money is not the only source of pride.

Ideally, people would all be perfect & be inspired exactly how to help each other & themselves in perfect harmony.

But this is life - beautiful, imperfect, crazy life!

Just as ideally, we'd have perfect thoughts & could read each others' thoughts for perfect communication, but we don't.

Yet, we need to have some order... so we have imperfect languages & imperfect economic systems.

Edited July 7, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Ahab]

I’m thinking some examples might help others to see what I see about an economy based on charity, rather than on money or any other tool of exchange. I’ll start with something simple and work up.

My wife is an excellent chef/cook/baker and is able to make just about any food that can be found in any restaurant, and it usually tastes better, too. That’s a form of “work” she can do and often does without being paid any money for her work or what she produces.

Now suppose you were to come over for dinner at our house, invited of course, rather than going out to eat at some restaurant. The restaurant would probably charge you some money for the meal that you ate, but my wife wouldn’t and she wouldn’t even accept it if you offered some of it to her. This is an example of an economic system that is based on charity, rather than on some kind of “money”.

Now, you might suppose we needed to use money to buy the food we prepared for dinner that night, but what if I told you we didn’t. What if, instead, it came from our own garden and/or livestock resources watered by our own well water out in the sunshine with some good compost we made the old fashioned way… or better yet, the same high quality food came charitably from somebody else’s food supply resources. (I say “better yet” because I think getting something from charity is the absolute best way to get it).

Now, you might suppose the person who charitably gave of their food supply resources needed to use money to get it, themselves, but what if I told you they didn’t, nor did anyone else up the line to wherever the food originally came from? Pretty cool, huh?

How many people do you think the world could feed with needing to use any money?

And btw, if “food” doesn’t float your boat, suppose you used the same economic principle to obtain any other form of goods and/or services. Suppose you wanted a house and/or car and/or boat and/or television and someone had an extra one they could give to you without you paying them any money for it? Would you just automatically assume they had paid some money for it, originally? What if I told you they didn’t and it was just as good as any you could buy with some money?

What if I told you a bunch of people collectively had a lot of land with a lot of other natural resources, along with the ability to make all kinds of things, and none of them accepted any money for their work and/or goods and/or services? What if I told you they really enjoyed giving things away like that, without any type of exchange necessary, because they really enjoyed giving out of the charity in their own hearts. And what if I told you that if ever tried to offer them money they would simply turn it down with an empthatic “No thank you!” because they really hate the concept of accepting money for the “gifts” that they offer to others?

Is it really so hard to imagine living in a society like that… even for some latter-day saints?

I hope more of us are becoming more like Elisha than one of his servants who wanted some money. It’s not that money is “bad”, necessarily. It’s just that we could get along much better without any of it as long as the person(s) we get something from is charitable.

[HeatherAnn]

Ahab,

"I sent you a post card with a picture of earth & wrote, wishing you were here."

What you say is beautiful, but too idealistic.

We're created intentionally imperfect, so some would be giving more than others.

It's why, when the saints in So. UT tried living the united order, it didn't work.

[Ahab]

Ahab,

"I sent you a post card with a picture of earth & wrote, wishing you were here."

What you say is beautiful, but too idealistic.

What to you is ideallistic is reality to some other people.

I'm getting ready for the Celestial kingdom.

We're created intentionally imperfect, so some would be giving more than others.

That's fine with me. I think our goal should be to give as much as we have the power to give.

I'd love to be able to give more than I can give at this time, but I don't have as much to give as some other people.

But, then again, I do have more than some other people, and what I give is more than they're able to give.

It's why, when the saints in So. UT tried living the united order, it didn't work.

I recommend getting ready for the next go round... by practicing, practicing, practicing.

It may be time to live it before you know it, and it's fun to do as much as you're able to do.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Ahab

[zerinus]

Money, when used as money, is good for absolutely nothing at all except to trade it for something else.

I don't agree. Money as money, is useful for the exchange of goods and services. “Paper money” is a relatively recent invention. Before that time money consisted of a valued commodity like a precious metal as in gold and silver. Because these precious metals had high (intrinsic) value and a small volume, they could be used as a medium of exchange. That “money” was not “good for absolutely nothing at all except to trade it for something else”. It had intrinsic value, therefore it could be used for that purpose. Later on when paper money was invented, it simply represented its equivalent in silver or gold. You could literally take that piece of paper to a bank or some government authority, and exchange it for its equivalent in gold or silver. If you look at the older (and current) English bank notes, you will find that it actually carries a written a guarantee to that effect on the note. On the old one-pound notes it said:

Bank of England

Promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of One Pound.

That note is now obsolete. On the current 10 Pound note, however, it still says the same thing:

Bank of England

I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of Ten Pounds.

That statement is still printed on all English bank notes. That promise would not be honored today; but once upon a time it would have been. The paper money represented its equivalent in silver or gold. It is only in recent times that the value of the currency is determined by other means; but initially that is what it represented; and in principle it still serves the same purpose.

There is no real value in "money" at all, and people with charity could come up with the best way to share all of their resources without ever having to use anything like what we call "money".

Come to the point where you can see that, and then we can talk about this issue some more.

See above. When what have said above has sunk in, then maybe you are ready to talk about this a bit more.

Edited July 8, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

I don't agree. Money as money, is useful for the exchange of goods and services.

That's pretty much the same thing as I said, when I said: Money, when used as money, isn't good for anything except to trade it for something else.

I recognize the fact that most goods and services have value, but money, when used as money, isn't good for anything except to trade it for some of those other goods or services.

Even when money is used to make some other money, it's still all good for nothing until you trade it for something else.

“Paper money” is a relatively recent invention. Before that time money consisted of a valued commodity like a precious metal as in gold and silver. Because these precious metals had high (intrinsic) value and a small volume, they could be used as a medium of exchange. That “money” was not “good for absolutely nothing at all except to trade it for something else”. It had intrinsic value, therefore it could be used for that purpose.

When gold or silver is used for something other than money (a medium for exchange), then it can be good for some things, but when used as money it's not good for anything other than to trade it for something else.

When what I have said above has finally sunk in, then maybe you are ready to talk about this a bit more.

[Deborah]

The restaurant would probably charge you some money for the meal that you ate, but my wife wouldn’t and she wouldn’t even accept it if you offered some of it to her. This is an example of an economic system that is based on charity, rather than on some kind of “money”.

You really don't understand economics or charity. Your wife cooks because she likes to. She invites guests over to enjoy the fruits of her labor. They guests may pay her with conversation and appreciation. There is an exchange of sorts, not monetary but an exchange nevertheless.

That is all that is happening in a restaurant except that the invitation isn't personal in nature. You are willing to exchange money for the good food the restaurant has to offer. Both are rewarded. I'd much rather pay for someone else to prepare my food than have to cook myself. So it is an exchange that both parties agree on and benefit from.

Charity is when you go out on the street and invite complete strangers who may be unbathed and disheveled into your home and feed them with no expectations of anything in return.

[blarsen]

There are "conspiracy theories," and there are "conspiracy facts". The question is, how do you tell them apart? The deception occurs when a conspiracy theory is misjudged to be a conspiracy fact, or when a conspiracy fact is misjudged to be a conspiracy theory. A lot of the time, it is only by the light of the Spirit that we can tell them apart. I am of the opinion that a lot of the talk on this subject involves one kind of deception or the other.

Zerinus, you forgot one very important category: facts that support a particular theory, or in this case, a conspiracy theory. You still seem to be caught up in your idea that theory and facts are mutually exclusive. They aren’t.

For instance, the universal background radiation is a fact. It has been repeatedly measured by many disparate scientific groups and investigators. It is a scientific fact. It is also used as one of the factual pillars to support the Big Bang THEORY.

More clarification. Let’s say a group conspires to rob a bank. They rob it, which is the likely starting point for investigation. The robbery is a fact; even a conspiracy fact, but doesn’t solve the problem of who the conspirators were.

To do this, investigators gather as much factual evidence as they can to include witness testimony, physical evidence, etc., etc. At some point, they develop a range of suspects, which they will attempt to narrow down to the most probable perpetrators. At this point, their conjecture becomes a conspiracy theory; i.e., they have garnered a lot of FACTS that point to a particular group. But their case still might not be airtight beyond a reasonable doubt, even though it could still be regarded as a reasonable, factually supported conspiracy theory.

Now an interesting question. If they took their conspiracy theory to court at this point and were able to convince a jury that they had enough evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and even got a conviction, would the identification of the likely perpetrators and their conviction then become an official conspiracy FACT, in your definition?

What if further evidence and testimony developed AFTER the conviction of the first group pointing to another group? You hint at this possibility when you basically say: “a conspiracy theory [can be] misjudged to be a conspiracy fact”. But in this case, the judgment was made not by deception, but just out of misjudgment based on the limited FACTS at hand. This is a danger, no doubt about it; AND deception could be a part of it, but not necessarily.

On the other hand, what if the conviction was correct after all? Do you see the point?

A conspiracy theory may be correct based on limited data; but the probability that it is wrong is indirectly proportional to the amount and quality of the data considered to support it.

Now you have dismissed the work of many people directly involved in 9/11 scientific research, including Dr. Steve Jones, David Chandler, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, etc., as being so much ‘conspiracy theory’, when all we have been doing is developing scientific, factual evidence about the PHYSICAL events of that day, like the bank robbery investigators mentioned above in the first stages of their investigation. But we say nothing about who did it in the material I supplied. That is beyond the scope of mere scientific investigation. At best, our efforts may lead to expanding the scope of who should be considered as higher level conspirators, but this work is NOT conspiracy theory, and certainly not conspiracy theory as you define it.

I’m not trying to pick on you, zerinus. But seeing the misuse of the terms ‘conspiracy theory/conspiracy theorist’, especially when used to dismiss legitimate investigations and investigators gets really tiresome.

And my efforts in talking about this here (a rather obscure, specialized internet forum) is surely only the tiniest ripple in the information terrain/topography; but who knows, maybe people of Daniel C. Peterson's stature and influence, who apparently frequents this blog, will read it, and start giving more thought to the issue of looking for the fingerprints of high level Latter Day Gadiantons, which we are basically commanded to do by God in Ether 8.

Edited July 8, 2011 by blarsen

[Ahab]

You really don't understand economics or charity.

Yes I do, even though you think I don't.

"Economics" is simply about some kind of system people use to either give or receive goods and/or services, and a system that worked on charity with people simply giving things away to other people is a system of economics that "I'm saying" would be much better than a system which is based on needing to have some "money" before you're able to get anything.

It's a system many people are actually using right now, sometimes, in addition to also working for money, sometimes. I'm simply saying we could abandon the monetary system and get by fine and dandy.

Your wife cooks because she likes to. She invites guests over to enjoy the fruits of her labor. They guests may pay her with conversation and appreciation. There is an exchange of sorts, not monetary but an exchange nevertheless.

If you want to think about it that way, think of a "good feeling" as what a person gets out of the "exchange" when someone give something to someone else out of charity. That's why I do things for others when I do it out of charity. It feels good, because I have a sense that I'm helping another person.

That is all that is happening in a restaurant except that the invitation isn't personal in nature. You are willing to exchange money for the good food the restaurant has to offer. Both are rewarded. I'd much rather pay for someone else to prepare my food than have to cook myself. So it is an exchange that both parties agree on and benefit from.

What if someone won't accept any money from you and you really want to eat some of their food, though? What if your "money" is no good to them?

There are some things you can't buy in this world with "money", even though there may be another thing you could exchange.

Charity is when you go out on the street and invite complete strangers who may be unbathed and disheveled into your home and feed them with no expectations of anything in return.

Heh, the people you serve by extending charity don't have to be complete strangers. They could bed members of your own family, or members of your ward, who you could help by simply giving them something you have that they don't have any or enough of, themselves.

... and yes, that could also include giving them some "money", even though that would be pretty much useless to them unless they could go out and trade it for something else of some real value.

[Deborah]

Heh, the people you serve by extending charity don't have to be complete strangers. They could bed members of your own family, or members of your ward, who you could help by simply giving them something you have that they don't have any or enough of, themselves.

Exactly. The point is that charity is not an exchange in the same sense that dealing with people in an economic system is. You want to make the two the same. There is nothing wrong with a system where you exchange money or goods for something someone else has. If you don't like what they are charging you can go elsewhere or just do without. No one is forcing you. By the same token no one should force someone to give away that which they already have without fair exchange.

[Ahab]

Exactly. The point is that charity is not an exchange in the same sense that dealing with people in an economic system is.

Yes it is, even if it is an exchange that doesn't involve any money or a "medium" of exchange.

You want to make the two the same.

I'm saying they're both economic systems, not that they're both the same. One is based on an exchange of "money" and the other one isn't, but the one that isn't is still an economic system because it's simply about a method of giving/receiving goods and/or services.

There is nothing wrong with a system where you exchange money or goods for something someone else has.

Maybe not "wrong", but it isn't as good as a system where that medium isn't required. That's a big weakness in that system of economy, because you first have to get some money before you can participate in the exchange and some people don't have any money to give.

If you don't like what they are charging you can go elsewhere or just do without. No one is forcing you. By the same token no one should force someone to give away that which they already have without fair exchange.

When I'm talking about a system based on charity, I'm not talking about a system of using force. It's up to you to choose whether or not you will give something to someone else without them having to give you some money, and how much you are willing and able to give.

Just don't try to tell me that a system based on charity is bad, or that a monetary system is better, because I know better than to believe something like that.

[Jeff K.]

If economics is about choice or how people choose to exchange things, I challenge anyone to state that almost anything is not about economics.

Charity in its truest form is the deire to give because one wishes to give. One feels love, and whether that charity is received or not, the love of Christ still exists, it is an infinite resource. True charity is when one gives regardless of the return on investment, it can be rejected, wasted or destroyed, one continues to give because they desire to. There is no real exchange since the person who has charity has the product (love of Christ) and gives without an exchange or presumed exchange. So charity, true charity is not economics since no exchange occurs.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Jeff K.

[LeSellers]

Second-to-last post on this thread (not this topic, which is much broader).

I believe that Ahab, irrespective of his protestations to the contrary, has no idea what "economics" is. His definition lacks a fundamental element.

Economics is the study of human interactions in the face of scarcity of resources (including raw materials, capital, and labor) with multiple, alternative uses.

It's the scarcity of these goods that requires money, or, at least, some sort of trading mechanism, to assure that scarce good do not go to waste in some less-than-optimal purpose.

Further, I cannot be alone in feeling this, it is an insult repeated and implied many times, that we who understand money, do not value charity or think it a higher position than a money-based economy. Even he recognizes that money is necessary in the world as it stands today. That world is a world of scarcity.

The unanswered question is, how can anyone in this world of scarce resources act wisely to make the best application of those scarce resources without prices (stated in money terms or as simple barter)?

When Christ returns, the issues of scarcity will vanish. All will be fed, housed, clothed and entertained without resorting to extractive labor, without the necessity of transforming the raw materials into intermediate forms, without the requirement of guessing what people need and want. That day will be marvelous.

But that day is not today.

Money (or whatever form of trade mechanics we may envision) serves an extremely valuable purpose: it tells us how to apply those scarce resources so they are not wasted. In the short run, men may makes mistakes, but they do not produce beta tapes very long. Why, because the resources to produce them can be shifted to other functions, and those functions command more money in the market place. Those who insist on manufacturing beta tapes will have to pay higher and higher prices for the input materials, until they cannot afford (in terms of money) to continue to produce them. Why? Because too few people will pay them enough to justify it. So beta disappears, and VHS takes a monopolistic position in the market. A monopolistic position until DVDs appear. Now no one makes VHS tapes for the same reason: no one demands them. The cost to buy the resources that compose them is higher than the price anyone foolish enough to make them can command in the market.

The question, as I said earlier, that the anti-money crowd refuses to answer is how do we, without money, know where best to use the scarce resources available? Further, without money, how can we encourage the discovery and production of greater quanitites of those scarce resources (which will lower the money price of the desired finsished goods and services)?

What we might call "the charity approach" has no answer to this. Charity is wasteful without superior knowledge.

Further, charity encourages sloth. Those who get without producing greater good for other people have no incentive to produce that greater good. Therefore the total "good" that there is in the world is reduced. The gift was given, but there was no increase in happiness and well being.

Jesus will reign over a different people from "the world". The impediments to charity will be erased. But until then, we live in the world as it is, not as we wish it were.

Lehi

Edited July 8, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

If economics is about choice or how people choose to exchange things, I challenge anyone to state that almost anything is not about economics.

You're really talking about the superset of Economics—Praxeology. Praxeology is the study of human action: what I call the study of values and trade offs.

Charity in its truest form is the deire to give because one wishes to give. One feels love, and whether that charity is received or not, the love of Christ still exists, it is an infinite resource.

It's the only one. The rest are scarce.

True charity is when one gives regardless of the return on investment, it can be rejected, wasted or destroyed, one continues to give because they desire to. There is no real exchange since the person who has charity has the product (love of Christ) and gives without an exchange or presumed exchange. So charity, true charity is not economics since no exchange occurs.

Exactly. And that's the problem.

One can give and give all he chooses to, but, unless someone else gives in return, that first man will starve. And even if he had unlimited food, he'd freeze.

The problem is not desire, it's the plain hard fact of scarce resources.

If you had a well founded answer to that, there would be no conflict. You do not, so ...

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 08 July 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:

If economics is about choice or how people choose to exchange things, I challenge anyone to state that almost anything is not about economics.

You're really talking about the superset of Economics—Praxeology. Praxeology is the study of human action: what I call the study of values and trade offs.

Yes, I was hoping to kind of lead him down that primrose path.

True charity exists outside of choice, return and scarcity, and therefore cannot be placed within economic terms. So it is wrong to compare the idea of choice and scarcity with a variable that is infinite and exists even where no choice is available.

Now if you want to give "efficientlly" then you enter into the realm of economics, but it isn't true charity.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

IIRC it was God who said there was enough and to spare, or as another very wise man told me. There is enough for every mans need, there isn't enough for every mans greed.

[LeSellers]

Okeh, it was the third-to-last.

True charity exists outside of choice, return and scarcity, and therefore cannot be placed within economic terms. So it is wrong to compare the idea of choice and scarcity with a variable that is infinite and exists even where no choice is available.

Then this true charity of yours cannot exist at all because, like it or not, we live in a world of limited resources.

Now if you want to give "efficientlly" then you enter into the realm of economics, but it isn't true charity.

The "realm of economics" exists precisely because of limited resources. It only explains how people act in the face of limited resources. It did not invent scarcity, nor did it impose scarcity on us. Scarcity just exists.

Charity does not even recognize limited resources, if we use your view, so it does not exist in anything like reality—a reality that has existed since God drove Adam and Eve out into the world with the commandment to earn their bread by the sweat of their faces.

Now, will you, or can you, respond to the issue of scarcity? Will you dispute that there are unlimited human wants and needs, and that there are exeedingly limited means to fulfill them?

Do you deny that when your wants are filled without your having had to do anything to fill them because of others' charity that you are less likely to go out and risk anything to make others better off?

They tried contract charity (communalism) in the Plymouth Bay Colony, and it failed. They tried it in Circleville and Orderville, and it failed there, too. The people were good people, but the money-based communities around them prospered far better, and the people were happier. Why? Because people do not put forth their best efforts when their best is rewarded no better than the mediocre efforts of others. Human nature, the natural man? Of course, but we have to deal with that. It cannot be otherwise, because that's the world God has put us into.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 08 July 2011 - 09:28 AM, said:

True charity exists outside of choice, return and scarcity, and therefore cannot be placed within economic terms. So it is wrong to compare the idea of choice and scarcity with a variable that is infinite and exists even where no choice is available.

Then this true charity of yours cannot exist at all because, like it or not, we live in a world of limited resources.

True charity is an infinite resource and therefore cannot be used in an economic sense since economics deals with scarcity that must exist, both in resources and satisfaction.

The implementation of charity however can be viewed along economic lines.

[LeSellers]

True charity is an infinite resource and therefore cannot be used in an economic sense since economics deals with scarcity that must exist, both in resources and satisfaction.

The implementation of charity however can be viewed along economic lines.

This simply does not address the issue.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

That is why charity should not be part of an economics discussion, but the implementation of charity does.

[Ahab]

If economics is about choice or how people choose to exchange things, I challenge anyone to state that almost anything is not about economics.

Change one word and you and I will be on the same page.

Economics isn't necessarily about choice or how people choose to "exchange" things. Economics is about choice or how people choose to "give and/or receive" things.

You don't have to "exchange" what you give for something else, and you can give because of charity instead of because you are getting some type of "exchange" in the deal... although if you count the good feeling you get by giving from charity, I suppoose you could count that as some type of "exchange".

Charity in its truest form is the deire to give because one wishes to give.

It's about more than just wishing to give. It also involves seeing a need or desire somehow else has while being willing and able to provide that thing for them.

I often do things out of charity that I really don't want to do, except for wanting to fulfill that need or desire someone has.

For example, my sons are physically handicapped and not able to do a lot of yard work to maintain their yard in good shape, so my wife and I go over to help them because they would really like their yard to look nice. I don't do that yardwork because I want to do the yardwork. I do it because I want to help them, even though I'm not crazy about doing yard work.

One feels love, and whether that charity is received or not, the love of Christ still exists, it is an infinite resource. True charity is when one gives regardless of the return on investment, it can be rejected, wasted or destroyed, one continues to give because they desire to. There is no real exchange since the person who has charity has the product (love of Christ) and gives without an exchange or presumed exchange.

I agree with all that unless you count a good feeling you get from giving out of charity as something you get in exchange.

So charity, true charity is not economics since no exchange occurs.

It is economics, because it is a system involving the giving of goods and/or services.