Lottery Winnings?

[Stargazer]

At the break-even point, because that is fair in the sense of perfectly equitable - equal values are exchanged - or at less than the break-even point (both cases must be in absence of competitive considerations).

If a business intentionally operates at the break-even point, it will not be long for this world. In fairly short order, a temporary shortfall in sales, a supplier failing to make a delivery on time, or a major component of production will break, requiring expensive repair. At that point they may be required to lay off workers, fail to deliver product to customers, and will in short order go out of business. Then this imaginary "equitability" you posit will go up in smoke as the workers go home to their families empty-handed, complaining to their wives that they had been working for a complete idiot with no business sense whatsoever. If you were this business owner, I am sure that you would hold your head up in pride at not being a predator. As you made your first visit to the Bishop asking for welfare assistance.

The problem, dear Log, is simply this: equitability is not a zero-sum game. If I will gladly pay $50 for the widget, but you will only pay $40, what about the person who simply will not buy a widget unless the price is $25? Which one of us is equal? Which price is "right"?

The price that is right is the price that a customer willingly pays. If the customer doesn't like the price, then the customer has the right not to pay it. He simply goes without, finds a substitute, or, if he has sufficient business acumen and a desire for entrepreneurship, he starts his own business delivering widgets at a price that undercuts yours.

If every business played only for break-even, we'd still be farming using horses. Profit drives progress. That's the way it is, and the way it will always be.

[Log]

The price that is right is the price that a customer willingly pays. If the customer doesn't like the price, then the customer has the right not to pay it.

I introduced that concept into the thread when I pointed out that all voluntary economic transactions always benefited both parties, or else they would not engage in them - and, I noted, this includes gambling. However, the facts of economics are not at issue - the morality of certain economic practices is. In any event, there are two questions applicable in setting prices, according to the prophets: "What's the minimum I can charge and get by?" and "What's the maximum the market will bear?" One is predatory in intent, and the other is not. I leave it to you to figure out how this gets applied in this discussion.

If every business played only for break-even, we'd still be farming using horses. Profit drives progress. That's the way it is, and the way it will always be.

I know. I imagine we shall be farming using horses in the Millennium. I also imagine there shall not be exchanges made for money. So much for "progress!"

Late edit to paragraph 1: Gambling simply represents an extreme of profit-maximizing while yet being a voluntary transaction.

Late edit to paragraph 2: That form of progress you describe, and the cultures that spawn it, have a scriptural name - Babylon.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Log

[Stargazer]

I introduced that concept into the thread when I pointed out that all voluntary economic transactions always benefited both parties, or else they would not engage in them - and, I noted, this includes gambling. However, the facts of economics are not at issue - the morality of certain economic practices is. In any event, there are two questions applicable in setting prices, according to the prophets: "What's the minimum I can charge and get by?" and "What's the maximum the market will bear?" One is predatory in intent, and the other is not. I leave it to you to figure out how this gets applied in this discussion.

The problem with the "get by" is that it is one value for me and another one for you, at least potentially. The maximum the market will bear is actually closer to the true value of a thing. You see a pencil with a price tag of $100, and one that costs only 50 cents, which one gets bought? That's the true value.

I know. I imagine we shall be farming using horses in the Millennium. I also imagine there shall not be exchanges made for money. So much for "progress!"

Why not tractors? Is there something wrong with machines in the Millenium? And why should there not be exchanges made for money? What is money anyway? It is nothing more nor less than a medium of exchange, be it gold coins or carrots. Barter is extremely inefficient, even for a millenial economy. If you think people will be perfect in the Millenium, well, I think you're going to be disappointed.

[Log]

The maximum the market will bear is actually closer to the true value of a thing.

And the purpose to advertising is therefore to raise the value of a thing. These are all manipulations of the minds and hearts of people. I, however, will stick to my original position: the value of a thing is only what is actually expended to produce it.

Why not tractors? Is there something wrong with machines in the Millenium? And why should there not be exchanges made for money? What is money anyway? It is nothing more nor less than a medium of exchange, be it gold coins or carrots. Barter is extremely inefficient, even for a millenial economy. If you think people will be perfect in the Millenium, well, I think you're going to be disappointed.

Imagine you lived in a society where there are no rich nor poor, but all are materially equal according to their needs and just wants, and that this condition MUST be preserved.

Explain the function of money, or the role of bartering, in such a society.

Also, have you not read that they shall grow up without sin to the age of man and be changed in the twinkling of an eye? They shall indeed be perfect.

Also, tractors (and automobiles, and darn near everything else requiring electricity or petrol) exist because of profit-seeking, and not because of necessity - they are a product of a culture that shall die.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Log

[Stargazer]

And the purpose to advertising is therefore to raise the value of a thing. These are all manipulations of the minds and hearts of people. I, however, will stick to my original position: the value of a thing is only what is actually expended to produce it.

This was Karl Marx's proposition, that the work involved in producing a thing is what gave it its value (and hence we see the primacy of the "worker" in his system). Unfortunately for this argument, there are many things which are produced by prodiguous expenditure of time and materials and which, ultimately, are worthless. A master chef can take apples, flour, sugar, and butter, all valuable in themselves already, and produce a delectable confection. A klutz could take these same materials and produce an inedible mess, of no value whatsoever. This "labor theory of value" is a complete crock. Marx was an idiot and produced a system which has been shown to be worthy of nothing more than the dustbin of history.

Imagine you lived in a society where there are no rich nor poor, but all are materially equal according to their needs and just wants, and that this condition MUST be preserved.

Channelling John Lennon are we?

The Millenium may in fact be a society where all are equal according to their abilities, and where all are equal in such a way, perhaps, just perhaps, there will be no poor among them. But only because every man and woman is at birth at parity in intelligence, temperament, and physical condition with every other person. This is only possible through divine intervention. And it may be the case. However, since there is to be a time at the end of Millennium when war again becomes possible, it appears likely that absolute parity may not, in actual fact, exist, and some may not be as smart, or as physically capable, or as easy to get along with as everyone else. There may be differences between people, and some may not be as skillful at growing their own food, making their own clothes, and managing their farms as well as others -- and thus differences will arise. It seems possible that there may also be some lazy folks then, too. Such may not be able to raise enough food for them to live off of, and thus, they may be poor as a result.

Or maybe there will be an anti-poor committee that forces the lazy people to do their rightful jobs. Or is that something along the lines of unrighteous dominion? What was Lucifer's proposal again? Nobody is permitted to sin, I think was his proposal.

Explain the function of money, or the role of bartering, in such a society.

The function of money in such a society would be the same as now: to form a medium of exchange. Barter is nothing more than a medium of exchange involving commodities.

In the Millenium we may indeed be all allotted a piece of ground on which to grow our food. Will each one of our family farms produce ALL the same crops? Or will some produce crops that others, perhaps, do not? You can perhaps imagine that your farm will have oats, wheat, apples, pears, apricots, tomatoes, pole beans, corn (maize) and carrots. But what if mine doesn't have tomatoes this season, but does have pumpkins. Your wife would like to make pumpkin pie, but you've not planted pumpkins this year, and so she comes to my wife and says: "Give me five of your pumpkins." My wife just hands them over? What if we're the only ones growing pumpkins this year? And twenty other wives come over and demand our pumpkins. So now what, the fifty pumpkins we produced now vanish, because everyone else wanted pumpkin pie and didn't grow their own this year? Oh, sure my wife could refuse to hand over her last pumpkins, but would that deprived housewife go to the Bishop and complain about this selfishness? Or just shrug her shoulders and go without pumpkin pie this year?

Oh, oh, that's right, maybe your wife could trade some of your tomatoes for a few pumpkins, because you don't need all of them. Ooops! Instant bartering system. Is this something that is against the Law of the Millennium, by the way? Or is theft still a crime? What if my wife doesn't want to give up her pumpkins to anyone else, does she get hauled before the Selfishness Police about it? Or do her neighbors just shrug their shoulders, and refuse to let her have any of their tomatoes in return?

Also, have you not read that they shall grow up without sin to the age of man and be changed in the twinkling of an eye? They shall indeed be perfect.

Also, tractors (and automobiles, and darn near everything else requiring electricity or petrol) exist because of profit-seeking, and not because of necessity - they are a product of a culture that shall die.

What is this about sin? You think that owning and using a motorcar is a sin? I must have missed that commandment.

You make a lot of assumptions about what is right and wrong and the outcome of having a Zion society.

I understand that the primary function of the Millennium will be to take care of all the proxy ordinance work that must be taken care of for all the people who lived and died without having a chance to hear and accept the Gospel in this life. So, we're going to build and staff all the necessary temples (staffed by people who need to be fed and housed and who may not have time to raise all their own food), using their bare hands? Ever try to build a house using your bare hands? What do you think it takes to make a hammer, Log? Somebody has to dig iron ore out of the ground (and this person cannot raise his own food at the time he's mining), somebody has to smelt the ore into iron and shape it into the implement in question (and this person cannot raise his own food at the same time he's blacksmithing), and somebody has to take the fruits of the smith and distribute them to those who need them to build with (and this person cannot raise his own food at the same time he's merchanting).

And let's say that this society you're describing has no petrol-fueled vehicles nor electricity. How are you going to build all those temples? Magic? How do you transport materials like lumber, concrete, stone, nails, and so forth from where they are to where they are not? Horseback? Horse-drawn wagons? Oh, wait, everyone is farming, who makes the wagons? And what about the horse manure all over the roads?

And if you think a society that requires that each and every person do everything for himself, and for himself alone, like raise food, create clothing, make tools, build buidlings, and so on is workable, then you haven't thought things through at all. What, you're going to grow your own cotton (or keep your own sheep), then go through each operation in turn that is required to weave cloth, sew the clothes -- and what about the needles, and the looms, and the ploughs, and the scythes? Who's making all that crap? You?

It's called "division of labor", and the reason there is a division of labor is because not everyone is perfectly skilled at every skill. And if there is a division of labor, there has to be a way to exchange that labor. The most basic form of labor exchange is barter, either of goods or of labor itself. And the most efficient form of it involves a medium of exchange, also known as "money", because what happens if you need a plough, but the ploughmaker needs a half ton of coal to smelt the metal, but you don't happen to have any coal on your land to provide him with, but the neighbor in the other valley does, but he doesn't need the tomatoes which are the only thing you have to trade at this time, so you have to trade some tomatoes for some apples which he DOES need. Very inconvenient and inefficient. That's why money was invented, Log.

It is simply this: Money is not the root of all evil; it is the LOVE of money which is that root. As long as there is property there will be a need for money. And the Millenium will not be some "Money-free Zone." It will simply be that the people will not love money, but recognize what it is for and how it is to be used in righteousness.

Seriously, Log, you pie-in-the-sky types aren't thinking very clearly when you posit a perfect society.

[Log]

This was Karl Marx's proposition, that the work involved in producing a thing is what gave it its value (and hence we see the primacy of the "worker" in his system). Unfortunately for this argument, there are many things which are produced by prodiguous expenditure of time and materials and which, ultimately, are worthless. A master chef can take apples, flour, sugar, and butter, all valuable in themselves already, and produce a delectable confection. A klutz could take these same materials and produce an inedible mess, of no value whatsoever. This "labor theory of value" is a complete crock. Marx was an idiot and produced a system which has been shown to be worthy of nothing more than the dustbin of history.

Except, of course, I said nothing of labor determining the value of something; however, you did point out a weakness in my thinking. My new position is: the maximum actual value of something is equal to that which is expended in producing it.

Channelling John Lennon are we?

Channeling Zion, and the Law of Consecration as it shall be applied in practice.

But you knew that.

The Millenium may in fact be a society where all are equal according to their abilities, and where all are equal in such a way, perhaps, just perhaps, there will be no poor among them. But only because every man and woman is at birth at parity in intelligence, temperament, and physical condition with every other person. This is only possible through divine intervention. And it may be the case. However, since there is to be a time at the end of Millennium when war again becomes possible, it appears likely that absolute parity may not, in actual fact, exist, and some may not be as smart, or as physically capable, or as easy to get along with as everyone else. There may be differences between people, and some may not be as skillful at growing their own food, making their own clothes, and managing their farms as well as others -- and thus differences will arise. It seems possible that there may also be some lazy folks then, too. Such may not be able to raise enough food for them to live off of, and thus, they may be poor as a result.

Actually, this is great stuff, and mirrors some of my thinking on the subject.

Or maybe there will be an anti-poor committee that forces the lazy people to do their rightful jobs. Or is that something along the lines of unrighteous dominion? What was Lucifer's proposal again? Nobody is permitted to sin, I think was his proposal.

Not at all. Lucifer offered everyone a get-out-of-Hell-free card. He offered to redeem us all, regardless of how lazy or malicious we would be, somewhat similar to how the State's welfare program guarantees one the necessities of life, regardless of the amount of work done to procure them.

The function of money in such a society would be the same as now: to form a medium of exchange. Barter is nothing more than a medium of exchange involving commodities.

If all are equal and are dealing justly there is no need for money, which, as I indicated to you elsewhere, functions in human relationships solely to disguise the true worth of things, and as a convenient way to hoard resources and power. Also, why barter, if all are self-sustaining?

In the Millenium we may indeed be all allotted a piece of ground on which to grow our food. Will each one of our family farms produce ALL the same crops? Or will some produce crops that others, perhaps, do not? You can perhaps imagine that your farm will have oats, wheat, apples, pears, apricots, tomatoes, pole beans, corn (maize) and carrots. But what if mine doesn't have tomatoes this season, but does have pumpkins. Your wife would like to make pumpkin pie, but you've not planted pumpkins this year, and so she comes to my wife and says: "Give me five of your pumpkins." My wife just hands them over? What if we're the only ones growing pumpkins this year? And twenty other wives come over and demand our pumpkins. So now what, the fifty pumpkins we produced now vanish, because everyone else wanted pumpkin pie and didn't grow their own this year? Oh, sure my wife could refuse to hand over her last pumpkins, but would that deprived housewife go to the Bishop and complain about this selfishness? Or just shrug her shoulders and go without pumpkin pie this year?

You tell me what would be consistent with the teachings of the Savior on the subject - "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn thou not away." Of course, you would have perfect love in your heart, as would your neighbors, so the taking advantage that you are contemplating here should not happen. Except, perhaps, towards the beginning of the end.

Oh, oh, that's right, maybe your wife could trade some of your tomatoes for a few pumpkins, because you don't need all of them. Ooops! Instant bartering system. Is this something that is against the Law of the Millennium, by the way? Or is theft still a crime? What if my wife doesn't want to give up her pumpkins to anyone else, does she get hauled before the Selfishness Police about it? Or do her neighbors just shrug their shoulders, and refuse to let her have any of their tomatoes in return?

You tell me what would be consistent with perfect love.

What is this about sin? You think that owning and using a motorcar is a sin? I must have missed that commandment.

No, there probably is nothing sinful about it. But that has also got nothing to do with why I think there shall be no automobiles in the Millennium. If the earth receives again its Paradisaical glory, pollution generating devices, and devices whose production requires pollution, would seem to be contraindicated.

You make a lot of assumptions about what is right and wrong and the outcome of having a Zion society.

I understand that the primary function of the Millennium will be to take care of all the proxy ordinance work that must be taken care of for all the people who lived and died without having a chance to hear and accept the Gospel in this life. So, we're going to build and staff all the necessary temples (staffed by people who need to be fed and housed and who may not have time to raise all their own food), using their bare hands? Ever try to build a house using your bare hands? What do you think it takes to make a hammer, Log? Somebody has to dig iron ore out of the ground (and this person cannot raise his own food at the time he's mining), somebody has to smelt the ore into iron and shape it into the implement in question (and this person cannot raise his own food at the same time he's blacksmithing), and somebody has to take the fruits of the smith and distribute them to those who need them to build with (and this person cannot raise his own food at the same time he's merchanting).

And let's say that this society you're describing has no petrol-fueled vehicles nor electricity. How are you going to build all those temples? Magic? How do you transport materials like lumber, concrete, stone, nails, and so forth from where they are to where they are not? Horseback? Horse-drawn wagons? Oh, wait, everyone is farming, who makes the wagons? And what about the horse manure all over the roads?

Not all tasks must be accomplished at all times by all people. I don't regard these as problems, and, in all seriousness, I can't see why you claim to.

And if you think a society that requires that each and every person do everything for himself, and for himself alone, like raise food, create clothing, make tools, build buidlings, and so on is workable, then you haven't thought things through at all. What, you're going to grow your own cotton (or keep your own sheep), then go through each operation in turn that is required to weave cloth, sew the clothes -- and what about the needles, and the looms, and the ploughs, and the scythes? Who's making all that crap? You?

Maybe - just maybe - there will be communal efforts in some things. Who knows?

It's called "division of labor", and the reason there is a division of labor is because not everyone is perfectly skilled at every skill. And if there is a division of labor, there has to be a way to exchange that labor. The most basic form of labor exchange is barter, either of goods or of labor itself. And the most efficient form of it involves a medium of exchange, also known as "money", because what happens if you need a plough, but the ploughmaker needs a half ton of coal to smelt the metal, but you don't happen to have any coal on your land to provide him with, but the neighbor in the other valley does, but he doesn't need the tomatoes which are the only thing you have to trade at this time, so you have to trade some tomatoes for some apples which he DOES need. Very inconvenient and inefficient. That's why money was invented, Log.

It is simply this: Money is not the root of all evil; it is the LOVE of money which is that root. As long as there is property there will be a need for money. And the Millenium will not be some "Money-free Zone." It will simply be that the people will not love money, but recognize what it is for and how it is to be used in righteousness.

Seriously, Log, you pie-in-the-sky types aren't thinking very clearly when you posit a perfect society.

Skygeezer,

Do you imagine even for a picosecond there is money in God's kingdom? Money arose in human society because men hate each other and started withholding their labors and the resources of the earth from each other in a game played for power and gain. This game is called economics today. Cain was taught from Satan how to convert life into property, and he applied this teaching against his brother. Thus arose Babylon, or what I call the quid pro quo society, as opposed to Zion, where they gave freely, as they themselves received freely, and none are rich nor poor - not because everyone has a certain minimal level of money, nor property, but because everyone supports everyone else and labors with their might for the good of their fellows because they genuinely love each other and are not seeking financial security. Money arose naturally in the quid pro quo society - gold happened to be divisible, durable, scarce, portable, and universally desired, so everything, including the lives of men, was measured in gold, which made it so a man with gold could command the labors and property of his fellow man - anything in this world, in fact, could be had for gold, or silver, or the other treasures of the earth - without actually laboring for them himself.

As it is today, though using other measures of currency.

As Zion is the earthly counterpart to the Kingdom of God, I cannot imagine that Zion will deploy money, the first, and most pernicious, product of Babylon, the symbol of man's hatred and enmity for his fellow man, given that the love of God shall abound. There just is no imaginable use for it where people are not playing economics amongst themselves for power and gain.

No offense meant.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Add in that there are loss leaders. Where the store sells a product at a loss in the hopes at it will motivate buyers to buy more of other profitable products. So that total sales worth is in excess of the loss by that individual loss leader.

BTW. Bill Harrah didn't build those fancy hotels(casinos) to give away money.

[LeSellers]

Maximizing profit is the name of the game, folks.

This is true. It is also very misleading, and, as you said, cynical.

"Maximizing profit" does not happen by cheating people. As you said, it gambling did not pay off for all players, no one would ever do it. But they do, so the financial side is obviously not the only side of the question, and it is not on any other question, even (or especially) where money is involved.

Maximizing profit means, at its core, getting the biggest total return on a given investment. One can do that only by allowing the other person to maximize his profit, too. And profit is measured in more than just money. In fact, profit is usually not measured in money. When I buy a ¾" drill, I am not buying $3.00 worth of shaped, hardened steel. I am buying as many ¾" holes as I can. What's the value of a ¾" hole? Is it even possible to buy a ¾" hole? No, the drill is just a means of creating the holes I want. But I obviously value ¾" holes more than I value anything else I could have spent the same $3.00 on. If not, then I would have spent it on that, rather than the drill.

Does Lowe's care what I do with the drill? No, they are concerned solely with the $3.00. Let's say I could go to Home Depot and buy an identical drill for $2.87. Is the 13¢ difference worth my going two extra miles each way? In purely economic terms, no, the gasoline alone discounts that. But, because Home Depot supports same-sex "marriage", I do not willing spend money with Homer. If he's the only guy around with the product I need, I will do so, but that reduces my "profit", so it's rare.

We so the same thing with lettuce: when I buy lettuce (our experimental aquaponics system produces most of what we eat) I go to Safeway or Kroger, depending on which one has the better price. It maximizes my profit to do so. Kroger knows this, so does Safeway. They maximize their profits by lowering prices, so that when I maximize my profits, I will do so when I buy my lettuce there, not elsewhere. For groceries, price is the only consideration, because all grocers are the same, and they sell the same products.

It has always been confusing to see people who denigrate the concept of profit and maximizing profits because profit results only from making other people happy, and maximizing profit only happens when the largest number of people are made the happiest. At least in a free market it is so. When outside constraints, like a government-imposed monopoly (pardon the redundancy, all monopolies are government-imposed), intervene, the customer is less satisfied (i.e., , less happy) both because the price for the good/service rises and the quality of the good/service falls.

Further, profits insure that the raw inputs (materials and labor) are used in the best possible way. "Best possible", not in some theoretical sense, but in the sense of the demonstrated desire of the people who could buy that good or service, and choose to do so, or not, depending on their preferences. In a world of limited resources, time, materials, labor, knowledge, good weather, energy, location ("place utility"), and unlimited desires, profits make it so that the resources fill as many of the desires as possible, and in the order people who could buy them most want them.

When Jesus returns, will He "create" unlimited resources? Will there always be food enough and energy enough to nourish all our bellies and light all our paths? I don't know. If so, the will be no need for profit, if not He will have to provide some way of allocating what exists so that only the most pressing needs will be filled and all superfluities ignored. We do not luxuriate in that knowledge now; until then, profit is our best means of approaching that goal: the greatest happiness for as many as possible.

Profits make our terrestrial world better in a myriad of ways that no competing system has ever approached, much less improved on.

Lehi

Edited March 26, 2012 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

in setting our price at $35, rather than $25 or $30, are we predators?

Absolutely not.

In a free market, such as you describe, no one who wants your widget is forced to buy it, no matter the price. Selling 7,000 at $35 not only gives you the highest profit, it gives your customers, employees, and suppliers the best deal, too.

Because customers have shown that widgets are worth $35—any more, people who need them would not have them available at a price they thought reasonable; any less, and you'd be using resources that those same customers would rather use in a different form (a different product, say, a "tegdiw"), so their need of that other form would not be filled: there are too many widgets. Eventually, because they'd keep asking for tegdiws, you would be unable to buy the resources needed to make widgets at the lower price you were selling them for, Why? Because someone else would be "bidding up" those resources so he can supply tegdiws, to meet the demand of people who keep asking him to sell tegdiws at a price that makes it useful to him to buy the raw inputs for a higher price than you are paying.

Predatory pricing is an academic myth. In a free market, there is no such thing, in the long run. Pricing, as your example shows, is a guessing game. Eventually, the company must sell the correct number of goods/services at the right price. If that price is too low to cover their costs, they must stop making the good or delivering the service. If the price is too high, either people will not buy it, or others will come in and sell at the lower price anyway, forcing them to reduce their price.

Lehi

Edited March 26, 2012 by LeSellers

[Log]

Hi, Lehi!

A few points before I depart this thread, as I see I have angered the gods of Austrian economics.

I agree with Austrian economics as a description of how man behaves as an economic creature. I do not agree that Austrian economics is normative.

Gambling is bad.

None of the reasons the Church has proffered for the policies against gambling are sufficient to fully justify the policies, because the same rationales can be applied with more or less equal force to accepted business practices and motivations therefor. This was the point at which the economics of the Millennium came up, in contradistinction to the economics of the world. Strangely, I have individuals trying to tell me that the economics of Zion will be the economics of Babylon, and I don't feel like arguing that point now, except to point out that there seems to me to be a bright dividing line between those who agree with me and those who agree with Stargazer (took it to church today, 4 out of the 5 people I discussed it with (2 businessmen, 1 nurse, 1 accountant) agreed with me, and the other (a lawyer) agreed with Stargazer).

Skygazer has the most truth on the subject when he notes that the gambler is trying to get something for nothing. I do not say this is a full reason for why gambling is bad, but it is an excellent beginning.

With regards to this: "Profits make our terrestrial world better in a myriad of ways that no competing system has ever approached, much less improved on," Zion is the great, the only, and the true, counterexample.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Log

[LeSellers]

With regards to this: "Profits make our terrestrial world better in a myriad of ways that no competing system has ever approached, much less improved on," Zion is the great, the only, and the true, counterexample.

But about whose economic system we know nothing and cannot duplicate it. When we have tried in modern, recorded history, we have been singularly unsuccessful. The United Order failed. The towns built on similar concepts failed. Systems supposedly modeled on the ideas underlying it: Plymouth Plantation, Russian, Korean, and Chinese communism, socialism, fascism, NAZIism; all have failed. I am more than content to await the return of the One Whose right it is to reign, Who knows how to implement this plan and Who will, by the force of love, impel men to live by that system. That does not obtain at present.

We cannot say, for instance, how the Nephites or Enochites decided who would grow how much barley and who would make robes, and how many. We can't say whether an ill person ate gruel or steak. We don't even know how they took care of their ill.

Rather than hypothesize about a vague, albeit highly successful, system, we ought, while researching it (on our knees, too), to employ that system we understand that best meets the needs of the most people and creates true wealth (which is not measured in money, but in happiness and satisfaction). That system is the unfettered free market. No other comes close and none we can explain, and that resort to coercion in any form, has lifted the poor so well, has fed the millions as well, and clothed them, housed them, and cared for their poor as well.

Lehi

Edited March 26, 2012 by LeSellers

[Log]

Lehi,

The unfettered free market also produces drugs, prostitution, gambling, and the list goes down from there. Sounds like you are honor bound to reject the unfettered free market and impose at least *some* coercive measures.

Anyways.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Log

[KevinG]

The church exists to make Prophets.

[LeSellers]

The unfettered free market also produces drugs, prostitution, gambling, and the list goes down from there. Sounds like you are honor bound to reject the unfettered free market and impose at least *some* coercive measures.

There is no reason, much less your hypothetical honor-bound, to reject the unfettered market.

While I do not like, use, or patronize drug dealers, prostitutes, gaming establishments, nor any others you could name of that ilk, I cannot permit myself, nor those acting "in my name" to forbid people who choose to frequent such places and employ their products and services. No one with the authority to do so has commissioned me to do so, and I do not have the right to commission others to do it either. If I would not want someone to restrict me in my choices, the Golden Rule demands that I restrain myself, not others, in making their choices.

Remember, the best outcome is for each of us to have happiness and satisfaction. Some people require things that would make you and me unhappy and dissatisfied to be happy and satisfied themselves.

The unfettered market is the only way to make the largest number of people the happiest and most satisfied. Nothing else, certainly not coercion and the imposition of restrictions.

Father and Mother were committed enough to agency that They allowed the third part of Their children, our brothers and sisters, to banish themselves eternally from heaven. If agency, including the consequences of poor choices, is good enough for Them, it's good enough for me.

Lehi

[blackstrap]

There have been communities in history that have survived for centuries without much of a monetary system.They were usually isolated from the bulk of humans.I am thinking of the Inuit,or the Pacific islanders or the natives on Cuba.Most lived peaceful uncomplicated lives until invaded by 'civilization'. When populations increase then division of labor becomes necessary. Maybe that is how it will be in the millenium. 500 million surviving humans scattered over all the earth would allow for that peaceful self-sufficient lifestlye to re-emerge.

[blackstrap]

Lehi,as much as I might agree with some of your assertions,we still ,as a society, are faced with human nature and the desire of some to exercise unrighteous dominion over others. Society must have the"bully of last resort" to defend the weak and helpless and others who cannot fight . That defence is one of the few jobs mandated to the government by the constitution.Yes they have often overstepped boundaries as that is the nature and disposition of all men,hence the separation of powers so that each group got a bat to swing.

[mfbukowski]

The church exists to make Prophets.

I was gonna say "We thank thee Oh God for a Profit".

[Calm]

The unfettered free market also produces drugs, prostitution, gambling, and the list goes down from there.

I hope you are not suggesting these vices do not occur in other than the free market economic systems...

[guitarist]

Wow, I'm gone for a weekend...

As OT & derailed as it has been, it's been an interesting conversation. I shall just throw in my 2 cents before steering us back on track, and say that I would imagine during the Millennium (at least once all have been converted, as it will not be such at first), that we will finally succeed in doing the law of consecration, which means that we will labor in all diligence in our respective fields, and deliver up 100% of our product/services to the bishops, and from there, it will be divided according to everyone's needs. This sort of system requires a complete commitment both physically, and in heart from every single person involved. Similar systems, such as the United Order, and man-made variants, such as Communism, Fascism, etc, have all necessarily failed because not everyone has had the commitment of the heart, and so they seek to keep things for themselves. In such a society, the free market system is the best one, because it is self regulating with pricing and goods provided. It does not seek to regulate the morals of the economy from itself (using the drug dealers & prostitutes as examples); but if the people have good morals, those things will naturally be filtered out on their own. After all, if it is not profitable in a free market system to sell drugs, or sex (if people aren't buying them), then it just won't be sold. And if they have bad morals, then they are in danger of the judgments of God anyway, regardless of their economic system. And as Calmoriah pointed out, these vices aren't limited to a free market system. The morals of the people aren't contingent upon the economic system upon which they live--to some degree or another they may influence each other, but bad morals will always find a way in any economic structure it lives in.

This particular subject is fascinating, but since it has little to do with the thread at hand, I respectfully request it be made into its own topic.

Now back on topic, I think that my original question(s) have been answered. Even the things I supposed were "givens" were turned on their head a bit. The conclusion I'm drawing is that the church "opposes gambling in all its forms", even if it's not explicit that tithing on lottery winnings be refused. So it is ultimately up to you what you do with a gifted winning lottery ticket. I suppose however, that if one were gifted a lottery ticket that ends up winning, one did not do any gambling. And if one were to pull a My Name Is Earl, and use the money towards righting wrongs (in Earl's case, for those who have not watched the show, righting the wrongs made by him), then the money would fit a charitable cause and would be perfectly acceptable according to Jacob 2:19.

[ERayR]

If a business intentionally operates at the break-even point, it will not be long for this world. In fairly short order, a temporary shortfall in sales, a supplier failing to make a delivery on time, or a major component of production will break, requiring expensive repair. At that point they may be required to lay off workers, fail to deliver product to customers, and will in short order go out of business. Then this imaginary "equitability" you posit will go up in smoke as the workers go home to their families empty-handed, complaining to their wives that they had been working for a complete idiot with no business sense whatsoever. If you were this business owner, I am sure that you would hold your head up in pride at not being a predator. As you made your first visit to the Bishop asking for welfare assistance.

I agree and would like to point out to Log and those who have the opinion that "profit" is a dirty word.

If all businesses operated at this "equitable" level(break even) there would be nothing in the system for the bishop to distribute in times of need. Fast offerings and tithing come from a profit system and even the united order operates on a profit system. If there were no increase/interest but only a break even then there would be nothing to give. In the united order it is the excess, better known as profit that is distributed.

Another consideration, At whose breakeven point do you set the price? Different companies making the same product have different break even points. Again profit is not a dirty word it is the use of those profits that become problematic.

Edited March 26, 2012 by ERayR

[aka510]

Sorry to join in a little late, but wanted to put my 2 cents here...

I, like most of you I'm sure, have never been asked from where my income came. Paying tithing for me is between me and our Heavenly Father and if I win the lottery and pay tithe on my winning then that's between Him and me. If He doesn't want it, then I'm sure He will let me know somehow. If I feel good about paying it, then I will pay it.

But this is just me, you do what you feel is right.

[DH]

A related question is what about Latter-day Saints who live in, say, Las Vegas. If a Latter-day Saint accepts a job at a casino, is he or she allowed to pay tithing on the money? After all, such a situation could be construed as the church benefiting from the gambling industry.

I had a mission companion who earned money for his mission serving alcoholic drinks (among other things) in a casino.

[The Grimace]

This family was featured on lds.org for raising funds for charity:

http://www.lds.org/church/news/a-million-dollar-family?lang=eng&country=ca

They did it by selling 50/50 tickets (you buy a ticket, if you win, you keep half of the money raised through ticket sales) at hockey games:

http://canucks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=625662

While not a ringing endorsement of gambling, I'd suggest this shows the Church isn't violently opposed to gambling, either. Since most state run lotteries benefit charities just like the one featured above, there is probably little harm in the occasional lotto ticket.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

A friend of mine & I were having a discussion regarding the lottery recently. It's pretty well known that we're encouraged to avoid playing the lottery (probably for a multitude of reasons, but in my experience, primarily) because it is a form of gambling. Also, the church doesn't accept tithing off of lottery winnings. My friend brought up a scenario. Let's say that someone buys you a lottery ticket as a gift. Do you accept it? What if it happens to win the jackpot? I suspect that the church still wouldn't accept tithing on it on principle, but would acceptance of that "gift" be wrong? I wasn't really sure how to answer my friend, so I thought I'd bring it to the board to see what others' perspectives were on it.

If I had already bought the ticket it would seem silly not to accept the money. Edited August 27, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[ksfisher]

If I had already bought the ticket it would seem silly not to accept the money.

And if someone bought you a beer, as a gift, it would be silly not to drink it.