Proclamation On The Economy

[Ahab]

It is the great irony of the American capitalists that they increase their wealth through exploiting Communist labor. Should they be required to surrender their capitalist cards or just wear tabs around their necks pronouncing them hypocrites.

Not necessary. Those Communists are becoming more like Capitalists, themselves. Everything will work out in the end.

[Bikeemikey]

Given the Church runs through various countries, cultures and systems I doubt tacet or overt endorsement of a particular government or economic system will work as well as teaching corect principles (charity, provident living, industry) and letting people govern themselves within the framework of their own situation.

Such a global presence was not the case in te early church, nor when the material in the link was generated.

[Bikeemikey]

I presume you are referring to those who have a love of money. On one hand, "over-concentration" is in the eye of the beholder. But if one does not love the concentration of wealth, he will do something about correcting any situations that arise from his possession and mode of stewardship of it, or his lack of possessing it; or from his enmity against others by reason of their possessing it, or his disdain of others by reason of their not possessing it.

Actually it's not just over-accumulation by a few that's the issue. It's dramatic variance between the haves and the have nots that also produces problems.

It is also something that has been studied and quantified.

[Stone holm]

It's very basic stuff but he harps on it enough to get most people's attention, I think. Our guys just say things like stay out of debt except for a home loan and possibly a college education, which is good to hear too, but for people like me who need repetition and a mental bonk on the head it didn't do the trick for me, the easy way. Credit cards got me and a little at a time here and there, but the main thing that would have helped me and my whole family would have been to keep my kids living at home instead of encouraging them to get their own house. Talk about dumb dumb dumb. We'd be millionaires by now if we had stuck together. It's not too late, though. We're now talking about building a bigger house in the country where all of us can live at least on the same piece of land if not in the same house/mansion.

Good luck with that have fair sized farm in Vermont with three story house and several homesites that I would have given the kids have three kids living in the area, did any of them want to continue to live here or build a house on the farm after they got married? Nope.

[Tacenda]

Just wondering what anyone here thinks about married college students getting their tuition paid for by the government? My husbands niece and husband are doing this and my husband complains about it all the time. Plus they were able to move into a really nice home. Is this fair? But then my college son applied for a grant recently and it was approved! So now my husband will be a hypocrite if he complains about again. Any thoughts on this?

[changed]

Well that's nice. But the question is what is the Church's position and is the Church's position really that anti-government involvement. It seems to me that the Proclamation is intimating that the laws of the land were allowing concentration of wealthy and that that was contrary to the design of the Founding Fathers of the Nation, not just the Church. There is, I believe, some support for that position amongst some of the Founding Fathers who felt the freedom of the nation depended upon a healthy widespread ownership of land. Since most were farmers -- the thinking was widespread ownership of land and numerous businesses since agriculture was the business of the land. (There of course was a certain hypocrisy involved since several of these important thinkers were slave owners). But by 1875 it was becoming apparent that the vision of the Founding Fathers was becoming corrupted by the concentration of wealth and the Prophet saw a looming problem -- which was spot on since the Robber Baron Era brought with it massive government corruption due to concentration of wealth, and widespread misery amongst the poor. All of the things which the First Presidency foresaw as evil pertaining to the concentration came to pass and was not corrected until the economic reset button got pushed during the Great Depression -- the concentration of wealth dissipated somewhat as a result of the New Deal and WWII, however, now the concentration of wealth has surpassed that of the Robber Baron era. So the question is what now? Saying pray, keep your family close, and attend Church is nice -- but spending a lot of time fighting over whether Jack and Bob can get married isn't really addressing this issue -- I suspect we need to get out of our 1950's bubble and look again at the economic issues that we used to look at.

By 1875? I'd say, it started in 1760 with the Carolina drought - Struggling farmers (of Scotch-Irish decent who had come to America because they wanted to escape oppressive landlords) became indebted to newly arrived merchants during the drought, and a wealthy ruling class emerged. Google "The North Carolina Regulator Uprising" (1765-1771) which was waged by the people against what had become a corrupt tyrannical rich ruling class. The War of the Regulators, with skirmishes such as the Battle of Alamance (1771), marked the start of the anti-tyrannical sentiment that gave birth to the American Revolution. The issues at stake were painfully present well before the constitution, or the declaration of Independance - well before the church was in place. The American population was fully experienced and educated on the issues of both corrupt government, and the rich ruling class, these issues were why a good chunk of them came to America in the first place. We don't need to change what our founding fathers were inspried to do because of "new" circumstances. There are no "new" circumstances, these issues are all as old as humanity.

I believe what the scriptures say - that the constitution is inspired, that we should support it, that it is the best guide for mainting freedom and prosperity. To suggest that circumstances have changed, so that we need to embrace some new form of government, is not to understand the circumstances surroudning the formation of this country.

Given the Church runs through various countries, cultures and systems I doubt tacet or overt endorsement of a particular government or economic system will work as well as teaching corect principles (charity, provident living, industry) and letting people govern themselves within the framework of their own situation.

The church has endorced a specific governement though, read DC 101:76-80,

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 101:Heading)

76–80, The Lord established the Constitution of the United States;

it doesn't get any more clear than that.

The solution has already been posted -

Are we living the principals outlined in this economic advice?

One for the Money...

http://www.lds.org/b...s/33293_eng.pdf

The above is the solution - if everyone followed the advice in the above pamphlet, there would be a significantly smaller gap between the rich and the poor.

Edited May 8, 2013 by changed

[Bikeemikey]

Those are just some different ways to make money, but it really doesn't matter what kind of "job" people have or if they all own the same business. Any business enterprise has expenditures and income, and the goal in all of them is to minimize expenditures and accumulate wealth.

What is hurting typical American families more than anything else - financially speaking - is to have family members living in separate housing establishments. Just think of all the money that could be saved if they all paid on the same mortgage, or rent if they needed to go that route until they could afford to "buy" a house. I know there's a time when most children are too young to get some kind of "job" to make money, but why is it that when they just start to get to the age that they can get a decent job that they want to move out of the family home and pay their own rent/mortgage? Why not just continue to live in the same house with the parents, at least until that house is paid off. And then if they all wanted to live in a bigger house they could sell the first one to get a bigger one for the whole family. A house big enough for all of them to have their own room and lot of other rooms to roam around in. If you want to talk about cooperation, THAT is cooperation, and it can start with each person's own family as each member pools their resources together with other members of the family.

The goal of most businesses that are truly successful is to make a contribution that they believe they can uniquely provide... Then they go about figuring out how to make that contribution in a sustainable way.

Money is a by product of the contribution!!

[Bikeemikey]

Just wondering what anyone here thinks about married college students getting their tuition paid for by the government? My husbands niece and husband are doing this and my husband complains about it all the time. Plus they were able to move into a really nice home. Is this fair? But then my college son applied for a grant recently and it was approved! So now my husband will be a hypocrite if he complains about again. Any thoughts on this?

Govt investment in education is very worthwhile.

College grads will earn an additional 1-2 million over there working careers. They will pay taxes on it. It is an investment that helps the whole nation.

[changed]

Govt investment in education is very worthwhile.

College grads will earn an additional 1-2 million over there working careers. They will pay taxes on it. It is an investment that helps the whole nation.

I agree with public education (with the freedom of choosing to opt out of said education for home schooling/private schooling if desired) through high school, but not for college. The difference between little kids going to school, and adults going to school, are little kids are still dependant, and not fully able to support themselves. By the time you are 18 you can hold down a job, you can take personal responsibility for yourself. There is no need for a gov to teach capable adult citizens - that's not helping anyone, that is creating life-long dependants.

Edited May 8, 2013 by changed

[Stone holm]

I agree with public education (with the freedom of choosing to opt out of said education for homeschooling/private schooling if desired) through highschool, but not for colledge. The difference between little kids going to school, and adults going to school, are little kids are still dependant, and not fully able to support themselves. By the time you are 18 you can hold down a job, you can take personal responsibilty for yourself. There is no need for a gov to teach capable adult citizens - that's not helping anyone, that is creating life-long dependants.

Disagree. In today's economy, high school is not enough.

[Tacenda]

Govt investment in education is very worthwhile.

College grads will earn an additional 1-2 million over there working careers. They will pay taxes on it. It is an investment that helps the whole nation.

I married in the 80's, do you know if they had this kind of assistance back then? It seems that it would be a great incentive to be married, but seems a little wrong to me, maybe I'm just use to hearing all the complaining from my hubby. I've heard it has something to do with Obama, but it was in place before his presidency but he enhanced it a bit.

[changed]

Disagree. In today's economy, high school is not enough.

I didn't say hs was enough, I said an 18 year old is old enough to take responsibility for working and paying for themselves.

The youth in our ward are going on a trip to Navoo this summer, and our bishop made each and every one of them work to earn their way, because he said "it means more if you earned it". same with school. Want to see college turn into what public schools look like now? fund them with gov $. All of the issues that are now in our public schools, will become college issues, if the students don't learn the lesson of working for themselves, and paying their own way.

College grads will earn an additional 1-2 million over there working careers. ...

Let's not confuse corrolation with causation. What really causes them to earn more? I'd argue that the underlying cause isn't the education itself, but the character/personality that is behind it. If someone has the character to work hard, study, earn scholarships, show up to class - understands that they have to work and pay and sweat to make themselves better - recognizes that there are smarter people in the world than themselves, and is willing to listen to and learn from those people - they will do well in life.

... They will pay taxes on it. It is an investment that helps the whole nation.

More taxes are not what will help the nation the most - what will help the nation the most are citizens who don't need the gov to spend taxes on them in the first place. It would be better to have no taxes, and force the citizens to take responsibility for themselves, then to collect more taxes from richer citizens.

Do you know the watermellon story? How a little busnessman set up at the side of the road selling watermellons - he went to the farm, and bought watermellons for $1/each, then went to the road and sold them for $1/each, then back to the farm to buy more, and back to the road to sell more - only at the end of the day he discovered he hadn't made $... so he thought and thougt, and said "I know what my problem is, I need a bigger truck so I can haul more watermellons!" so he went into debt for a larger truck.... the moral of the story, we don't need more of the same thing - we have to change how we think. We don't need more taxes - that will not solve our problem - what we need are more citizens who take responsibility for themselves, and don't expect the gov to take on the role of being everyone's provider.

Edited May 8, 2013 by changed

[bcuzbcuz]

Which post was this?

This sounds like ilegal actions (grabbing other peoples portions). Can you site a contemporary real world case where this happens and is commended by the society? (I'm truly curious what this looks like).

The rules for this board do not allow me to give a satisfactory answer to your question but if you want to read "Too Big To Fail" by Andrew Ross Sorkin, you will have your response. The Robber Barons of the late 1800's are alive and well in America.

[Stone holm]

I married in the 80's, do you know if they had this kind of assistance back then? It seems that it would be a great incentive to be married, but seems a little wrong to me, maybe I'm just use to hearing all the complaining from my hubby. I've heard it has something to do with Obama, but it was in place before his presidency but he enhanced it a bit.

Yes it was available. Obama made some changes. Previously, private banks could make loans which were guaranteed by the government. What that did was to allow private banks to clip a fee without taking any risk. Obama said nuts to that the Federal Government takes all the risk and is just funneling profit into the banks which makes the loans more expensive -- if we eliminated the banks then we could make more loans with the same amount of risk, so they eliminated the private bank guarantee system and made the loans direct (there had always been a Federal Direct Loan program), in addition he bumped up the Federal Pell Grant slightly. Right now with our current trade policies manufacturing jobs especially unskilled factory jobs are all overseas in countries where the peasants work for starvation level pay -- so if you want a job that pays enough to raise a family on without welfare assistance, then you need at least a batchelor's degree. My children all have good jobs -- all but one not only has a BS degree, but graduate degrees as well. If we maintain our current trade policies which seem to have bipartisan support, then there is going to come a time when you are either going to have to have very advanced technical training, or at least a graduate degree to survive economically. The Church knows this and that is why it is pushing members to get an education. The Church recently launched a very reasonable degree program aimed primarily at the over 40 age group, its run by BYUI and involves online study coupled with a weekly meeting usually at a Stake Center. I am not sure that it is available everywhere -- but it is in our Stake, my wife, who is well over 40 is enrolled as she only currently has an associate degree and wants to bump it up to a batchelors.

[Stone holm]

I didn't say hs was enough, I said an 18 year old is old enough to take responsibility for working and paying for themselves.

The youth in our ward are going on a trip to Navoo this summer, and our bishop made each and every one of them work to earn their way, because he said "it means more if you earned it". same with school. Want to see college turn into what public schools look like now? fund them with gov $. All of the issues that are now in our public schools, will become college issues, if the students don't learn the lesson of working for themselves, and paying their own way.

Let's not confuse corrolation with causation. What really causes them to earn more? I'd argue that the underlying cause isn't the education itself, but the character/personality that is behind it. If someone has the character to work hard, study, earn scholarships, show up to class - understands that they have to work and pay and sweat to make themselves better - recognizes that there are smarter people in the world than themselves, and is willing to listen to and learn from those people - they will do well in life.

More taxes are not what will help the nation the most - what will help the nation the most are citizens who don't need the gov to spend taxes on them in the first place. It would be better to have no taxes, and force the citizens to take responsibility for themselves, then to collect more taxes from richer citizens.

Do you know the watermellon story? How a little busnessman set up at the side of the road selling watermellons - he went to the farm, and bought watermellons for $1/each, then went to the road and sold them for $1/each, then back to the farm to buy more, and back to the road to sell more - only at the end of the day he discovered he hadn't made $... so he thought and thougt, and said "I know what my problem is, I need a bigger truck so I can haul more watermellons!" so he went into debt for a larger truck.... the moral of the story, we don't need more of the same thing - we have to change how we think. We don't need more taxes - that will not solve our problem - what we need are more citizens who take responsibility for themselves, and don't expect the gov to take on the role of being everyone's provider.

The cost of college education would mean that most Americans would not be able to attend college. America has benefited greatly from pushing college education. The surge after WWII with the GI bill helped keep us out front that was the carrot approach. During the Viet Nam era they kind of used the stick approach because your alternative to Nam was to get enrolled in college or flee to Canada, the college enrollment exploded.

[changed]

The cost of college education would mean that most Americans would not be able to attend college.

I disagree - due to supply and demand, there are instutitions out there willing to cater to any and all circumstances. Sure, it's not a good idea for everyone to pursue an Ivy leage degree, but there are schools out there for everyone. My husband and I started at a 2 yr (cheap), transferred to a 4 yr (with the first 2 years nicely paid for), took out a small loan while also working, got some schalrships and grants, and made it through grad school - and graduated debt free. I believe that everyone can attend college. I've taught students who were deaf, who were handicapped in other ways - if they can do it, everyone can.

Too many people are making excuses for where they are, instead of working and taking personal responsibity for themselves.

Edited May 8, 2013 by changed

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

More taxes are not what will help the nation the most - what will help the nation the most are citizens who don't need the gov to spend taxes on them in the first place. It would be better to have no taxes, and force the citizens to take responsibility for themselves, then to collect more taxes from richer citizens.

What helps a nation and people is production. Being productive is the key coupled with inovation. And I don't mean doing something that is mostly useless like marine biology. I am talking about a good or service that is in demand. Like a house or car or computer. Taxes in and of themssleves are not bad. But too much tax is bad. Esp when one does a progressive tax plan like the US has. Nothing like robbing the rich and then keeping the money. I think Margert Thatcher had the right idea when she said

People on all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That way one will never create the wealth for better social services. as we have. What a policy. Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That is the Liberal policy.

[changed]

I agree in moderation, I'm not an anarchist - so I'll agree with taxes to support military, and schooling (for kids, not adults), roads, police etc. but not wellfare (I think wellfare is the job of friends, family, church, and volunteer organizations), not healthcare, not social security (everyone needs to save up their own retirement accounts, families need to take care of one another).

I'm also not a materialist - just read "Life is Good" about someone who lived to 100 without being able to read/write, and had a happy wonderful life. Material goods and wealth are not a measure of happiness - if someone wishes to live without riches (quakers, etc.) more power to them, in fact, I'm tempted to join them. We need to teach more people that there is nothing wrong with the simple life - quite the opposite in fact. Let the rich be rich if that is their cup of tea, let others live a simpler life - and there is nothing wrong with that.

Edited May 8, 2013 by changed

[Stone holm]

What helps a nation and people is production. Being productive is the key coupled with inovation. And I don't mean doing something that is mostly useless like marine biology. I am talking about a good or service that is in demand. Like a house or car or computer. Taxes in and of themssleves are not bad. But too much tax is bad. Esp when one does a progressive tax plan like the US has. Nothing like robbing the rich and then keeping the money. I think Margert Thatcher had the right idea when she said

Right now most of the production jobs have been moved overseas to places like Communist China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. If you want to reignite production in America you will have to change the trade policies. Right now, our primary hope is in the field of highly technical jobs and managerial -- which require college backgrounds. There are a few anchored jobs like housing, transportation, and construction which are "trades" jobs -- but Bush relied on military spending and housing to stimulate the economy. When housing bubbled and burst so did the economy because there wasn't anything left except the military as stimulus. If you want to stick with globalized economy and have any remnant left of the middle-class then you have to push and subsidize education. And if Exxon and BP keep screwing up with their coastal platforms, marine biologists are going to either be in demand or you can kiss the fishing industry completely good-bye.

[thesometimesaint]

Those are just some different ways to make money, but it really doesn't matter what kind of "job" people have or if they all own the same business. Any business enterprise has expenditures and income, and the goal in all of them is to minimize expenditures and accumulate wealth.

What is hurting typical American families more than anything else - financially speaking - is to have family members living in separate housing establishments. Just think of all the money that could be saved if they all paid on the same mortgage, or rent if they needed to go that route until they could afford to "buy" a house. I know there's a time when most children are too young to get some kind of "job" to make money, but why is it that when they just start to get to the age that they can get a decent job that they want to move out of the family home and pay their own rent/mortgage? Why not just continue to live in the same house with the parents, at least until that house is paid off. And then if they all wanted to live in a bigger house they could sell the first one to get a bigger one for the whole family. A house big enough for all of them to have their own room and lot of other rooms to roam around in. If you want to talk about cooperation, THAT is cooperation, and it can start with each person's own family as each member pools their resources together with other members of the family.

Yikes. Some people might think that is Heaven, but to me it would be the opposite place.

[CV75]

Actually it's not just over-accumulation by a few that's the issue. It's dramatic variance between the haves and the have nots that also produces problems.

It is also something that has been studied and quantified.

Yes, I’d agree that it is also individuals’ response to a dramatic variance between the haves and the have nots that produces problems, as well as any negative attitudes and practices that get them into their respective circumstances.

[thesometimesaint]

Relative deprivation. A millionaire would feel poor in a room full of billionaires. That being said the middle class in this country is rapidly becoming the working poor class.

[CV75]

I have found in my own case, and observed in many others, that as I give away [whatever] I either gain more of the same, or gain opportunities to obtain or receive more of the same from others (not that I always accept what is offered).

Superficially, in the case of material wealth, this type of growth may appear to be a process of over-concentration or over-accumulation. But if done according to inspired principles and attributes, it benefits everyone associated with the process.

I don't think the 1875 circular was about giving away the fruits of one's enterprise, but about inviting and showing others to learn the spiritual principles that make the enterprise successful and spin off others, different kinds of enterprises. The same ideas that support the eternal round, the continuation of the seeds, eternal progression, etc.

I think the Church is focusing more keenly on the principles and attributes of godliness, and home and family where these are taught and learned because that is the least common denominator for all saints, no matter what economic conditions or systems they live in.

[Stone holm]

Relative deprivation. A millionaire would feel poor in a room full of billionaires. That being said the middle class in this country is rapidly becoming the working poor class.

No the middle class along with the blue collar class is simply vanishing. We are quickly becoming the militarily strongest third world country where our exports are primarily commodities and raw materials dominated by economic elites and a permanent peasant class with a hugely profitable black market in drugs with a corresponding large percentage of incarcerated citizens and with a rising generation which is economically worse off than their parents. Should this trend of economic polarisation and lack of suitably rewarding jobs continue unabated, eventually the elites will no longer be able to control the masses with cultural promises, and we will see violence escalate out of control and possibly organised rebellion.

[thesometimesaint]

No the middle class along with the blue collar class is simply vanishing. We are quickly becoming the militarily strongest third world country where our exports are primarily commodities and raw materials dominated by economic elites and a permanent peasant class with a hugely profitable black market in drugs with a corresponding large percentage of incarcerated citizens and with a rising generation which is economically worse off than their parents. Should this trend of economic polarisation and lack of suitably rewarding jobs continue unabated, eventually the elites will no longer be able to control the masses with cultural promises, and we will see violence escalate out of control and possibly organised rebellion.

For most of my life the blue collar class was in the middle class. That is fast becoming not the case.

We'll either see a stretch and snap economy or a stretch and break one. I worry about the former and fear the latter.

http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Robert-Reich-How-Unequal-Can-America-Get-Before-We-Snap-9521