The Economy Of Heaven

[Ahab]

Just depends on if we own the stuff or the stuff owns us.

I think we can learn a lot from how we learn to think of money and all that we have in this world. I've been greedy in the past and I've also been generous with my spending to the point where I went into debt big time, and right now I'm still trying to get out of the hole I dug myself into. It's been a very good learning experience for me, though, and I appreciate all that I've learned and am still learning from it. And I imagine that someday when I'm in heaven I'll be trying to teach these same lessons to some of my children while they're going through experiences like this while they're growing up, too, to be who I am trying to be like.

People like Bernie Madoff, though. Whoa! I really wouldn't want to be him or like he is or was with regard to money, but maybe he's learning from his experiences now too, and hopefully enough to want to totally change how he dealt with others in the past on matters of economic policy.

[Ahab]

Brigham Young taught a similar doctrine where he indicated that surplus money should be invested in improving the earth in the form of houses, fences, beautification, etc. The idea was local reinvestment to keep the money churning in the economy. I don't have a problem with capitalism per se. I do have a problem with a socio-economic system which fails to maintain balance and fails to constantly take the money from the top level (surplus) and reinject it at the bottom in the form of infrastructure, education, etc. In that respect the Whigs got it right. If the money just sloshes back and forth at the top it isn't doing much good and it tends to misallocate resources -- if resources are to be efficiently allocated by the market, then there has to be a fairly democratic access to the market. In other words, you need a healthy consuming lower and middle class because they vote for the allocation of resources by spending money. The vote need not be a one man one vote system like we have in politics, but it can't be grossly distorted like it is now.

I enjoy it when I see people with money trying to give it to some other people without it, or with very little, but what I'd really like to see is everybody trying to get rid of all the money they have while somehow avoiding to go into any debt. That's the pinnacle of that balance you speak of, or at least it seems so to me. To have all that you need from the money you've already had and spent and without going into any debt to get to that point. If we get rid of our money it will be going to somebody, you know, unless we just destroy it and I'm not advising that we do that, yet. Maybe after everybody has all that they need, or once they have some way to get all that they need without using any money to get it, then maybe we can just destroy it all then, but not just yet. Some people still need it at least for the moment because there are people in this world who don't want anything from oithers other than the money they can get from them, even to the point of evicting people out of their house and home, or murdering them, if they can't give them the money they want.

[thesometimesaint]

I think we can learn a lot from how we learn to think of money and all that we have in this world. I've been greedy in the past and I've also been generous with my spending to the point where I went into debt big time, and right now I'm still trying to get out of the hole I dug myself into. It's been a very good learning experience for me, though, and I appreciate all that I've learned and am still learning from it. And I imagine that someday when I'm in heaven I'll be trying to teach these same lessons to some of my children while they're going through experiences like this while they're growing up, too, to be who I am trying to be like.

People like Bernie Madoff, though. Whoa! I really wouldn't want to be him or like he is or was with regard to money, but maybe he's learning from his experiences now too, and hopefully enough to want to totally change how he dealt with others in the past on matters of economic policy.

It can be a very painful lesson. Either through wisdom or just plain luck I've always been very conservative with my money, without being a miser. I've never had to declare bankruptcy, or even visit a debt counseling service. But I have seen plenty of people particularly young couples go through hell when they overextend themselves.

If it sounds to be too good to be true. It probably is. Mr. Madoff played on peoples greed, and lack of monetary sophistication. He rightly belongs in jail for the rest of his life.

[Alvino]

Capitalism as practiced in America seems to require a certain amount of greed, ambition and competition to function. I find it difficult to locate doctrine that treats any of these as truly important virtues.

Just to clarify something, competition in capitalism isn't really an attitude needed but a phenomenon that emerges as different companies try to attract overlapping markets. No one needs to have a desire to have competition. If anything, the attitude towards competition is the opposite one: it is desirable to innovate something unique that will present little to no competition to get the consumers' undivided attention.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

I disagree about the greed. Having talked to many successful entrepreneurs including a number of millionaires and a few eventually to be billionaires (imo), few come across as greedy to me though this may be related to the business culture here in Utah as well as up in Canada and perhaps it is different in New York or LA.

Why are they millionaires, then? The desire to have more and better things might not be a bad trait to have, but that it doesn't play a part in entrepreneurship trikes me as unrealistic. If you mean by "being a millionaire" having millions of dollars worth of luxury vehicles, big houses and estates, personal bank accounts, etc. (not taking into account the company's worth), then that's about as far from indicating a lack of greed as there is.

Instead, they seem to become obsessed with the responsibility they have taken upon themselves by creating their companies and thus jobs for their employees.

This doesn't explain why someone starts a company, specially in a developed country. Most of the people you hire would have had (or actually had) jobs anyways. When someone creates a company that hires thousands of employees it isn't like those thousands of people were or would have been unemployed without said company existing. Losing one's job after having one is another thing, though.

They fear the failure of their companies not for the loss of status or money...they see themselves as quite capable of starting from scratch again if needed, but rather for the impact it will have on the individuals and their families that are now dependent on them (in their eyes).

This very well could be, although this also doesn't explain why start a company at all and have people now depend on you as opposed to letting them be dependent on others' companies as they are now dependent on yours.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Alvino

[Ahab]

Just to clarify something, competition in capitalism isn't really an attitude needed but a phenomenon that emerges as different companies try to attract overlapping markets. No one needs to have a desire to have competition. If anything, the attitude towards competition is the opposite one: it is desirable to innovate something unique that will present little to no competition to get the consumers' undivided attention.

If it's something worth having, though, then that "unique" thing should be mass produced to the point where everyone who wants one can have one and without having to wait for some "unique" supplier to provide it, with everyone else who is able also helping to produce the same thing, even if called by another name.

Take something like a Toyota Camry, for example. A nice car to have, if nicely equipped, but why wait until Toyota can produce it if another company is able to produce another car like it. That's how we get other similar models from Honda and VW and Buick and Ford and Chevy and Kia and Hyundai and every other car company under the sun that produces a similar model. And there's really no need to look at it all as competition. Each can be seen to be working in cooperation with each other, with each having their "share" of the market.

Now let's move on to something more basic, like food. Do we really need to come up with a unique vegetable or fruit or meat that only one company can produce. No. We can have lots and lots of people out there working to grow and produce and market foods all over the world, with every person/company/organization that participates in that activity also having their own share of the market, even to the point of having many of their own markets, and even to the point where various people/ groups/ companies/ organizations have various roles to play in various segments of that particular market. Some can concentrate on nothing but growing the food, not even getting involved in selling any of it, and some who are involved in selling it can either put it on the shelf or give it to someone else who wants to get themselves some of it.

There's lots and lots of room for cooparation and there is no such thing as a consumer's undivided attention.

[Calm]

This doesn't explain why someone starts a company, specially in a developed country. Most of the people you hire would have had (or actually had) jobs anyways. When someone creates a company that hires thousands of employees it isn't like those thousands of people were or would have been unemployed without said company existing. Losing one's job after having one is another thing, though.

My husband suggests that you go check out the SBA (Small Business Administation) site. Yesterday he attended an awards luncheon that honoured the top twenty five businesses in Utah under five years old. They were responsible for the creation of nearly 800 jobs that weren't here 5 years ago. The vast majority of innovations come from new, small businesses that 'grow up' such as Apple, Microsoft, Omniture and pretty much an endless list. The creation of new jobs generally comes from the creation of new companies and the growth of small businesses, not from the established giants which have a net loss of employees over the last decade or so.

You need to study the psychology and economics of entrepreneurship a bit...just a suggestion.

Why are they millionaires, then?

From what I've seen it is the challenge of the game that attracts them and money is just one way to keep score of how well they play the game. It's about being able to figure out what people want, something unique and new that no one has done before or at least not in the way they are doing it and creating a market as much or more so than competing in one.

Why do artists create? Why do writers write? It is the act of creation, both of their product and of their work environment/community. Entrepreneurs just happen to work in a different medium is all.

Any entrepreneur who goes into it for the money is going to end up either morally or financially bankrupt and more likely the second because if someone is in it for the money they aren't the kind of risktaker that is the successful entrepreneur.

Edited July 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Any entrepreneur who goes into it for the money is going to end up either morally or financially bankrupt and more likely the second because if someone is in it for the money they aren't the kind of risktaker that is the successful entrepreneur.

Or to say it in another and perhaps a more unique way, those who go into business to make money are going to get themselves into trouble because making money is illegal unless you work for the government who pays you to make it. All the rest of us need to come up with another and... dare I say it, a "better"... product than money.

After all, if you expect people to buy your product with their money then you need to have something better to offer than their money.

[Calm]

After all, if you expect people to buy your product with their money then you need to have something better to offer than their money.

Tis true....

[Alvino]

My husband suggests that you go check out the SBA (Small Business Administation) site. Yesterday he attended an awards luncheon that honoured the top twenty five businesses in Utah under five years old. They were responsible for the creation of nearly 800 jobs that weren't here 5 years ago. The vast majority of innovations come from new, small businesses that 'grow up' such as Apple, Microsoft, Omniture and pretty much an endless list. The creation of new jobs generally comes from the creation of new companies and the growth of small businesses, not from the established giants which have a net loss of employees over the last decade or so.

If you look closer to what I wrote you'll notice I never denied companies create jobs; they clearly do. What I was saying is that starting a company because you want to give jobs to people who don't have jobs, if it is a factor in creating a company, it's a negligible one.

You need to study the psychology and economics of entrepreneurship a bit...just a suggestion.

That's a good but broad suggestion. What do you have in mind that would help me change some view you think I have?

From what I've seen it is the challenge of the game that attracts them and money is just one way to keep score of how well they play the game.

I agree this is part of it.

It's about being able to figure out what people want, something unique and new that no one has done before or at least not in the way they are doing it and creating a market as much or more so than competing in one.

Largely agree. I don't understand what it is you thought I had in mind. The 'game' view of entrepreneurship is one I mostly agree with and nothing I had in mind when writing the post you are now replying to seemed to me to contradict with this view. It does go against the "benevolent entrepreneur" view of it you expressed earlier.

Why do artists create? Why do writers write? It is the act of creation. Entrepreneurs just happen to work in a different medium is all.

lol I was actually afraid someone was going quote just that one question without looking at what I meant by "being a millionaire". Being a millionaire is not the same as being a very successful entrepreneur or businesswoman. Once again, "If you mean by "being a millionaire" having millions of dollars worth of luxury vehicles, big houses and estates, personal bank accounts, etc. (not taking into account the company's worth), then that's about as far from indicating a lack of greed as there is." Helping a company generate profit as the CEO doesn't mean you will get richer yourself; and if the company generates billions it doesn't mean you are a multimillionaire, at least in the sense I was talking about.

Any entrepreneur who goes into it for the money is going to end up either morally or financially bankrupt and more likely the second because if someone is in it for the money they aren't the kind of risktaker that is the successful entrepreneur.

We agree in more than post #130 might have led you to believe. I mostly agree with the game view of business so I disagree with the view most people get in it only for the money as far as the psychology of it goes. I don't believe anyone who gets into it for the money is going to end up financially bankrupt (that seems as unrealistic as unrealistic gets and have no good reason to believe actually happens as often as you seem to think it does).

Edited July 12, 2013 by Alvino

[Ahab]

Tis true....

Kinda weird, though, because if your product is better than their money then why would you want to trade it for their money?

[Calm]

If you look closer to what I wrote you'll notice I never denied companies create jobs; they clearly do. What I was saying is that starting a company because you want to give jobs to people who don't have jobs, if it is a factor in creating a company, it's a negligible one.

Why do you think so many small business are family businesses or started by a couple of friends? You are wrong and you need to study the research before making such comments.

It does go against the "benevolent entrepreneur" view of it you expressed earlier.

No, it doesn't. If you can't imagine a game where you are playing with friends and to achieve something that is beneficial and enjoyable for all at the end of it, I can understand the attitude, but I know lots of entrepreneurs who aren't so self-centered. Edited July 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Kinda weird, though, because if your product is better than their money then why would you want to trade it for their money?

Because it has greater value as a finished product than it does for its parts and you most likely don't need thousands or millions of the same product to fill your own needs.

[Calm]

Once again, "If you mean by "being a millionaire" having millions of dollars worth of luxury vehicles, big houses and estates, personal bank accounts, etc. (

Never said that....I am talking about income, not how they choose to spend it (most have some form of charity foundation they have started as well as using much of their income to reinvest in the company or start new projects).

For me as for as resources, I can cite personal interaction with a significant number of entrepreneurs through their interaction with my husband (they were his students, they help mentor his students, they contribute to the educational programs he is involved in and creating to encourage and support younger entrepreneurs than themselves, my involvement in a national organization he was involved with including as the president where I handled the membership issues and other subjects that allowed me to get to know those involved pretty well, he has studied them for 30 years or more including creating attitudinal tests that are used for evaluation and research internationally and I have picked up quite a bit by osmosis). I asked my husband if he had some study in mind and he said google it and you will find probably 50 or so professional journals out there dealing with the subject...sorry, I can't be more specific at the moment as he had to go off to do some errand having tired of the conversation.

Edited July 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Alvino]

Why do you think so many small business are family businesses or started by a couple of friends?

Granted, I didn't have small family businesses in mind, yet that doesn't explain going beyond a family-sized business. Even family business start with ideas of growing beyond their families and the ones that don't (and don't grow) do not create jobs significantly.

No, it doesn't. If you can't imagine a game where you are playing with friends and to achieve something that is beneficial and enjoyable for all at the end of it, I can understand the attitude, but I know lots of entrepreneurs who aren't so self-centered.

Once again, camoriah, you are jumping the gun. I was saying that what I said went against your benevolent view. Why? Because I said I agreed it is mostly a game psychology. That means any other consideration, like helping people, is at least a secondary factor.

[Alvino]

Never said that....I am talking about income, not how they choose to spend it (most have some form of charity foundation they have started as well as using much of their income to reinvest in the company or start new projects).

I know that but what I wanted to point out to you is that people who are millionaires spend lots of money on things that, whoever looks at them, show they have some "greed". Thinking that these things just happened to fall on them or that they didn't have a serious intent of getting these sorts of things is naive to me.

For me as for as resources, I can cite personal interaction with a significant number of entrepreneurs through their interaction with my husband (they were his students, they help mentor his students, they contribute to the educational programs he is involved in and creating to encourage and support younger entrepreneurs than themselves, my involvement in a national organization he was involved with including as the president where I handled the membership issues and other subjects that allowed me to get to know those involved pretty well, he has studied them for 30 years or more including creating attitudinal tests that are used for evaluation and research internationally and I have picked up quite a bit by osmosis). I asked my husband if he had some study in mind and he said google it and you will find probably 50 or so professional journals out there dealing with the subject...sorry, I can't be more specific at the moment as he had to go off to do some errand having tired of the conversation.

all right.

[Ahab]

Because it has greater value as a finished product than it does for its parts and you most likely don't need thousands or millions of the same product to fill your own needs.

But if the product actually is better than their money then it would still be better to keep your product than trade it to someone else for their money, unless maybe you see it as a charitable act on your part to want to give something you think is more valuable than their money in exchange for their money. Thus those with more money have the more valuable resources which they can exchange for the money of others, if they want to exchange those resources for money.

At this point in my life I consider money to be of no real value at all, so anything other than money is better and more valuable than money. The "worldly" mindset seems to view money a bit differently than I do, though, regarding money as one of the more valuable things there is to exchange in this world.

Charity can't be bought with money, though, so to give that to others we need to be able to give away the things that are more valuable than money even when people think their money is the most valuable thing they can give to others to get what they want.

[Stone holm]

I enjoy it when I see people with money trying to give it to some other people without it, or with very little, but what I'd really like to see is everybody trying to get rid of all the money they have while somehow avoiding to go into any debt. That's the pinnacle of that balance you speak of, or at least it seems so to me. To have all that you need from the money you've already had and spent and without going into any debt to get to that point. If we get rid of our money it will be going to somebody, you know, unless we just destroy it and I'm not advising that we do that, yet. Maybe after everybody has all that they need, or once they have some way to get all that they need without using any money to get it, then maybe we can just destroy it all then, but not just yet. Some people still need it at least for the moment because there are people in this world who don't want anything from oithers other than the money they can get from them, even to the point of evicting people out of their house and home, or murdering them, if they can't give them the money they want.

I am not sure that I advocate "giving" people money, if by that you mean handing a "have not" money as charity -- at least not at the government level. However, when the government during the depression became the employer of last resort and created the CCC and the WPA programs that was not the dole. Certain improvements are not likely to be undertaken by the private sector for example the construction of parks and playgrounds, and certain products are also not likely to get the attention they need from the private sector for example right now the pharmeceutical industry is not investing heavily in research in new antibiotics (reason is they are expensive and resource intensive, but have a short market life because after a fairly short span the germs become resistant), and we have a massive amount of brownfields in America that have not been cleaned up because the landowners are bankrupt as well as the former owners and the government does not have the funds to complete the clean up. Industry finds it cheaper to simply turn prime agricultural land in the midwest or south into a new industrial site. So there are plenty of ways the government could recirculate funds without creating a dole and without affecting the competition of private industry in areas where they can be the most efficient. But whether the private sector is efficient depends on the healthiness, size and diversity of the population casting votes (consumers, meaning lower and middle-class citizens). There are of course some things which should not be rationed on the basis of the ability to pay, namely education and healthcare -- no truly Christian nation would ration such on the basis of wealth -- that is not a matter of the dole, it is simply a matter of respecting the dignity of our fellow men.

[Ahab]

I am not sure that I advocate "giving" people money, if by that you mean handing a "have not" money as charity -- at least not at the government level. However, when the government during the depression became the employer of last resort and created the CCC and the WPA programs that was not the dole. Certain improvements are not likely to be undertaken by the private sector for example the construction of parks and playgrounds, and certain products are also not likely to get the attention they need from the private sector for example right now the pharmeceutical industry is not investing heavily in research in new antibiotics (reason is they are expensive and resource intensive, but have a short market life because after a fairly short span the germs become resistant), and we have a massive amount of brownfields in America that have not been cleaned up because the landowners are bankrupt as well as the former owners and the government does not have the funds to complete the clean up. Industry finds it cheaper to simply turn prime agricultural land in the midwest or south into a new industrial site. So there are plenty of ways the government could recirculate funds without creating a dole and without affecting the competition of private industry in areas where they can be the most efficient. But whether the private sector is efficient depends on the healthiness, size and diversity of the population casting votes (consumers, meaning lower and middle-class citizens). There are of course some things which should not be rationed on the basis of the ability to pay, namely education and healthcare -- no truly Christian nation would ration such on the basis of wealth -- that is not a matter of the dole, it is simply a matter of respecting the dignity of our fellow men.

The best thing we can do for others is to teach them what we know about how to get the things they want in this world, or in any other world they may want to go to someday. In the mean time, though, while people are learning to provide for themselves, we should be generous and gracious while trying to help people get whatever they need that is good for them.

Basic food, clothing, and shelter, for example, should be given to others out of the charity of our own hearts, rather than because we want some money in exchange for giving people those things. That's what charity is all about, and if by "respecting the dignity of our fellow men" you mean we should support or condone a person's "pride", as if pride is a good thing, then No, I will not do anything to give anyone the idea that pride is a good thing to have. Pride is something all people need to get rid of, rather than nurture, and contrary to popular opinion in this world, charity is the most awesome and powerful trait any person can ever have.

Some people seem to look down on charity and think pride is a good thing, when actually they have that backwards.

[Stone holm]

The best thing we can do for others is to teach them what we know about how to get the things they want in this world, or in any other world they may want to go to someday. In the mean time, though, while people are learning to provide for themselves, we should be generous and gracious while trying to help people get whatever they need that is good for them.

Basic food, clothing, and shelter, for example, should be given to others out of the charity of our own hearts, rather than because we want some money in exchange for giving people those things. That's what charity is all about, and if by "respecting the dignity of our fellow men" you mean we should support or condone a person's "pride", as if pride is a good thing, then No, I will not do anything to give anyone the idea that pride is a good thing to have. Pride is something all people need to get rid of, rather than nurture, and contrary to popular opinion in this world, charity is the most awesome and powerful trait any person can ever have.

Some people seem to look down on charity and think pride is a good thing, when actually they have that backwards.

Oh I agree. But most people don't want a handout, even if it is not really possible for them to do anything, but yes there should be basics. But the problem now is that we have people who are working full time jobs, and possibly second jobs and barely able to survive. We have other people who are underemployed or unemployed and can't find work. Our unemployment stats really underestimate the situation. This is a situation of trying to salvage human dignity for people -- they don't need to live in the lap of luxury, but they need employment where they don't have to worry about having enough to pay their bills and care for themselves and their children. And they should not be one serious sickness away from bankruptcy.

[Alvino]

calmoriah said: "No, it doesn't. If you can't imagine a game where you are playing with friends and to achieve something that is beneficial and enjoyable for all at the end of it, I can understand the attitude, but I know lots of entrepreneurs who aren't so self-centered."

Maybe one way to see how the benevolent view of the psychology of entrepreneurs and the game view differ is the following.

You pointed out (while expressing the benevolent one) that entrepreneurs "seem to become obsessed with the responsibility they have taken upon themselves by creating their companies and thus jobs for their employees" and that "They fear the failure of their companies not for the loss of status or money...they see themselves as quite capable of starting from scratch again if needed, but rather for the impact it will have on the individuals and their families that are now dependent on them (in their eyes)." It seems quite clear to me that such an attitude of serious responsibility and such serious risk is the furthest thing from a game psychology. Actually, pretty much the opposite.

[jim_mason]

I am intrigued by the comments of several Europeans on this board who seem to think American LDS have a fixation on capitalism as being nigh unto doctrine.^snipSo. Is economics simply irrelevant from an eternal perspective or not?

Yes, economics is not relevant. A life of fulfilling "ones calling" is what is important or in the words of Christ increasing ones talents.

[Calm]

It seems quite clear to me that such an attitude of serious responsibility and such serious risk is the furthest thing from a game psychology. Actually, pretty much the opposite.

People's motivations don't have to be static and can even vary in importance from moment to moment depending what they are currently focused on. Generally people also have more than one reason for doing something and to label a certain reason "primary" or "secondary" may thus be an inaccurate portrayal of a complicated picture.

[Stone holm]

Yes, economics is not relevant. A life of fulfilling "ones calling" is what is important or in the words of Christ increasing ones talents.

Not relevant in the hereafter, or not relevant now?

[Alvino]

People's motivations don't have to be static and can even vary in importance from moment to moment depending what they are currently focused on. Generally people also have more than one reason for doing something and to label a certain reason "primary" or "secondary" may thus be an inaccurate portrayal of a complicated picture.

"Primary" and "secondary" mean there is more than one reason, camoriah. It isn't incompatible with several motivators working at once and I'm sure there are several. However, I still think the 'game psychology' at any moment is incompatible with the 'benevolent psychology'. If we agree it is mostly a game psychology and both are incompatible with each other, then it is mostly NOT a benevolent psychology, at the very least.