Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[Hamba Tuhan]

[W]hat economic system was described in the BoM?

 

Maybe I haven't looked closely enough, but I don't think the BofM clearly describes any named 'economic system'. What I'm quite certain the Book of Mormon does describe is the linkage between obedience/disobedience to God's laws and the health/collapse of societies. Which idea, of course, Marx and Engels despised, arguing that all features of a society stem from economic activity. The single cure for any society's ills, therefore, is purely economic (material), not moral or ethical or -- worst of all! -- 'spiritual'.

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe I haven't looked closely enough, but I don't think the BofM clearly describes any named 'economic system'. What I'm quite certain the Book of Mormon does describe is the linkage between obedience/disobedience to God's laws and the health/collapse of societies. Which idea, of course, Marx and Engels despised, arguing that all features of a society stem from economic activity. The single cure for any society's ills, therefore, is purely economic (material), not moral or ethical or -- worst of all! -- 'spiritual'.

 

There is only one reference to a economic system in the BoM. All things were held in common with neither rich nor poor among them. We can't forget the Golden Rule of this life. Those that have the gold, make the rules.

 

The BoM is a religious book that's for sure.

 

Not that I agree with them on everything but religion has been used throughout history as a opiate to stop people from addressing the deep problems with their society. "You are a slave now, but you'll get a big reward in Heaven". Unfortunately you just have to die first to get it.

 

The economy definitely has an effect on people's lives.

 

I think the use of money is a reflection of our morals, or lack there of.

[Stone holm]

Come now Hamba Tuhan, why would devotees of Marx and Engels, who put these two economic and social "philosophers" above the Book of Mormon,  want to remain active members of the LDS Church?

Actually I disagree with Marxism. Nor am I a big fan of the dole except for the elderly and the clearly disabled. I am, however, a strong believer in the need for human dignity and a disbeliever in the idea that left to its own devices that markets create jobs. I am also a disbeliever that private businesses can do a better job of running governmental functions, just as I am a disbeliever that government should run industrial operations. This country rose in economic strength because for an extended period it had a frontier which acted as ann escape valve for workers keeping the price of labor and encouraging start up businesses, coupled with government projects which developed infrastructure, coupled with protectionism. This economic situation favored the rise of the middle class in the rural areas with a strong economic as well as communitarian base for family related support. This was less true amongst urban elites and the urban poverty stricken, at least until progressivism and the rise of unions created a relatively well paid blue collar class which also adopted a family based structure. Religion and cultural taboos played a role, especially with the rise of the Social Gospel adherents who worked to improve conditions of the urban poor. Marxism was doubly cursed because it linked atheism to an econonomic system and because it placed industrial concerns in the hands of government. However, the radical reaction to it was equally mistaken, but has linked religion to government as well. Telling people how they should live while maintaining an economic system that makes such a lifestyle difficult to maintain is not a sustainable approach and it will lead either to revolution or a police state as matters deteriorate. Wide disparities in wealth tend to create materialistic and hypocritical elites. Both the New Testament and the B of M testify of this.

[wenglund]

The fact that in the 50's there were far more intact black families, far less out of wedlock births, far less absentee fathers, far less killing of the unborn and far less drug abuse and rampant crime are not little things that one has to squint real hard to see. Yes, these people then suffered under more oppression, but they fared far better as families in spite of that lamentable mistreatment. These are not inconsequential things, and from an LDS point of view they are critically important blessings that too many families of today, of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, no longer enjoy. Paradoxically, hard times can often help motivate families to stay close and strong.   

 

It is more important that a black man be invited to dinner at his white girlfriend's home than the occurence of hundreds of gang drive-by shootings.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 11, 2013 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is only one reference to a economic system in the BoM. All things were held in common with neither rich nor poor among them. We can't forget the Golden Rule of this life. Those that have the gold, make the rules.

 

 

Though it is true that this system is talked about in the BoM it never once is stated that they gave it all to the government and from there everything was doled out. Infact I think when we look at the gospel the reason this (The model talked about in the BoM) is possible is because every one chose to give freely of their substance. Then and only then does it work and no other system that has been tried seems to have worked.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually I disagree with Marxism. Nor am I a big fan of the dole except for the elderly and the clearly disabled. I am, however, a strong believer in the need for human dignity and a disbeliever in the idea that left to its own devices that markets create jobs.

So markets don't create jobs. As in the free market doesn't create jobs. Is that really your position?? Because if that is the case you should step in to reality. My job came from the free market. It was not the government in any capacity that got me my job. I am willing to bet that if we got down to it you really would be for people being on the dole. Oh well.

 

More of that "you didn't biuld that" crap.

[thesometimesaint]

It is more important that a black man be invited to dinner at his white girlfriend's home than the nonoccurence of hundreds of gang drive-by shootings.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The first is a now a social norm, until Loving vs Texas it was also a legal issue. The latter Drive By Shootings have always been a legal issue. Though I doubt many lost much sleep at Al Capon being behind bars.

[thesometimesaint]

So markets don't create jobs. As in the free market doesn't create jobs. Is that really your position?? Because if that is the case you should step in to reality. My job came from the free market. It was not the government in any capacity that got me my job. I am willing to bet that if we got down to it you really would be for people being on the dole. Oh well.

 

More of that "you didn't biuld that" crap.

 

No Free Markets economies don't create jobs. Demand and transferable wealth create jobs.

 

So government in any capacity didn't give you or your customers an education to be able to make and use the products of your job, ensured the safety of your food, water, and medicine; didn't provide roads, bridges, infrastructure to get you to your job, or deliver the goods and services from your job to your customers; it didn't provide the police, firemen, courts of law, military to defend your job. it doesn't coin(print) money to pay you with, Didn't enact laws to make sure the building you work in doesn't fall down around your ears. IE; http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4920665/couple-hold-each-other-amid-ruins-of-collapsed-bangladesh-factory.html

 

Poverty isn't a sin, but get rid of it as fast as you can. As a country we have decided that governments play an essential roll in our health, safety, and welfare.

 

So no you didn't build that.

[wenglund]

The first is a now a social norm, until Loving vs Texas it was also a legal issue. The latter Drive By Shootings have always been a legal issue. Though I doubt many lost much sleep at Al Capon being behind bars.

 

Whether true or not, it is beside the point. Yes, black men attending dinner at their white girldfriends home may have caused a stir in the 60's and not today, but when compared with the level of gang violence, out-of-wedlock births, single mothers, drug culture, etc., in the black community today, I don't know that it correct to say that things have improved for blacks.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Whether true or not, it is beside the point. Yes, black men attending dinner at their white girldfriends home may have caused a stir in the 60's and not today, but when compared with the level of gang violence, out-of-wedlock births, single mothers, drug culture, etc., in the black community today, I don't know that it correct to say that things have improved for blacks.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

While certain opportunities have improved, I am not sure where you are going with this argument.  Economic disparity in America has vastly increased since the 1950's to the point it now exceeds that of the Robber Baron Era.  Given the profitability of the drug trade due to our failed drug policies, it is the most profitable and easiest economic opportunity for the Black community, just as bootlegging was for the immigrant community during Prohibition.  Although racial and economic pro-filing has resulted in a huge surge in minority prison populations, I am having a certain amount of trouble connecting that to a decline in family cohesion caused by a decline in religion -- but maybe you could draw me a roadmap as to where you are going with the argument.

[wenglund]

No Free Markets economies don't create jobs. Demand and transferable wealth create jobs.

 

It is evident that you aren't an economist, otherwise you would have known that: 1) jobs aren't created by a transfer of wealth, but by an exchange of value for value (often money for goods and services). If a rich or poor person buys an iPhone 5s from the Apple Store, $200.00 may come out of their bank account and given to the cashier, but they still have a $200.00 phone in their pocket. 2) Demand will only create jobs if there is sufficient demand at a certain price/value to warrant increased supply. Unlimited demand for 1Phone 5s at $10.00 will not create supply/jobs if the cost of supply is greater than $10.00.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

It is evident that you aren't an economist, otherwise you would have known that: 1) jobs aren't created by a transfer of wealth, but by an exchange of value for value (often money for goods and services). If a rich or poor person buys an iPhone 5s from the Apple Store, $200.00 may come out of their bank account and given to the cashier, but they still have a $200.00 phone in their pocket. 2) Demand will only create jobs if there is sufficient demand at a certain price/value to warrant increased supply. Unlimited demand for 1Phone 5s at $10.00 will not create supply/jobs if the cost of supply is greater than $10.00.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Demand does not exist if there is no money to purchase. Jobs are in fact not created by wealth, but the turn over of wealth, but ultimately if the people have no money to buy then there is no market. Henry Ford understood that if he was going to sell cars he had to make them cheap enough and also pay his workers enough that they could afford to buy them. So while introducing assembly lines, he also raised wages. Right now America and much of the world has excess production capacity, but the people do not have money to buy. Since the 2008 crash, they no longer have borrowing power so everything has stopped. The world economy without a a huge middle class economy in America the whole world is suffering, we have killed the goose that laid the golden egg by our mistaken belief that the ultra wealthy would drive demand instead of the middle class and prosperous blue collar class.

[wenglund]

While certain opportunities have improved, I am not sure where you are going with this argument.  Economic disparity in America has vastly increased since the 1950's to the point it now exceeds that of the Robber Baron Era.  Given the profitability of the drug trade due to our failed drug policies, it is the most profitable and easiest economic opportunity for the Black community, just as bootlegging was for the immigrant community during Prohibition.  Although racial and economic pro-filing has resulted in a huge surge in minority prison populations, I am having a certain amount of trouble connecting that to a decline in family cohesion caused by a decline in religion -- but maybe you could draw me a roadmap as to where you are going with the argument.

 

First of all, looking at economic disparity, alone, is a poor (pun intended) way to judge socio-economic improvement. While it is true that income disparity has increased over multiple decades, during the last couple of decades all five of the income quintiles have steadily increased. In other words, on average, income levels have improved for everyone. The exception to this has come during Obama's administration where the first time in recent history, the very rich continued to get richer, but the bottom four income quintile have either flattened out or gone into decline. (See HERE)

 

Second, as for the connection between religion, family, and social health and the alleged argument I was making, to which you requested a road map, in actuality I wasn't making such an argument in my brief posts here, but there are a number of articles that can be helpful road maps in that regard. Just do a Google search under: religion decline family social problems.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Demand does not exist if there is no money to purchase. Jobs are in fact not created by wealth, but the turn over of wealth, but ultimately if the people have no money to buy then there is no market.

 

You, evidently, also aren't an economist. Money is simply a convenient medium of exchange. And, it isn't the only medium for exchange. Demand exists and may be satisfied through bartering--i.e. in-kind exchange where no money changes hands. (See HERE)

 

Again, jobs are not created by the turning over of wealth but through mutually agreeable exchange of value for value (i.e. money in exchange for equal value in goods and services). This occurs whether a person is wealthy or poor.

 

Henry Ford understood that if he was going to sell cars he had to make them cheap enough and also pay his workers enough that they could afford to buy them. So while introducing assembly lines, he also raised wages.

 

Okay. So? What does this have to do with the current discussion?

 

Right now America and much of the world has excess production capacity, but the people do not have money to buy. Since the 2008 crash, they no longer have borrowing power so everything has stopped. The world economy without a huge middle class economy in America the whole world is suffering, we have killed the goose that laid the golden egg by our mistaken belief that the ultra wealthy would drive demand instead of the middle class and prosperous blue collar class.

 

Huh??? You r comments are so wrought with tangential errors that the only reasonable thing is to suggest you take the free Econ 101 course at Hillsdale College. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is evident that you aren't an economist, otherwise you would have known that: 1) jobs aren't created by a transfer of wealth, but by an exchange of value for value (often money for goods and services). If a rich or poor person buys an iPhone 5s from the Apple Store, $200.00 may come out of their bank account and given to the cashier, but they still have a $200.00 phone in their pocket. 2) Demand will only create jobs if there is sufficient demand at a certain price/value to warrant increased supply. Unlimited demand for 1Phone 5s at $10.00 will not create supply/jobs if the cost of supply is greater than $10.00.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Which functions best in a free market. And you only get increased jobs if you are able to turn a profit. I mean, my job came about because my employer had an idea that was a soultion to health care. My employer was able to hire me because they were truning a profit and they needed help with what they were doing. Hence because of the free market I have a job. BTW there was no transfer of wealth. It is not a zero sum game that some poeple thinks exsists. But there was an exchange for goods and services were in both parties benefit. We make money by saving people money in health care costs. Another thing and probably the biggest thing that produces job is production. The more productive some one can be while cuting costs on the prodcution the more money you are able to make. Though supply and demand are factors, they are not the only reason jobs get created.  

 

Anyway I probably will only be observing this thread from now on.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Stone holm]

You, evidently, also aren't an economist. Money is simply a convenient medium of exchange. And, it isn't the only medium for exchange. Demand exists and may be satisfied through bartering--i.e. in-kind exchange where no money changes hands. (See HERE)

 

Again, jobs are not created by the turning over of wealth but through mutually agreeable exchange of value for value (i.e. money in exchange for equal value in goods and services). This occurs whether a person is wealthy or poor.

 

 

 

 

Okay. So? What does this have to do with the current discussion?

 

 

 

 

Huh??? You r comments are so wrought with tangential errors that the only reasonable thing is to suggest you take the free Econ 101 course at Hillsdale College. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Well glad to see we have such a dearth of eonomists.  I did by the way attend Hillsdale College for two summer semesters.  You are aware that the Hillsdale College has set its sights on becoming the leading economic ultra-conservative business college in the nation.  I suspect if you go by their standards you could eliminate about 2/3rds of the practicing economists in the country.  Unfortunately, it would be the wrong 2/3rds.  While never claiming to be an economist, I have spent a very large part of my adult professional life in municipal, especially industrial, economic development.

[Stone holm]

Which functions best in a free market. And you only get increased jobs if you are able to turn a profit. I mean, my job came about because my employer had an idea that was a soultion to health care. My employer was able to hire me because they were truning a profit and they needed help with what they were doing. Hence because of the free market I have a job. BTW there was no transfer of wealth. It is not a zero sum game that some poeple thinks exsists. But there was an exchange for goods and services were in both parties benefit. We make money by saving people money in health care costs. Another thing and probably the biggest thing that produces job is production. The more productive some one can be while cuting costs on the prodcution the more money you are able to make. Though supply and demand are factors, they are not the only reason jobs get created.  

 

Anyway I probably will only be observing this thread from now on.

 

Your employer was turning a profit because he or she had customers buying his or her products or services, people only buy products and services if they either have cash or the ability to borrow cash. 

[wenglund]

Well glad to see we have such a dearth of eonomists.  I did by the way attend Hillsdale College for two summer semesters.  You are aware that the Hillsdale College has set its sights on becoming the leading economic ultra-conservative business college in the nation.  I suspect if you go by their standards you could eliminate about 2/3rds of the practicing economists in the country.  Unfortunately, it would be the wrong 2/3rds. 

 

Fine. Pick any Econ 101 course to your liking.

 

 

 

While never claiming to be an economist, I have spent a very large part of my adult professional life in municipal, especially industrial, economic development.

 

I have a friend in her late 40's who has used computers for a very large part of her adult life (professional and otherwise), but who, by her own admission, is technologically unsavvy and relatively clueless how the computer works.--beyond how to turn on the computer, click on the application icon, type and click. So, I get what you are saying about yourself and economics.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 12, 2013 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

 

I have a friend in her late 40's who has used computers for a very large part of her adult life (professional and otherwise), but who, by her own admission, is technologically unsavvy and relatively clueless how the computer works.--beyond how to turn on the computer, click on the application icon, type and click. So, I get what you are saying about yourself and economics.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ha.

[Stone holm]

Fine. Pick any Econ 101 course to your liking.

 

 

 

 

I have a friend in her late 40's who has used computers for a very large part of her adult life (professional and otherwise), but who, by her own admission, is technologically unsavvy and relatively clueless how the computer works.--beyond how to turn on the computer, click on the application icon, type and click. So, I get what you are saying about yourself and economics.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade I am not going to continue a discussion as to who you think is or is not qualified to make comments about economic issues. I am not in the habit of degrading other peoples qualifications as a substitute for reasoning. I assure you I have sufficient training in economics.

[thesometimesaint]

First of all, looking at economic disparity, alone, is a poor (pun intended) way to judge socio-economic improvement. While it is true that income disparity has increased over multiple decades, during the last couple of decades all five of the income quintiles have steadily increased. In other words, on average, income levels have improved for everyone. The exception to this has come during Obama's administration where the first time in recent history, the very rich continued to get richer, but the bottom four income quintile have either flattened out or gone into decline. (See HERE)

 

Second, as for the connection between religion, family, and social health and the alleged argument I was making, to which you requested a road map, in actuality I wasn't making such an argument in my brief posts here, but there are a number of articles that can be helpful road maps in that regard. Just do a Google search under: religion decline family social problems.

 

Thanks, -Wade EActually for the poor and middle class relative incomes have remained the same or have declined for more than 30 years now.

 

You are playing word games again. Bill Gates walks into a bar. While the mean(average) income goes through the roof. The mode(most common), and median income remains the same.

 

Actually the decline in the middle class started under Ronald Reagan.

See how our form of economics isn't really conducive to your health. http://www.salon.com/2013/11/12/4_creeping_ways_capitalism_is_killing_us_partner/

 

To paraphrase BY; It is hard to teach the gospel to an empty stomach.

[wenglund]

Wade I am not going to continue a discussion as to who you think is or is not qualified to make comments about economic issues. I am not in the habit of degrading other peoples qualifications as a substitute for reasoning. I assure you I have sufficient training in economics.

 

Part of the point in questioning your economic bonifieds is to graciously grant you a valid excuse. Your comments clearly betrayed a remarkable ignorance of basic economic, which is excusable for non-economist or those with little or no training in economics. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

However, since you seem intent on laying claim to economic bonifieds and training, it unwittingly leaves you without excuse for the remarkable ignorance of basic economics.

 

Way to go!

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 12, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

You are playing word games again. Bill Gates walks into a bar. While the mean(average) income goes through the roof. The mode(most common), and median income remains the same.

 

Actually the decline in the middle class started under Ronald Reagan.  http://www.salon.com/2013/11/12/4_creeping_ways_capitalism_is_killing_us_partner/

 

To paraphrase BY; It is hard to teach the gospel to an empty stomach.

 

No, I am not playing word games. I am using government stats that intentionally divide incomes into QUINTILES so as to avoid the Bill Gate-like distorting extremes that you mentioned, and this in ways better than using mode and median income you proposed.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 12, 2013 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

Fine. Pick any Econ 101 course to your liking.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

My macroeconomics professor taught at the 102 level.

 

For better or worse I learned Basic(the computer program) in a class I took many moons ago. The take away was GIGO(Garbage In Garbage Out).

[thesometimesaint]

No, I am not playing word games. I am using government stats that intentionally divide incomes into QUINTILES so as to avoid the Bill Gate-like distorting extremes that you mentioned, and this in ways better than using mode and median income you proposed.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Average has a specific meaning. You are intentionally using an inaccurate meaning to distort income growth. IE. If one person earns an extra dollar per day and the next person earns an extra thousand dollars per day they both had an increase in income. Relatively speaking there is a relative decline for the person making just an extra one dollar a day.