The First Presidency on the Economy

[TheSkepticChristian]

The early church lived the law of consecration, President Brigham Young was very concerned about the poor. The First Presidency stated, "One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the mon- strous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few in- dividuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to tne legislation, both State and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is liable to be overtaken by disaster" https://archive.org/stream/socialproblemsof00lumd/socialproblemsof00lumd_djvu.txt

 

I wonder if the modern First Presidency still thinks that measures should be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches?

[CV75]

It seems Brigham Young thought globally and acted locally in such matters, as well they should and as they do today.

[Robert F. Smith]

An extraordinary statement, to be sure, and it deserves to be presented with full citation, and in a somewhat longer version:

First Presidency Letter, July 10th 1875, in Dyer Daniel Lum, Social Problems of To-Day, or The Mormon Question in its Economic Aspects: A Study of Co-operation and Arbitration in Mormondom from the Standpoint of a Wage-Worker (Port Jervis, NY: Lum & Co., 1886), pages 17-19, online at https://archive.org/stream/socialproblemsof00lumd/socialproblemsof00lumd_djvu.txt ,

To THE Latter-day Saints: — 

The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression, and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice.
 * * * 

One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is liable to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin. The evidence of the restiveness of the people under this condition of affairs in our times is witnessed in the formation of societies of grangers, of patrons of husbandry, trades' unions, etc., etc., combinations of the productive and working classes against capital. Years ago it was perceived that we Latter-day Saints were open to the same dangers as those which beset the rest of the world. A condition of affairs existed among us which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. A wealthy class was being rapidly formed in their midst whose interests, in the course of time, were likely to be diverse from those of the rest of the community. The growth of such a class was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical. Then it was that the Saints were counseled to enter into co-operation. In the absence of the necessary faith to enter upon a more perfect order revealed by the Lord unto the church, this was felt to be the best means of drawing us together and making us one. Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was organized, and, throughout the Territory, the mercantile business of the various wards and settlements was organized after that pattern. Not only was the mercantile business thus organized, but at various places branches of mechanical, manufacturing, and other productive industries were established upon this basis. To-day, therefore, co-operation among us is no untried experiment; it has been tested, and whenever fairly tested, and under proper management, its results have been most gratifying and fully equal to all that was expected of it, though many attempts have been made to disparage and decry it, to destroy the confidence of the people in it and have it prove a failure. From the day that Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was organized until this day it has had formidable and combined opposition to contend with, and the most base and unscrupulous methods have been adopted by those who have no interest for the welfare of the people, to destroy its credit. Without alluding to the private assaults upon its credit which have been made by those who felt that it was in their way and who wished to ruin it, the perusal alone of the telegraphic dispatches and correspondence to newspapers, which became public, would exhibit how unparalleled in the history of mercantile enterprises has been the hostility it had to encounter. 

That it has lived, notwithstanding these bitter and malignant attacks upon it and its credit, is one of the most valuable proofs of the practical worth of co- operation to us as a people. Up to this day Z. C. M. I., has had no note go to protest; no firm, by dealing with it, has ever lost a dollar; its business transactions have been satisfactory to its creditors, and yet its purchases have amounted to fifteen millions of dollars ! What firm in all this broad land can point to a brighter or more honorable record than this ? 
* * * 

It was not for the purpose alone, however, of making money that Z. C. M. I. was established. A higher object than this prompted its organization. A union of interests was sought to be attained. At the time co-operation was entered upon, the Latter-day Saints were acting in utter disregard of the principles of self-preservation. They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features from which they had been gathered. Large profits were being concentrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people. As a consequence, the community was being rapidly divided into classes, and the hateful and unhappy distinctions which the possession and lack of wealth give rise to, were becoming painfully apparent. When the proposition to organize Z. C. M. I., was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become its stockholders; for if a few individuals only were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited. The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal. As we have shown, the business proved as successful as its most sanguine friends anticipated. But the distribution of profits among the community was not the only benefit conferred by the organization of co- operation among us. The public at large who did not buy at its stores derived profits, in that the old practice of dealing which prompted traders to increase the price of an article because of its scarcity, was abandoned. Z. C. M. I. declined to be a party to making a corner upon any article of merchandize because of the limited supply in the market. From its organization until the present it has never advanced the price of any article because of its scarcity. Goods therefore in this Territory have been sold at something like fixed rates and reasonable profits since the Institution has had an existence, and practices which are deemed legitimate in some parts of the trading world, and by which, in this Territory, the necessities of consumers were taken advantage of — as, for instance, the selling of sugar at a dollar a pound, and domestics, coffee, tobacco and other articles at an enormous advance over original cost because of their scarcity here — have not been indulged in. In this result the purchasers of goods who have been opposed to co- operation have shared equally with its patrons. 

We appeal to the experience of every old settler in this Territory for the truth of what is here stated. They must vividly remember that goods were sold here at prices which the necessities of the people compelled them to pay, and not at cost and transportation, with the addition of a reasonable profit. The railroad, it is true, has made great changes in our method of doing business. But let a blockade occur, and the supply of some necessary article be very limited in our market, can we suppose that traders have so changed in the lapse of a few years that, if there were no check upon them, they would not put up the price of that article in proportion as the necessities of the people made it desirable ? They would be untrue to all the training and traditions of their craft if they did not. And it is because this craft is in danger that such an outcry is made against co-operation. Can any one wonder that it should be so, when he remembers that, from the days of Demetrius who made silver shrines for the goddess Diana at Ephesus down to our own times, members of crafts have made constant war upon innovations that were likely to injure their business ? 

Your Brethren, 

Brigham Young, Charles C. Rich, George A. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Daniel H. Wells, Franklin D. Richards, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young, Jun., Orson Hyde, Albert Carrington.

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Meadowchik]

In reality, even those living at poverty levels in the US are rich, compared to the vast majority of people on the planet, the billions living on or less than 10 dollars a day.  Extreme poverty has diminished significantly, but progress is still needed.  It looks to me that, as most countries continue to adjust to post-Colonial independence, they will increase in wealth, and those in extreme poverty and poverty will shift into wealthier brackets.

[Robert F. Smith]

It would be nice, Meadowchik, but it is far more likely that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will be riding hard and heavy through most continents in coming decades, leaving Malthusian disasters in their wake.

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It would be nice, Meadowchik, but it is far more likely that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will be riding hard and heavy through most continents in coming decades, leaving Malthusian disasters in their wake.

Huh?  What are you talking about? I'm talking about poverty, not population.

[Avatar4321]

the argument that societies are generally have the most liberty is interesting. But is the liberty due to income equality or the income equality due to that liberty?

[SmileyMcGee]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Huh?  What are you talking about? I'm talking about poverty, not population.

I don't know that poverty can be discussed without reference to population...and wealth (poverty) does not seem to be immune to resource scarcity...not sure how it could be. It would appear that increases in standards of living are heavily correlated with accelerated consumption of scare resources.

Edited December 3, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

the argument that societies are generally have the most liberty is interesting. But is the liberty due to income equality or the income equality due to that liberty?

I think at the basic developmental level, liberty does mean economic improvement.  Lack of liberty, for example, limits innovation and movement which is critical to progress and thus economic improvement.  So, there are still countries in the world that are struggling to exit extreme poverty, largely due to prolonged civil wars or colonization.

It's when you get to the developed nations who've already surpassed the basic hurdles where the question arises of whether improved income equality promotes liberty.  Where I live, the massive bureaucracy and resultant high taxes are small-business-prohibitive.

[why me]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

In reality, even those living at poverty levels in the US are rich, compared to the vast majority of people on the planet, the billions living on or less than 10 dollars a day.  Extreme poverty has diminished significantly, but progress is still needed.  It looks to me that, as most countries continue to adjust to post-Colonial independence, they will increase in wealth, and those in extreme poverty and poverty will shift into wealthier brackets.

I don't think that we can state such a conclusion. Being poor in the US with so much wealth around the poor person is not easy. The difference between the top 1 percent and the rest of the population is huge. And if one is poor, the difference is even greater. I would rather be making 10 dollars a day within a society where many are making such money than in a society that has huge descrepancies of inequality. The US is becoming a country divided by wealth and affluence on the one hand and on the other hand by extremes levels of homelessness, marginalization, and disutopia.

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

I don't know that poverty can be discussed without reference to population...and wealth (poverty) does not seem to be immune to resource scarcity...not sure how it could be. It would appear that increases in standards of living are heavily correlated with accelerated consumption of scare resources.

Yes, poverty is related to population, but I wasn't talking about population problems. And I didn't see how Robert F. Smith's comment directly related to what I actually said.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, why me said:

I don't think that we can state such a conclusion. Being poor in the US with so much wealth around the poor person is not easy. The difference between the top 1 percent and the rest of the population is huge. And if one is poor, the difference is even greater. I would rather be making 10 dollars a day within a society where many are making such money than in a society that has huge descrepancies of inequality. The US is becoming a country divided by wealth and affluence on the one hand and on the other hand by extremes levels of homelessness, marginalization, and disutopia.

I would rather be poor in America (as I have been) than living on 10 dollars a day. Just not having to hand-wash clothes and having access to basic healthcare and education makes my life enormously different than it otherwise would be.  Imagine having to pool together money with your neighbors just to be able to have what we would call a typical doctor's visit for a bacterial infection.

[why me]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think at the basic developmental level, liberty does mean economic improvement.  Lack of liberty, for example, limits innovation and movement which is critical to progress and thus economic improvement.  So, there are still countries in the world that are struggling to exit extreme poverty, largely due to prolonged civil wars or colonization.

It's when you get to the developed nations who've already surpassed the basic hurdles where the question arises of whether improved income equality promotes liberty.  Where I live, the massive bureaucracy and resultant high taxes are small-business-prohibitive.

What is liberty? For example, if I am a poor person in the US, my liberty is limited. I cannot travel to china as a weathly person can. I cannot buy healthy food as the upper income person can. And I cannot live the lifestyle of a person with money. My freedom is very limited by my income and that lack of freedom covers freedom of movement and living space as examples. So, liberty is a matter of income in many cases. Also, if I am homeless, I have no time to watch TV, read the newspapers etc. My total life is focused in survival.

We need to look at the difference between moderan liberalism, ie, the welfare states that made up Europe until the 90s and the classical liberal societies, mainly the US and Britain during Thatcher. The resultant high taxes of modern liberalism offered a more fair and equitable society.

Here is a simple explanation between the two types of liberalisms:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-modern-and-classical-liberalism

[why me]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

An extraordinary statement, to be sure, and it deserves to be presented with full citation, and in a somewhat longer version:

First Presidency Letter, July 10th 1875, in Dyer Daniel Lum, Social Problems of To-Day, or The Mormon Question in its Economic Aspects: A Study of Co-operation and Arbitration in Mormondom from the Standpoint of a Wage-Worker (Port Jervis, NY: Lum & Co., 1886), pages 17-19, online at https://archive.org/stream/socialproblemsof00lumd/socialproblemsof00lumd_djvu.txt ,

To THE Latter-day Saints: — 

The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression, and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice.
 * * * 

One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is liable to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin. The evidence of the restiveness of the people under this condition of affairs in our times is witnessed in the formation of societies of grangers, of patrons of husbandry, trades' unions, etc., etc., combinations of the productive and working classes against capital. Years ago it was perceived that we Latter-day Saints were open to the same dangers as those which beset the rest of the world. A condition of affairs existed among us which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. A wealthy class was being rapidly formed in their midst whose interests, in the course of time, were likely to be diverse from those of the rest of the community. The growth of such a class was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical. Then it was that the Saints were counseled to enter into co-operation. In the absence of the necessary faith to enter upon a more perfect order revealed by the Lord unto the church, this was felt to be the best means of drawing us together and making us one. Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was organized, and, throughout the Territory, the mercantile business of the various wards and settlements was organized after that pattern. Not only was the mercantile business thus organized, but at various places branches of mechanical, manufacturing, and other productive industries were established upon this basis. To-day, therefore, co-operation among us is no untried experiment; it has been tested, and whenever fairly tested, and under proper management, its results have been most gratifying and fully equal to all that was expected of it, though many attempts have been made to disparage and decry it, to destroy the confidence of the people in it and have it prove a failure. From the day that Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was organized until this day it has had formidable and combined opposition to contend with, and the most base and unscrupulous methods have been adopted by those who have no interest for the welfare of the people, to destroy its credit. Without alluding to the private assaults upon its credit which have been made by those who felt that it was in their way and who wished to ruin it, the perusal alone of the telegraphic dispatches and correspondence to newspapers, which became public, would exhibit how unparalleled in the history of mercantile enterprises has been the hostility it had to encounter. 

That it has lived, notwithstanding these bitter and malignant attacks upon it and its credit, is one of the most valuable proofs of the practical worth of co- operation to us as a people. Up to this day Z. C. M. I., has had no note go to protest; no firm, by dealing with it, has ever lost a dollar; its business transactions have been satisfactory to its creditors, and yet its purchases have amounted to fifteen millions of dollars ! What firm in all this broad land can point to a brighter or more honorable record than this ? 
* * * 

It was not for the purpose alone, however, of making money that Z. C. M. I. was established. A higher object than this prompted its organization. A union of interests was sought to be attained. At the time co-operation was entered upon, the Latter-day Saints were acting in utter disregard of the principles of self-preservation. They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features from which they had been gathered. Large profits were being concentrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people. As a consequence, the community was being rapidly divided into classes, and the hateful and unhappy distinctions which the possession and lack of wealth give rise to, were becoming painfully apparent. When the proposition to organize Z. C. M. I., was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become its stockholders; for if a few individuals only were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited. The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal. As we have shown, the business proved as successful as its most sanguine friends anticipated. But the distribution of profits among the community was not the only benefit conferred by the organization of co- operation among us. The public at large who did not buy at its stores derived profits, in that the old practice of dealing which prompted traders to increase the price of an article because of its scarcity, was abandoned. Z. C. M. I. declined to be a party to making a corner upon any article of merchandize because of the limited supply in the market. From its organization until the present it has never advanced the price of any article because of its scarcity. Goods therefore in this Territory have been sold at something like fixed rates and reasonable profits since the Institution has had an existence, and practices which are deemed legitimate in some parts of the trading world, and by which, in this Territory, the necessities of consumers were taken advantage of — as, for instance, the selling of sugar at a dollar a pound, and domestics, coffee, tobacco and other articles at an enormous advance over original cost because of their scarcity here — have not been indulged in. In this result the purchasers of goods who have been opposed to co- operation have shared equally with its patrons. 

We appeal to the experience of every old settler in this Territory for the truth of what is here stated. They must vividly remember that goods were sold here at prices which the necessities of the people compelled them to pay, and not at cost and transportation, with the addition of a reasonable profit. The railroad, it is true, has made great changes in our method of doing business. But let a blockade occur, and the supply of some necessary article be very limited in our market, can we suppose that traders have so changed in the lapse of a few years that, if there were no check upon them, they would not put up the price of that article in proportion as the necessities of the people made it desirable ? They would be untrue to all the training and traditions of their craft if they did not. And it is because this craft is in danger that such an outcry is made against co-operation. Can any one wonder that it should be so, when he remembers that, from the days of Demetrius who made silver shrines for the goddess Diana at Ephesus down to our own times, members of crafts have made constant war upon innovations that were likely to injure their business ? 

Your Brethren, 

Brigham Young, Charles C. Rich, George A. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Daniel H. Wells, Franklin D. Richards, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young, Jun., Orson Hyde, Albert Carrington.

 

This is an interesting letter and it shows that the inequality that existed at that time still exists today in the US. To get a good picture of US history one must read Howard Zinn's The People's History of the United States. By reading it, one comes to the conclusion that class differences and inequality were very much apart of the American experience from the very beginnings of the Republic. And much of this had to do with Adam Smith and the various ecomonic ideas that were followed by the propertied classes, mainly centered in Ricardo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_economics

To understand, the US today and its economic foundations and its spread to other formerly modern liberal countries, one must read Adam Smith and David Ricardo. And more recently Milton Friedman's Freedom and Capitalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

The questioin remains: How to form a more perfect order with such economic foundations from such economic thinkers I mentioned above.

[strappinglad]

Recently I watched a couple of documentaries on the great homes and lifestyles of England's highest classes pre WW1. It really showed the vast gulf between classes. Two examples: A dinner was held for a few notables. The cost was 100 dollars which was also the entire years wage for a maid in service.

                The home entertained the Royal family for 3 days. In today's money they spent $ 500,000 . This was near BY's era. 

 

 Do we have such differences today in the US or the World ? Oh ya !

[Russell C McGregor]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

The early church lived the law of consecration, President Brigham Young was very concerned about the poor. The First Presidency stated, "One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the mon- strous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few in- dividuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to tne legislation, both State and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is liable to be overtaken by disaster" https://archive.org/stream/socialproblemsof00lumd/socialproblemsof00lumd_djvu.txt

 

I wonder if the modern First Presidency still thinks that measures should be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches?

 

Now Skeptic, this wouldn't be an attempt to sneak politics, or the promotion of the views of a particular candidate, in under the radar, would it?

 

 

[Deborah]

3 hours ago, why me said:

By reading it, one comes to the conclusion that class differences and inequality were very much apart of the American experience from the very beginnings of the Republic.

It goes back to before that. Jesus noted in Mark 14:7 "For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always."

In our society we have the greatest opportunity for the poor to raise themselves up out of their poverty. Here is a partial quote from retired coach Leo "Lou" Holz:

"Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.

Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine."

[The Nehor]

I suppose we could try to sort it out but it is probably easier to wait for a depression, a war, or a revolution to come along as it inevitably will. Sure, the death toll will be high and the suffering immeasurable but easier then trying to address the issue.

The funny thing is our President actually went to his advisors to ask them how he could address this issue without the whole thing being reduced to accusations of promoting "class warfare" and nothing of substance ever being discussed. Their response: "You can't." It seems weirdly inconsistent that that is the only war his opponents seem to oppose.

[Walden]

21 minutes ago, Deborah said:

It goes back to before that. Jesus noted in Mark 14:7 "For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always."

In our society we have the greatest opportunity for the poor to raise themselves up out of their poverty. Here is a partial quote from retired coach Leo "Lou" Holz:

"Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.

Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine."

To me, this appears far too simplistic. Your statements make it appear that poverty is a choice (people choose to drop out of school, people choose to skip college, etc.) Many times for the poor, there is simply no other choice; many may drop out of school in order to take jobs to help support their struggling families or take care of their younger siblings due to dysfunctional parents, etc. Many skip college due to the exorbitant costs of a college education, which generally requires even the children of middle-income families to take out large loans. Regarding the doctor analogy, I think that you will find that most American doctors were raised in middle to upper class families that presented them with opportunities not even comprehended by the poor (private school educations, access to tutors and educational assistance, easier access to loans, not having the burden of assisting their family financially at a young age, etc.).

Simply stated, it is not always choice that leads to poverty, often it is circumstance. 

[Deborah]

4 minutes ago, Walden said:

Simply stated, it is not always choice that leads to poverty, often it is circumstance. 

I don't disagree, but more often than not it's our life choices. Many people with no support put themselves through school at great sacrifice. Plus today we have on-line classes. It is very rare that someone should be completely unable to better their circumstances.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Recently I watched a couple of documentaries on the great homes and lifestyles of England's highest classes pre WW1. It really showed the vast gulf between classes. Two examples: A dinner was held for a few notables. The cost was 100 dollars which was also the entire years wage for a maid in service.

                The home entertained the Royal family for 3 days. In today's money they spent $ 500,000 . This was near BY's era. 

 

 Do we have such differences today in the US or the World ? Oh ya !

Netflix has a show called One Million Dollar Rooms.

I can't watch it.

[Deborah]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Netflix has a show called One Million Dollar Rooms.

I can't watch it.

I like Tiny House Nation. More my size.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Now Skeptic, this wouldn't be an attempt to sneak politics, or the promotion of the views of a particular candidate, in under the radar, would it?

 

How could it?  The only candidate I can think of who sought to stop the Robber Barons and to engage in real trust-busting was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican.  We have no such candidates today, and no leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young who understand the value of the Law of Consecration, and who seek to put it into effect.  In Mormonism, the religious and political views cannot be separated.  Mormonism is a way of life, not a Sunday-go-to-meetin religion.

[Sevenbak]

Marion G Romney's talk from many years ago on Socialism vs. The United Order is an excellent treatise on this topic.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Sevenbak

[strappinglad]

And Hugh Nibley had a couple of less then flattering things to say about the economy in his tome " Approaching Zion "

 Yay, Zion prospereth  can be taken at least 2 ways.