strategy vs. entempered habits?

Ahab · July 5, 2018

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Right, if starting a business is gambling, then working for a business owner is supporting gamblers. If business is a gamble, then working in business is participating in the gambling industry. You are supporting the industry, you are supporting your employer/gambler with your labors.

Just an FYI, if starting a business is gambling, then M Russell Ballard, Robert D. Hales, Neil L. Andersen, and Gary E. Stevenson were all called as apostles as professional gamblers. Do you sustain these brethren?

You can "support" gamblers without being associated with them, as one of the gamblers. If you get a job from a gambler I recommend that you get a guaranteed rate of return for your labors. Contracts are nice. I have one by being associated with a Union in my employment.

And as I hinted at before, it is possible to start a business without getting into any debt and without doing something for somebody else with NO guaranteed outcome.

pogi · July 5, 2018

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And FYI it is possible to farm without using any money. Plants have seeds that can be saved and stored and used for growing more plants. And buying land to farm on is not considered gambling because the guaranteed outcome is to get the land.

Where are you going to get the plants to harvest seeds from? Those cost money too. It is an investment in your business. You have to purchase farming equipment, water, fertilizer, soil amendments, etc. etc. etc.

By the way, you better not use GMO plants in your farm, because it is illegal to harvest the seeds and replant them. They are patented and owned by companies like Monsanto. You have to repurchase them. Crazy but true.

pogi · July 5, 2018

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You can "support" gamblers without being associated with them, as one of the gamblers.

”Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

Jeanne · July 5, 2018

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

”Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

🤤

Edited July 5, 2018 by Jeanne
Ugh..wouldn't let me post...

Ahab · July 5, 2018

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Where are you going to get the plants to harvest seeds from? Those cost money too. It is an investment in your business. You have to purchase farming equipment, water, fertilizer, soil amendments, etc. etc. etc.

By the way, you better not use GMO plants in your farm, because it is illegal to harvest the seeds and replant them. They are patented and owned by companies like Monsanto. You have to repurchase them. Crazy but true.

I think you need to be able to separate in your mind what it means to buy something and what it means to gamble. If I buy a plant I am not gambling because I am getting the plant I paid for. And if I use the seeds from that plant to try to grow more plants I am not gambling either, by my understand of what gambling is, because I am not investing any money to grow those new plants. I'm simply using what I have already paid for.

Yeah I know about those GMO plant companies. They have quite a racket. I don't use any though because I prefer to grow plants as naturally as possible and I can easily find plenty of natural plants.

Jeanne · July 5, 2018

My Dad thought if I borrowed $20 from him...he would not be able to attend the Temple..I moved away so that he would not have to associate with me..Sad but true..

Ahab · July 5, 2018

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

”Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

My answer was no, I don't support them, not in the sense that question is asking. I support all kinds of people but not in anything they do which is contrary to how the Church says we should support all other people.

If you have any questions about how the work support is being used in that question you can ask your bishop to help you understand what is meant, or you can just rely on the Spirit to help you avoid doing anything which is wrong.

Ahab · July 5, 2018

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

My Dad thought if I borrowed $20 from him...he would not be able to attend the Temple..I moved away so that he would not have to associate with me..Sad but true..

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The only "bad" way he could associate with you would be to classify HIMSELF as an "individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". And he could still support YOU while not supporting you as an "individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”

He could simply support you as his daughter, who he should love and support in any way that he can while he himself is an individual whose teachings or practices are in harmony with those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”

Edited July 5, 2018 by Ahab

pogi · July 5, 2018

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think you need to be able to separate in your mind what it means to buy something and what it means to gamble. If I buy a plant I am not gambling because I am getting the plant I paid for. And if I use the seeds from that plant to try to grow more plants I am not gambling either, by my understand of what gambling is, because I am not investing any money to grow those new plants. I'm simply using what I have already paid for.

Yeah I know about those GMO plant companies. They have quite a racket. I don't use any though because I prefer to grow plants as naturally as possible and I can easily find plenty of natural plants.

Any business could use your same justification with their investments...”it’s not gambling because I get what I pay for.”

Jeanne · July 5, 2018

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The only "bad" way he could associate with you would be to classify HIMSELF as an "individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” And he could still support YOU while not supporting you as an "individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

He could simply support you as his daughter, who he should love and support in any way that he can while he himself is an individual whose teachings or practices are in harmony with those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

He believed everything by the very letter of the law...fortunately we mended fences but it was a difficult time. I tried to explain this to him...but the very fear of not being able to go to the Temple did not sway him...bless his heart..😊

Ahab · July 5, 2018

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

He believed everything by the very letter of the law...fortunately we mended fences but it was a difficult time. I tried to explain this to him...but the very fear of not being able to go to the Temple did not sway him...bless his heart..😊

Yes, he probably had good intentions, but people with good intentions can still be wrong. At least he was trying to do the right thing, probably. He just misunderstood what the letters of that law are talking about.

Ahab · July 5, 2018

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Any business could use your same justification with their investments...”it’s not gambling because I get what I pay for.”

And as long as they get what they pay for it isn't gambling. It is gambling only when they try to get something and then they don't get it, and there was no guarantee they would get it. They just hoped for what might happen,. with no guarantee, and it didn't happen.

There is a better way to run a business than to do that.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Ahab

cinepro · July 5, 2018

Ahab, as others have pointed out, your definition is overly broad.

"Gambling" is more commonly applied to betting on a "game of chance." There is obviously a lot of variations on this (betting on sports is gambling, even if the game itself isn't pure "chance"), but the idea of a wager on an outcome is key. Ultimately, the danger is in the fostered desire to get "something for nothing."

Investing isn't the same as "gambling." Or, at least it shouldn't be. If it is for you, then you need to learn more about investing.

Edited July 5, 2018 by cinepro

Ahab · July 5, 2018

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 5:40 PM, Calm said:

The problem for me with c-a-sinogambling is it is only about money exchange. The only way for one person to win money is for others to lose it.

Stock market, business investment, etc....that is using money to provide a service and no one needs to lose for others to win.

I like that difference, and as long as nobody loses I don't see a problem with it/gambling. I think the brethren just paint with a broad brush sometimes and since gambling is usually associated with loss they are not in favor of it.

Economics works best when it simulates a barter system, I think. We trade money for other things and even though we give up some money to get those things we are gaining what we traded that money for. I like that. I just hate having to have money to get things.

pogi · July 5, 2018

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

It is gambling only when they try to get something and then they don't get it and their was no guarantee they would get it. They just hoped for what might happen,. with no guarantee, and it didn't happen.

I have no clue what you think most start up businesses do with their money then. No smart business person forks over a crap load of money to start a new business without a guarantee that they will get what they pay for. For example, a start-up grocery store invests in groceries, they invest in brick and mortar, they invest in cash registers and other equipment, they invest in employees, etc...they get what they pay for! THAT is not the risk! The risk is that they wont sell anything and go under and that is why I have been arguing with you about your original definition of gambling -

Quote

I call it gambling when there is a risk of losing money is an attempt to gain more money when there is no guaranteed outcome.

You see, this start-up grocery store would fit your original definition of gambling. In fact, you claimed that starting a business is gambling. So, I am really confused at what your definition of gambling really is. At first you claimed that start-up companies are gamblers, but after I cornered you with the farming scenario, you have changed your story. Do YOU even know what you believe, or does your definition change whenever you are cornered? Because NOW it seems that almost all start-up companies are not gamblers...because they get what they pay for :unknw: So which is it?

Ahab · July 5, 2018

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have no clue what you think most start up businesses do with their money then. No smart business person forks over a crap load of money to start a new business without a guarantee that they will get what they pay for. For example, a start-up grocery store invests in groceries, they invest in brick and mortar, they invest in cash registers and other equipment, they invest in employees, etc...they get what they pay for! THAT is not the risk! The risk is that they wont sell anything and go under and that is why I have been arguing with you about your original definition of gambling -

You see, this start-up grocery store would fit your original definition of gambling. In fact, you claimed that starting a business is gambling. So, I am really confused at what your definition of gambling really is. At first you claimed that start-up companies are gamblers, but after I cornered you with the farming scenario, you have changed your story. Do YOU even know what you believe, or does your definition change whenever you are cornered? Because NOW it seems that almost all start-up companies are not gamblers...because they get what they pay for So which is it?

I admit I have honed my understanding of what gambling is, in this thread. At first I was thinking that hoping for success in a business was a form of gambling since there is usually no guarantee of making a profit, but now I recognize there are some ways to run a business and to become successful in it that don't involve any gambling. Contracts, for example. And paying for everything up front instead of counting on others/customers to pay for your things for you as they buy them from you. And some other ways too, possibly.

In your grocery store example, if an individual owned it and he bought everything in it with money he already had, and he paid for the employees to show up with money he already had, and he kept the business running with money he already had, he could say he had a successful business if all he wanted was to keep the business in operations. If profit was not a motive. If all he wanted was to have a grocery store with everything he put in it. But people don't usually start up a business just to have whatever they start with. They want more from it, which they call a profit. They want to sell whatever they stock in their stores and then have enough money left over to get more of that, and pay their employees, and also have a little more money they can keep for themselves. So this grocery store owner will be gambling if he expects any kind of a profit from his store, because there will be no guarantee that people will come into his store to buy their stuff at prices that would give him a profit. And he may not even be able to sell his stuff for whatever it cost to put into his store. Which may be fine with him, if all he wants is to have a store with all of the stuff that he put in it.

pogi · July 5, 2018

50 minutes ago, Ahab said:

But people don't usually start up a business just to have whatever they start with. They want more from it, which they call a profit. They want to sell whatever they stock in their stores and then have enough money left over to get more of that, and pay their employees, and also have a little more money they can keep for themselves. So this grocery store owner will be gambling if he expects any kind of a profit from his store, because there will be no guarantee that people will come into his store to buy their stuff at prices that would give him a profit. And he may not even be able to sell his stuff for whatever it cost to put into his store. Which may be fine with him, if all he wants is to have a store with all of the stuff that he put in it.

Ok, so now we are throwing in the variable of intention into your ever evolving definition of gambling. So, let me see if I have this straight, It is gambling if you buy something with the intention of making a profit from it, even if you get what you originally paid for. Does that sound right to you? Ok, by this NEW definition you have made farming a gamble again. Because if you buy the original plant with the intention to harvest the seeds to make a profit from future farming, then you are no different from this start-up grocery store.

P.S. Are you entirely self-reliant, or do you purchase products from businesses? If you eat-out, you are supporting gamblers. If you shop at the grocery store, you are supporting gamblers. If you buy a car, you are supporting gamblers, etc. etc. etc. (according to your definition of gambling) Either you need to rethink your definition of gambling, or you are not really temple worthy.

Edited July 5, 2018 by pogi

Ahab · July 5, 2018

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok, so now we are throwing in the variable of intention into your ever evolving definition of gambling.

Intention has always been a part of my understanding of what gambling is. Investing money with the hope or the intention of making more money with no guarantee that will happen.

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

So, let me see if I have this straight, It is gambling if you buy something with the intention of making a profit from it, even if you get what you originally paid for.

Yep. The way you phrased that it seems the point of buying that something was because you bought it with the intention of making a profit. I would hope the person who bought it with that intention would be getting what he originally paid for. Does that sound right to you?

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok, by this NEW definition you have made farming a gamble again. Because if you buy the original plant with the intention to harvest the seeds to make a profit from future farming, then you are no different from this start-up grocery store.

I think the key point would be whether or not I bought the plant with the intention of making a profit from it and WITH NO GUARANTEE THAT I WOULD MAKE A PROFIT. I frequently buy plants because I want those plants I am buying, and I think there is a guarantee that I will profit by having more seeds to get more plants, if not money. I'm not currently in the business of making a monetary profit from the plants I grow, though and I don't always harvest the seeds from the plants I do grow. I grow them for my own pleasure and sustenance, and those who enjoy them with me, with no desire to have other people purchase them from me.

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

P.S. Are you entirely self-reliant, or do you purchase products from businesses? If you eat-out, you are supporting gamblers. If you shop at the grocery store, you are supporting gamblers. If you buy a car, you are supporting gamblers, etc. etc. etc. (according to your definition of gambling) Either you need to rethink your definition of gambling, or you are not really temple worthy.

I think what I do not agree with is your understanding of what it means to support others. I have a job doing certain things for my employer, a local city government, but I do not do or support my employer in anything the City does that is not in harmony with the beliefs and practices of our Church. They pay me my agreed upon compensation package, for what I do for them. I do not pay the City for anything they choose to do which is contrary to the beliefs and practices of our Church.

pogi · July 5, 2018

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Intention has always been a part of my understanding of what gambling is. Investing money with the hope or the intention of making more money with no guarantee that will happen.

Yep. The way you phrased that it seems the point of buying that something was because you bought it with the intention of making a profit. I would hope the person who bought it with that intention would be getting what he originally paid for. Does that sound right to you?

I think the key point would be whether or not I bought the plant with the intention of making a profit from it and WITH NO GUARANTEE THAT I WOULD MAKE A PROFIT. I frequently buy plants because I want those plants I am buying, and I think there is a guarantee that I will profit by having more seeds to get more plants, if not money. I'm not currently in the business of making a monetary profit from the plants I grow, though and I don't always harvest the seeds from the plants I do grow. I grow them for my own pleasure and sustenance, and those who enjoy them with me, with no desire to have other people purchase them from me.

I think what I do not agree with is your understanding of what it means to support others. I have a job doing certain things for my employer, a local city government, but I do not do or support my employer in anything the City does that is not in harmony with the beliefs and practices of our Church. They pay me my agreed upon compensation package, for what I do for them. I do not pay the City for anything they choose to do which is contrary to the beliefs and practices of our Church.

Whatever floats your boat!

Just know that the church doesn't agree with you. I have already pointed out that there are several entrepreneur apostles. I would also point out that the church itself "invests its money with the hope of making more money with no guarantee that will happen."

28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think what I do not agree with is your understanding of what it means to support others.

If it is gambling for a grocer to buy and sell groceries, then supporting the grocer in his gambling by buying the groceries that the grocer is gambling with is financially supporting that grocer in his gambling. He is gambling that you will buy from him. Are you going to support that by giving him your money?

Ahab · July 5, 2018

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Whatever floats your boat!

Just know that the church doesn't agree with you. I have already pointed out that there are several entrepreneur apostles. I would also point out that the church itself "invests its money with the hope of making more money with no guarantee that will happen."

I don't know what your basis is for believing the Church doesn't agree with me. I've already told you that I believe it is possible to be in business without gambling. I think it's more likely that where you see no guarantee of return, I do.

I was wrong in saying investing in the stock market is a gambling, by my definition, because there is an implied guarantee of return. At least most of the time. It's only a question of how much is returned, and over the long haul it is usually a profit.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

If it is gambling for a grocer to buy and sell groceries, then supporting the grocer in his gambling by buying the groceries that the grocer is gambling with is financially supporting that grocer in his gambling. He is gambling that you will buy from him. Are you going to support that by giving him your money?

Well, I don't shop at every store. He'll win or he'll lose. There is no guarantee from me to every grocer.

Calm · July 5, 2018

Ahab, the Church is opposed to gambling. It is described as spiritually destructive.

Quote

Gambling is motivated by a desire to get something for nothing. This desire is spiritually destructive. It leads participants away from the Savior's teachings of love and service and toward the selfishness of the adversary. It undermines the virtues of work and thrift and the desire to give honest effort in all we do.

Do you believe they are opposed to startup (or any business with no guaranteed outcome) businesses in general or perhaps in limited conditions?

https://www.lds.org/topics/gambling?lang=eng

Do you believe that the grocer in your example is destroying his soul by starting his business?

Edited July 5, 2018 by Calm

pogi · July 5, 2018

32 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't know what your basis is for believing the Church doesn't agree with me.

Because no business investment is "guaranteed", and all of their business ventures (including City Creek) were "for profit". In other words, there was motive to make money and no guarantee - that is the recipe for gambling in your book.

40 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I was wrong in saying investing in the stock market is a gambling, by my definition, because there is an implied guarantee of return. At least most of the time. It's only a question of how much is returned, and over the long haul it is usually a profit.

Ok, so now you are starting to come over to my side in that managed risk taking is not gambling. Everything has risk.

Implied guarantee? What the heck is that? How reliable is that? There is NO guarantee with the stock market. "Most of the time" is not "all of the time". "Usually is not always". The stock market has crashed before and it will crash again. Let's just hope that we are not too old to hope for an eventual profit in a long-trade when it crashes.

Ahab · July 5, 2018

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ahab, the Church is opposed to gambling. It is described as spiritually destructive.

Do you believe they are opposed to startup (or any business with no guaranteed outcome) businesses in general or perhaps in limited conditions?

https://www.lds.org/topics/gambling?lang=eng

Do you believe that the grocer in your example is destroying his soul by starting his business?

I feel there are some situations the "brethren" would like us to avoid, like being in what is called "unnecessary" debt. The only debt they approve of, I believe, is for buying a home (backed by the home as collateral)., possibly also for a college education (which these days isn't backed up by much of a guarantee but still is better than none). Borrowing a bunch of money to start a business, which can easily fail, isn't something I have seen them approve of. I think the best way to start a business is to stay out of debt while buying what is needed and then when everything necessary for the business is obtained, other than a lease on a building and some employees to help, then give it a try, and if it fails all you have to lose is the lease on the space and the employees, which can be laid off so they can get unemployment income.

Not in my example. I gave an example of what I think is the best way to go into business. A less complicated example is a lemonade stand. Make some lemonade and stick up a sign. If it fails to draw business, at least you have some lemonade you can drink.

Calm · July 5, 2018

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I feel there are some situations the "brethren" would like us to avoid, like being in what is called "unnecessary" debt. The only debt they approve of, I believe, is for buying a home (backed by the home as collateral)., possibly also for a college education (which these days isn't backed up by much of a guarantee but still is better than none). Borrowing a bunch of money to start a business, which can easily fail, isn't something I have seen them approve of. I think the best way to start a business is to stay out of debt while buying what is needed and then when everything necessary for the business is obtained, other than a lease on a building and some employees to help, then give it a try, and if it fails all you have to lose is the lease on the space and the employees, which can be laid off so they can get unemployment income.

Not in my example. I gave an example of what I think is the best way to go into business. A less complicated example is a lemonade stand. Make some lemonade and stick up a sign. If it fails to draw business, at least you have some lemonade you can drink.

So if a grocer invests a lot of money, it can be a sin if he goes into debt to do so but not if he gets others to invest (they are often called "angels") in your view?

I know several instances of new business startups where the owner went into personal debt to start a company whose end product would produce lifesaving tests and/or medication that were new to the industry and therefore required clinical testing and refinement and jumping through government hoops to get to the production part. They could get out of debt only by producing enough of a prototype to attract investors who then took most of the risk (and a lot of the profit if it succeeded). But because he went into debt to do so, you see that risktaking as spiritually destructive, right?

My husband teaches Entrepreneurship at universities, so I have met a lot of entrepreneurs.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Calm

Ahab · July 5, 2018

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

So if a grocer invests a lot of money, it can be a sin if he goes into debt to do so but not if he gets others to invest (they are often called "angels") in your view?

Angels? Is that a nicer word for what I call sharks? Do angels get a piece of the action for their contribution to the business? How does that work?

My answer to your question is that it would depend on what the "angels" are doing to be involved in the investment.

Sign In

strategy vs. entempered habits?

Recommended Posts

Ahab

pogi

pogi

Jeanne

Ahab

Jeanne

Ahab

Ahab

pogi

Jeanne

Ahab

Ahab

cinepro

Ahab

pogi

Ahab

pogi

Ahab

pogi

Ahab

Calm

pogi

Ahab

Calm

Ahab

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content

If I won the lottery would the Church accept tithing on that? 1 2 3 4 6

Activity

Browse