Ensign Peak Investing in Northrop Grumman

[smac97]

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Church should invest in any company that is going to make a good return rate.  

What about companies that make pornography?  

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Nothing wrong with investing in companies that make weapons.  The reason there as not been a large war between the major powers is the existence of nuclear weapons.  

So weapons can be justifiably and appropriately used for defensive/deterrent purposes, which makes their "morality" contingent upon their use.  Would that be a fair statement?

In contrast, from the Church's standpoint, there is no legitimate purpose for pornography, ergo the morality of the product is inherent, and inherently bad, ergo EPA would be justified in excluding a porn company from its investment portfolio.  Would that also be a fair statement?

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 6/5/2024 at 12:36 PM, the narrator said:

The pursuit of profit always comes to the detriment of others.

 has entered the chat. 

 

21 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I did not say that nothing good comes from it.

20 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I was focusing on corporate capitalism, not merely market exchanges.

This is one of the times when it's sufficient to just quote someone's words and not reply, and let folks draw conclusions on their own.  Feel free to say more words about your thoughts on profit.

[longview]

16 minutes ago, the narrator said:

You could have saved considerable time by noticing that I did not say that nothing good comes from the pursuit of profit. You would have also benefited from recognizing that I was focusing on corporate capitalism, not merely market exchanges.

I can agree that cronyism can be evil. Which is the unfair manipulation of markets between various kinds of parties such as business interests secretly hatching unfair deals from legislators and/or bureaucrats, etc. Or collusion between criminal elements and cartels and secret conspiracies.

There is nothing inherently evil about corporations. Usually there is money to be saved or greater leveraging of economies of scale. The more successful a business is, more complete and available the distribution of goods and services throughout the country and the world. The point is that competition leads to more realistic pricing and fairness.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d say there is nothing wrong with nuclear weapons

I think disposing of them can be a problem.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

This is one of the times when it's sufficient to just quote someone's words and not reply, and let folks draw conclusions on their own.  Feel free to say more words about your thoughts on profit.

Not really.  A link to the response would have been much better.

The question he was responding to as well as the entire conversation to that point which was talking about big businesses is essential imo to frame his response correctly as well as much of the rest of the context he provided.  As is often the case, a ‘soundbite’ is misrepresentative of the whole.

However, I do think he could have been clearer as there was some ambiguity.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75929-ensign-peak-investing-in-northrop-grumman/?do=findComment&comment=1210187831

 

Edited June 7, 2024 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

On 6/5/2024 at 11:36 AM, the narrator said:

The answer is simple. ALL of them are in it for the good of their wallets. Beyond getting initial development capital, all investment shares purely exist for profit. People like to focus on the supposed "evil" companies that produce weapons, porn, tobacco products, etc., but they fail to realize how investments in the other "non-evil" companies directly result in higher medical costs, higher insurance costs, more expensive food, more expensive rent and housing, etc. The Church invests in stocks that it hopes increase in value, and those values increase by stomping on workers and consumers. Romney's $billions often came from taking profitable companies and laying off their workforce, because that resulted in more $ for investors.

While capitalism wasn't a thing in Jesus's day, his teaching that one cannot simultaneously serve God and wealth was rooted in the same issue. The pursuit of profit always comes to the detriment of others.

But apparently Kirton McConkie found a loophole that enables the Church to put its full faith in Mammon in order to pursue it's worship of God.

Socialism/communism stifle innovation and motivation. 

[Doctor Steuss]

6 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Socialism/communism stifle innovation and motivation. 

Hopefully Jesus' millennial reign doesn't happen until after Bethesda gets around to another Elder Scrolls.

[the narrator]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

The question he was responding to as well as the entire conversation to that point which was talking about big businesses is essential imo to frame his response correctly as well as much of the rest of the context he provided.  As is often the case, a ‘soundbite’ is misrepresentative of the whole.

However, I do think he could have been clearer as there was some ambiguity.

Thank you. Given the the whole point of the thread, I thought the context was clear, but I guess not. My bad.

And I stand by what I said. If something good comes out of corporate capitalism, it is simply a lucky bi-product. The sole purpose of capitalism is the pursuit of and centralization of capital. It's the literal definition. A CEO's responsibility toward shareholders is simply to increase the value of shares for the profit of shareholders. That's it. Their responsibility is not to create better products or services. Sure, if that leads to higher share values they might to do that. But all too often, the quickest and most valuable route to increasing share value is lowering production costs by reducing labor and material costs and/or increasing prices. The supposed invisible hand is meant to balance this out, but it is usually tied down by the necessity of the goods and services, legal monopolies, and the stock markets turn to quick profits over long-term investments. It's not good enough for a corporation to remain profitable, as that does not result in significant higher share value (and can even lower it); instead, corporations are demanded by shareholders to show annual growth. So once profits have plateaued due to an equilibrium of production costs and consumer demands, the inevitable next means of increasing share values is reducing the production costs or increasing prices. We see this everywhere today.

[the narrator]

22 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Hopefully Jesus' millennial reign doesn't happen until after Bethesda gets around to another Elder Scrolls.

If you want innovation don't look for another Elder Scrolls

Shadow of the Erdtree comes out in a couple weeks. That's all that is needed.

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Hopefully Jesus' millennial reign doesn't happen until after Bethesda gets around to another Elder Scrolls.

Oh man that's genuinely funny.  Thank you @Doctor Steuss - I'll be giggling all weekend.  

Yeah, for all the good capitalism has done for the human race, it usually fails at producing meaning or virtue.  Or a reason to be.  "Give 'em what they'll buy" is a horrible moral center.  I mean, if the populace is full of virtue and self-mastery, that would be reflected in the goods produced.  And it is, as there are folks with virtue and self-mastery out there.  But at the same time, how many more Batman reboots they gonna inflict on me? 

My last frivolous purchase was my first LDS temple decal, which I stuck in the back window of my car.  I've also dropped fifty bucks or more on some stupid Star Wars fighting app over the last 6 months.  I'm hoping the temple decal will remind me to not speed so much.

Edited June 7, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Doctor Steuss]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

If you want innovation don't look for another Elder Scrolls

Shadow of the Erdtree comes out in a couple weeks. That's all that is needed.

I have tried to get into Elden Ring.  Bought it right when it came out, played it for maybe a month, and just couldn't get past the leveling grind.  I think I've been spoiled by the instant gratification of things like Diablo.

  

11 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Oh man that's genuinely funny.  Thank you @Doctor Steuss - I'll be giggling all weekend.  

Yeah, for all the good capitalism has done for the human race, it usually fails at producing meaning or virtue.  Or a reason to be.  "Give 'em what they'll buy" is a horrible moral center.  I mean, if the populace is full of virtue and self-mastery, that would be reflected in the goods produced.  And it is, as there are folks with virtue and self-mastery out there.  But at the same time, how many more Batman reboots they gonna inflict on me? 

My last frivolous purchase was my first LDS temple decal, which I stuck in the back window of my car.  I've also dropped fifty bucks or more on some stupid Star Wars fighting app over the last 6 months.  I'm hoping the temple decal will remind me to not speed so much.

If it bestows results of fiscal responsibility, please let me know.  I'll pick me up one... I sure seem to be incapable of avoiding the random pocket-book impulsivity.

*Looking at my newly purchased Temu Labyrinth worm*

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Doctor Steuss said:

 

*Looking at my newly purchased Temu Labyrinth worm*

I have a labyrinth worm and they are money well spent.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I have a labyrinth worm and they are money well spent.

I would love a decent one.  Hard to tell which are those on Amazon, from the reviews there are quite a few that get messy.  Don’t want to sign up for another service that would lead to more impulsive buying (I buy fun little gifts to surprise my daughter to give her a bit of unpredictability of the good kind in her life).  Any suggestions on where to go for not too expensive quality?

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I would love a decent one.  Hard to tell which are those on Amazon, from the reviews there are quite a few that get messy.  Don’t want to sign up for another service that would lead to more impulsive buying (I buy fun little gifts to surprise my daughter to give her a bit of unpredictability of the good kind in her life).  Any suggestions on where to go for not too expensive quality?

Mine was from Amazon and was a gift from my son's girlfriend. Honestly it's a little wonky looking but I still love it. 

[Stargazer]

On 6/7/2024 at 3:56 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d say there is nothing wrong with nuclear weapons, unless they are used. Of course one could argue that their appropriate “use” is deterrence and I’d agree. The only time they were actually deployed was against an enemy without the ability to respond in kind. 

They did have a use. As you say, it was deterrence, and the use was successful. And in fact, the deterrence is still ongoing. 

As for Japan, would you have preferred that they had the ability to respond in kind? But even if they had the nukes, they wouldn't have had the means of delivery: no way to attack the US. The Japanese Empire was one of the most evil regimes in modern history, with war crimes estimates of up to 30 million deaths. Far worse than the Nazis. Have you read what they did to China? Ever hear of the Nanjing Massacre? <- read up about it. And it's quite off-topic, so let's not debate it here, but if it weren't for the nukes, an invasion of Japan would have been necessary. Which would have been disastrous for both sides, but especially for Japan. There are those who say that they were going to surrender soon, but that is patently ridiculous. They knew an invasion was coming, and they were preparing for it. If the nukes hadn't forced surrender, here's one take on how an invasion would have gone. The YouTube channel in question is not US-based, but is run by three Croatian military history buffs. So it's not biased in favor of the US. 

[Stargazer]

On 6/7/2024 at 4:56 PM, the narrator said:

You could have saved considerable time by noticing that I did not say that nothing good comes from the pursuit of profit. You would have also benefited from recognizing that I was focusing on corporate capitalism, not merely market exchanges.

You used the word "always." What else does "always" mean besides "always"? 

Allow me to quote you: "The pursuit of profit always comes to the detriment of others."

You wrote "always a detriment," not "frequently a detriment" or "too often a detriment". You also didn't not say that "nothing good comes from the pursuit of profit." You allowed readers to take your words to the ultimate level of detriment by not qualifying your remarks. 

I know you were primarily focusing on corporate capitalism, but I reject the argument that it is always detrimental. Corporate capitalism, like democracy itself, has its downsides. But properly regulated it is an overall boon to humankind. Some want to regulate it to the extent that companies can never grow beyond a certain small size, but that's something that's never going to happen. Before the Millennium anyway.

Edited June 9, 2024 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 6/7/2024 at 6:27 PM, Calm said:

I think disposing of them can be a problem.

For the most part the nuclear components can be reworked for nuclear power purposes. And one of these days we will have secure storage of the final waste products. NIMBY problems tend to make things more difficult than they should be.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As for Japan, would you have preferred that they had the ability to respond in kind? But even if they had the nukes, they wouldn't have had the means of delivery: no way to attack the US. The Japanese Empire was one of the most evil regimes in modern history, with war crimes estimates of up to 30 million deaths. Far worse than the Nazis. Have you read what they did to China?

Yes. My wife has family in both Korea and Japan. I have visited memorials in both countries including the peace park in Hiroshima. As you say it’s not the best place to debate such things, but I will state that war crimes committed by one country does not excuse the mass torture of civilians ( slow death by radiation poisoning) by another country. And while the end result was could be called good (I.e. unconditional surrender of an evil regime) I do not believe that the ends justify the means. Nor do I believe that  all other avenues were explored. Ultimately it is impossible to determine a counterfactual history where the bomb wasn’t used. 

 

[the narrator]

On 6/8/2024 at 5:35 PM, Stargazer said:

You used the word "always." What else does "always" mean besides "always"?

I'll tell you what "always" doesn't mean. It doesn't mean "exclusively."

Again, enjoy beating your strawman. Must make you feel real big and strong.

Edited June 10, 2024 by the narrator

[the narrator]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes. My wife has family in both Korea and Japan. I have visited memorials in both countries including the peace park in Hiroshima. As you say it’s not the best place to debate such things, but I will state that war crimes committed by one country does not excuse the mass torture of civilians ( slow death by radiation poisoning) by another country. And while the end result was could be called good (I.e. unconditional surrender of an evil regime) I do not believe that the ends justify the means. Nor do I believe that  all other avenues were explored. Ultimately it is impossible to determine a counterfactual history where the bomb wasn’t used. 

 

My maternal grandfather survived two firebombings in Japan. One in Tokyo, and another in a smaller city that he sent his family hoping they would be safe. (He stayed in Tokyo to protect their home and survived that bombing there, and then his whole family was lucky to survive another after he went to be with them.) Following the devastating firebombings throughout Japan that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (more died overnight in the Tokyo firebombing than did in either of the atomic bombs), Japan was ready to surrender, but the US was too eager to test/prove the atomic bomb on a civilian population to scare Stalin and force an even more humiliating surrender from Japan.

TLDR: Curtis Lemay and Harry Truman are burning in hell.

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Japan was ready to surrender, but the US was too eager to test/prove the atomic bomb on a civilian population to scare Stalin and force an even more humiliating surrender from Japan.

CFR

[the narrator]

40 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

CFR

Quote

Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Moreover, Leahy continued, "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." 

Quote

President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." 

Quote

Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken  commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used. 

Quote

Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima." 

 

 

https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/hiroshima-military-voices-dissent?language_content_entity=en
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/japan-was-already-defeated-the-case-against-the-nuclear-bomb-and-for-basic-morality/

Edited June 10, 2024 by the narrator

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, the narrator said:

 

 

https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/hiroshima-military-voices-dissent?language_content_entity=en
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/japan-was-already-defeated-the-case-against-the-nuclear-bomb-and-for-basic-morality/

Thank you, I was very interested in seeing the references.  The traditional historical narrative paints a different picture. 

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, the narrator said:

 

 

https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/hiroshima-military-voices-dissent?language_content_entity=en
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/japan-was-already-defeated-the-case-against-the-nuclear-bomb-and-for-basic-morality/

I agree they were already defeated (they could not win) but that is different than saying they were ready to surrender.  Leaving out the morality of using the bomb, I think the Japanese would have gone on fighting for months if nothing had changed.  They didn't surrender after it was dropped on hiroshima.  If they had been ready to surrender before Hiroshima, that delay is hard to explain.

I am very sad that such weapons were ever invented though.  These discussions always remind me of a quote from Jurassic Park, where the character Dr. Ian Malcolm talks about scientists being so caught up with whether or not they could do something that they never stopped to consider if they should.

 

 

[the narrator]

52 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Thank you, I was very interested in seeing the references.  The traditional historical narrative paints a different picture. 

Indeed. I used to discuss the firebombings when I taught ethics at UVU. Of the several hundreds of students I taught over the years, only a handful of them had ever heard of them.

Edited June 10, 2024 by the narrator