1st World Comfort versus 3rd World Suffering

@Tripp Borz

We gotta stop meeting this way on this thread, haha.

I'll respond later to your post (I know you wait with bated breath, lol. You and I are probably the only ones reading it now, haha.)

Anyway, check out this cover to businessweek...rather bold and in your face. I'm kind of surprised they're going to run with it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/businessweek-mormon-cover-2012-7

Hypatia, capitalism is simply a method used to provide the maximum number of goods and services as efficiently as possible

I feel like we're playing semantics now. Why do capitalists aim to provide a maximum number of goods and services in the most efficient way possible? Because that's how you make the most profit. It's how the system works, without profit capitalism doesn't work.

Capitalism is a precondition for freedom but freedom is not a sufficient condition for capitalism (hence why it can be abused in places with dictatorships like China)

I would also add that the vast majority of bad decisions influencing a capitalist market system are government created

Can you give examples? I think this goes back to the whole which is better for society- government regulation of corporations or letting corporations have free reign to duke it out amongst themselves.

I would imagine Jesus would have been a libertarian if anything

You've piqued my curiosity! Why do you think that? I've never heard that argument before

Hypatia wrote: I feel like we're playing semantics now. Why do capitalists aim to provide a maximum number of goods and services in the most efficient way possible? Because that's how you make the most profit. It's how the system works, without profit capitalism doesn't work.

Profit is not necessarily a bad thing and pretty generally if you are trying to out do other people you will be forced to provide a better service or good than they are providing. That is the main driving force behind improvements in technology

Can you give examples? I think this goes back to the whole which is better for society- government regulation of corporations or letting corporations have free reign to duke it out amongst themselves.

If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish you feed him for life. But if you massively subsidise your own food production beyond demand capacity you give them food for free and put the farmers out of a job:

http://www.srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1674-cap-reform-must-put-an-end-to-dumping-un-expert

The main victims [of subsidised crop production in the EU] are developing world farmers, who are crowded out of their own markets by subsidized western produce. The EU has opened its doors to developing world exports, but this is worth nothing if small-holders in the South cannot sell staple crops on their home markets,” Mr. De Schutter underlined.

I am not proposing to allow corporations to control everything. I am not promoting capitalism, I am promoting libertarianism and the ability for individuals to make their own choices with their own money

A government would need to exist to ensure that corporations abided by the rules in place and to ensure that none of them ever gained too much control. Making sure there is no coercion for example

Politicians are not some magical breed of people that are immune to corruption and personal desire. But they wield far more power than more people probably ever should... I wish only to limit that power and leave the rest of the running of our lives up to ourselves

I am not saying that corporations are perfect either and I believe in responsibility and moral obligations that people should be less interested in their money and more interested in simply doing a good job. But of the majority of things tried so far throughout human history, capitalism (more specifically an increase in economic freedom) has created the best results out of most things that have been tried

Libertarianism isn't perfect but out of all the options trialled it has probably been the least worst option of them all. Giving those with the highest power the smallest chance of abusing it has a great number of benefits

You've piqued my curiosity! Why do you think that? I've never heard that argument before

I would say that Jesus would wish people to do what they wanted with their lives. To pursue their own dreams and goals in the way most befitting themselves

He would want people to follow their bliss while at the same time ensuring that they do not prevent others from doing so



Statism - ideas so good they have to be mandatory

I feel like we're getting off topic :lol:

Okay, summary of dialogue (correct me if I'm wrong/it's not the way you saw the discussion):

Hypatia: Capitalism is about private ownership of a good or service which is sold for profit

Akkarin: No, capitalism is method used to provide the maximum number of goods and services as efficiently as possible

Hypatia: That doesn't negate my definition, because the reason for providing the maximum number of goods and services as efficiently as possible is to make profit

Akkarin: Profit isn't necessarily a bad thing

I agree, profit isn't necessarily a bad thing- like you said, it can motivate businesses to provide a better service or good. But that only benefits the business owners and the consumers. Profit also motivates businesses to pay their employees unliveable wages, ship jobs overseas, lay off workers and have the rest of their employees pick up the slack, and make products of a lesser quality in order for it to be consumed more often (see 1st post for my cooking ware example. Another good one, especially here in the U.S, is women's clothing. A lot of manufacturers make shirts of very thin materials so you have to layer- i.e buy more. It's one reason why I hate shopping for clothes right now).

If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish you feed him for life. But if you massively subsidise your own food production beyond demand capacity you give them food for free and put the farmers out of a job:

The main victims [of subsidised crop production in the EU] are developing world farmers, who are crowded out of their own markets by subsidized western produce. The EU has opened its doors to developing world exports, but this is worth nothing if small-holders in the South cannot sell staple crops on their home markets,” Mr. De Schutter underlined.

Again, I'm not an economist, but the problem here doesn't seem to be government involvement in business, but government making bad decisions (needlessly subsidizing agriculture & dumping) in tandem with business. Whether governments inherently make bad business decisions is a question I'm still unclear on the answer to.

I lean libertarian as well, but primarily in a social capacity (don't tell me what I can/cannot do so long as it doesn't harm anyone/anything). But economically, I think the government should be involved in our lives to an extent, because it has the ability (and I would argue duty) to help it's population in a way businesses don't.

I think of myself personally- my family is dirt poor (my mom makes 12k a year, when my dad was alive they made a combined 30k a year while raising 4 kids). The best things in my life were the things the government gave me- a great public library and community center, playground, school, and grants and loans to attend college. My parents were even on welfare for a bit, so I can thank the government for feeding me when no one else could (or would). I think raising taxes so that the poorest segment of society have the resources to raise themselves up economically is necessary. Privatizing services like welfare or libraries means that there can come stipulations for using their services- adherence to a particular faith or group, or having to pay a membership fee. I think some services should be open and free to all, and I think that is the biggest reason I cannot be libertarian/support small government. The government should be there to support the people who cannot help themselves, especially those who did not choose their poor circumstances. It's short-sighted to think that that cannot benefit society (and yourself) in the long-run

Tripp Borz wrote: Whenever A conversation turns into "they/he/she shouldn't spend money that way" I always like to put it in a more personal context. For instance, My family owns(or is paying for:) ) a large gas guzzling SUV. There are many people that would disagree with our decision to buy such an "extravagent" "bad for the enviroment" vehicle. We could of purchased something smaller, something greener but in the end it is my wife and I decision to spend our money to buy whatever we want. And I wouldn't trade our Lincoln for anything. I love it:)

I know what you mean there. I love my GMC Sierra and it's not exactly environmentally friendly either.

But I think there is a clear difference between what we buy and what a church buys that claims to be led by God himself.

To make it a personal example like you did, if I truly believed I was God's annointed on earth and knowing what Jesus said to reach out to the poor, would I build a gigantic shopping mall or buy myself a Lincoln, and leave the naked without clothes or the hungry without food?

And I understand that the LDS church has humanitarian aid programs and does do service for the poor, but their monetary contributions in those regards are not even close to the amount of money they put out for this shopping mall.

It reminds me of the Lord of the Rings (I love how I can just throw a Lord of the Rings analogy into daily conversations, haha) when the Ents came upon Saruman and Treebeard was distraught with the forest the evil wizard was razing and burning.

Do you remember what he said? He said, "A wizard should know better!"

For prophets and apostles that claim direct guidance from God himself and claim the title of the "only true church on the face of the earth" I say they should know better, too. Just my Jedi opinion for what it's worth, haha. Instead we get the President of the LDS church shouting, "1, 2, 3, let's go shopping!"

Just seems...odd to me.

I think what we are getting hung up on is the diffrence between the LDS church(non-profit) and the ZSC or Zion Securities Corporation. ZSC is just that, A corporation "ran" by the church much like BYU is "ran" by the church. ZSC is a for profit corporation that deals in real estate and other "investments" or "interests" of the communities and areas that the church has a presence in. It pays taxes just like any other business. It does not operate from the tithing of the LDS church but operates through capital provided by independent Investors and through profit from it's ventures. It has a CEO and other officers. And while I think the heads of the company are all LDS I am sure it's not a prerequisite for employment in their divisions as that would be illegal. And those officers are not part of the 1st presidency nor the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I hope this helps put a little perspective on things.

Those businesses are ran and owned by the LDS church yes. But I think it very naive to think the Apostles and 1st Presidency of the LDS church doesn't have a HUGE say in an outlay of money like City Creek. All the funds, business, earnings, EVERYTHING rolls up to Thomas S. Monson, President of the LDS Church. He controls it all, but obviously delegates to executives.

And again, we will never know if tithing is or is not used on these business interests until they open the books and prove it. We have their word only. For some, that's enough (like my parents, haha). For me, and my 6 year research into LDS church history and the documented lies I've discovered through the research of other scholars, I don't trust their word.

As to capitalism, true that it isn't perfect and it seems selfish. That's why it is important that we try to be good honest people. I think it's more of a matter of people caring more about other people and the environment as opposed to a problem with the "system". The only alternatives to capitalism, as far as I know, has to do with confiscation of wealth and redistribution of it. Which I am not a proponent of to say the least.

I'm in agreement with you there.

You better hope the Law of Consecration isn't instituted again in the LDS church.

(For those of you that might still be reading, the Law of Consecration used to be practiced in the LDS church where members were asked/required to give all their property to the Church and the church would mete back property back to them according to their needs. It didn't work for very long. Some believe it will be instituted again when the people are more righteous to receive it.)

---

OK. Lest anyone think I'm just throwing sour grapes at the LDS church, I do recognize that, as a religion, there are some great things they do. I've focused a lot on the negative, but it is a faith system that brings a lot of hope and joy to people (my brothers and sisters and parents to name a few).

There are a lot worse things a person could do then become a Mormon and live their life as one.

Ok. That wasn't so hard, haha.

MTFBWY,
LTK

Learn_To_Know wrote: It reminds me of the Lord of the Rings (I love how I can just throw a Lord of the Rings analogy into daily conversations, haha) when the Ents came upon Saruman and Treebeard was distraught with the forest the evil wizard was razing and burning.

"They come with fire, they come with axes... gnawing, biting, breaking, hacking, burning. Destroyers and usurpers, curse them." - Treebeard about the [strike]Mormons[/strike] Orcs - Sorry, I couldn't resist that I don't know enough about the Mormon situation to really comment, I just saw a LOTR related joke I could say :woohoo:

And I cannot be bothered to be drawn into a discussion about politics or economics really

I'm with Akkarin here. Debating religion and politics this way ends up being some what like gibberish lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XREnvJRkif0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

ROFLOL!

I've never seen that Manson vid before...