An idea about money, for your criticism...

[2ndRateMind]

So, this is where I get to assess the social, economic and political stance of the forum, as a newbie.

I have this idea about economic equality. That idea is, that if all the world's economic resource were evenly distributed, in terms of net worth and income, that world would be a better place. To give you an idea, that would mean that each individual would get around $33,000 per year total wealth allocation, and $14,700 income for the year*. Clearly, a family of two adults and two children, would have a net worth limited to $132,000, and an annual income limited to $59,000. In exchange, that would mean that fully one third of the world's population, who currently eke out meagre lives on $1.50 per day, or less than $600 per year, would have better life chances.

Any limitation would be voluntary, and no government interference is implied. If you get more than this, or have more than this, you simply donate it to the charity of your choice.

Cheers, 2RM.

*figures in the raw, gleaned from this interweb thingy: 7.3 billion people, Gross world product 107.5 trillion, Gross world wealth, $241 trillion

[Analyzing]

So, this is where I get to assess the social, economic and political stance of the forum, as a newbie.

I have this idea about economic equality. That idea is, that if all the world's economic resource were evenly distributed, in terms of net worth and income, that world would be a better place. To give you an idea, that would mean that each individual would get around $33,000 per year total wealth allocation, and $14,700 income for the year*. Clearly, a family of two adults and two children, would have a net worth limited to $132,000, and an annual income limited to $59,000. In exchange, that would mean that fully one third of the world's population, who currently eke out meagre lives on $1.50 per day, or less than $6000 per year, would have better life chances.

Any limitation would be voluntary, and no government interference is implied. If you get more than this, or have more than this, you simply donate it to the charity of your choice.

No, the world would not be better. Forcing economic equality would not remove pride, envying, greed, lust etc. People would replace money as the idol for another idol to esteem themselves higher than their brother.

I disagree with the conclusion but I like the question and appreciate your posting. Thank you.

[David13]

No. The world would be worse.
All economic activity would stop.
The only motivation to work, to produce things, like food, houses, tvs and all that other things that people want (you have a computer, don't you, maybe two?) and a phone, maybe, is to earn money, and more money.
None of that would be produced. Why work to give what you should get to someone who doesn't work, someone who shirks?
The world would become a cesspool, like those areas and countries where people don't work and don't produce.
You really have a dismal fantasy there.
dc

A little side question here for you. Do you have a job? Do you work?

I suppose I should also ask, how old are you?

[captainfearnot]

What are people doing for work in this economic system? Do you imagine that all work creates equal value, and that's why everyone is paid the same? How would you set it up so that a doctor and a bartender are each contributing the same economic value to society?

[dauser]

When we talk about redistributing wealth... we also have to talk about redistributing responsibility.

Some people are good for nothing, have no responsibilities and should be compensated accordingly.

Other people are good for much, carry heavy responsibilities and should be paid accordingly.

A man should be paid what the free market is willing to pay...not what the government is willing to pay.

[marc]

Zion=you can have milk and honey without money and without price.
Babylon=you can buy anything in this world with money.

[Analyzing]

“The government can not legislate morality”. A deprived constituency will become deviant in their behavior, bored and eventually revolt. "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."*

Adrian Rogers

[marc]

To the OP, I am sure that as long as we keep money in the equation, it will not be long at all before society reflects the broken dysfunction of each individual heart. Some will give away their money, some will capitalize and end up with most of the money and the rest will continue to live in bondage to usury. Only a mighty change of heart will cause people to have all property common with pure intentions and only such can abide a more pure society. Until then, as long as hearts are not one, there will not be equality for longer than day one of such an experiment.

[2ndRateMind]

Well, there is plenty here to discuss, and I look forward to discussing with you. Before we go any further, though, it is polite to a poster and conducive to a developing thread to read what has been written, and respond to that, rather than what one wishes had been written, and respond to that. Nowhere in this simple scheme have I advocated either force or government interference. The system would be entirely voluntary. In fact, I specifically said:

Any limitation [on wealth] would be voluntary, and no government interference is implied. If you get more than this, or have more than this, you simply donate it to the charity of your choice.

Now, moving on, to give some perspective on this inequality thing, it appears that the top 1% of earners get and keep more than half the world's wealth. There is a reason why a third of the world's population gets only $1:50 a day, ($600 a year) insufficient to feed themselves adequately, let alone pay medical bills, school fees, house themselves securely, provide themselves with clean water and sanitation etc, and it is because the wealthiest are hogging the cash. However you cut it, it is difficult to argue that one man, however hardworking and responsible and diligent and conscientious, is worth a billion times another, however feckless and foolish. But I am inclined to think the difference is not accounted for by personal traits to any great extent, anyway; it's much more to do with accident of birth and good or bad fortune of opportunity. Our genes and our environment, nature and nurture, have a lot more influence on our bank-balance than our virtue.

There are some other points raised I would like to challenge, in due course, but meanwhile, this bite sized idea will do for now. I am sure some of you will enjoy contesting it.

Cheers, 2RM.

[David13]

I see nothing here to discuss.
dc

[Robin Hood]

So, this is where I get to assess the social, economic and political stance of the forum, as a newbie.

I have this idea about economic equality. That idea is, that if all the world's economic resource were evenly distributed, in terms of net worth and income, that world would be a better place. To give you an idea, that would mean that each individual would get around $33,000 per year total wealth allocation, and $14,700 income for the year*. Clearly, a family of two adults and two children, would have a net worth limited to $132,000, and an annual income limited to $59,000. In exchange, that would mean that fully one third of the world's population, who currently eke out meagre lives on $1.50 per day, or less than $600 per year, would have better life chances.

Any limitation would be voluntary, and no government interference is implied. If you get more than this, or have more than this, you simply donate it to the charity of your choice.

Cheers, PV.

*figures in the raw, gleaned from this interweb thingy: 7.3 billion people, Gross world product 107.5 trillion, Gross world wealth, $241 trillion

I'm up for it.
Government would probably have to enforce though.

From the figures you provide it would seem the scriptures are right when they say there "is enough and to spare".

[Analyzing]

Any limitation [on wealth] would be voluntary, and no government interference is implied. If you get more than this, or have more than this, you simply donate it to the charity of your choice.

I apologize for taking this out of the context intended. I understood it to mean; Any limitation after economic equality had been established. The reason I did so: if there were no government force to create this economic equality then I do not understand what is distinguished from your proposal and Zion. Would you please clarify what differences you propose as opposed to living a Zion society.

[2ndRateMind]

That's OK. Apology accepted. Not being a Mormon, I am not entirely sure what a Zion society looks like; it is more than possible your thinkers have anticipated this idea, which, for what it's worth, has taken me my life of 52 years to crystallise. If so, I apologise in return.

It is important that the scheme should be entirely voluntary. Except to prevent harms, I am not generally in favour of morality being imposed by any authority, secular or religious. That seems to me to rob the individual of the opportunity to be virtuous for virtue's sake, and thus their rightful responsibility for that virtue. Similarly, governments should not be moral in place of us, but because of us.

Cheers, 2RM.

[Jason]

That's OK. Apology accepted. Not being a Mormon, I am not entirely sure what a Zion society looks like; it is more than possible your thinkers have anticipated this idea, which, for what it's worth, has taken me my life of 52 years to crystallise. If so, I apologise in return.

It is important that the scheme should be entirely voluntary. Except to prevent harms, I am not generally in favour of morality being imposed by any authority, secular or religious. That seems to me to rob the individual of the opportunity to be virtuous for virtue's sake, and thus their rightful responsibility for that virtue. Similarly, governments should not be moral in place of us, but because of us.

Cheers, 2RM.

The way to get there is sharing...you can start today if you want. For example rather than 8 families each buying a lawnmower and using it 1 day every week or every other week for an hour or two....you buy one and share. Same for cars, garden tools, etc etc etc...

Now what are the hurdles to getting that to work? What kind of people are capable of pulling that off?

Now you know what is needed for a Zion society...and a basic sort of idea on the economic (and efficient) prosperity that will result...as well as the the challenges to getting there....

[Analyzing]

That's OK. Apology accepted. Not being a Mormon, I am not entirely sure what a Zion society looks like; it is more than possible your thinkers have anticipated this idea, which, for what it's worth, has taken me my life of 52 years to crystallise. If so, I apologise in return.

It is important that the scheme should be entirely voluntary. Except to prevent harms, I am not generally in favour of morality being imposed by any authority, secular or religious. That seems to me to rob the individual of the opportunity to be virtuous for virtue's sake, and thus their rightful responsibility for that virtue. Similarly, governments should not be moral in place of us, but because of us.

Cheers, 2RM.

Ah, ok. We call it living the Law of Consecration.

"The law of consecration found in the Doctrine and Covenants is both simple and sublime. Summed in a single short verse, it says, “If thou obtainest more than that which would be for thy support, thou shalt give it into my storehouse” (D&C 42:55). Steven C.Harper.

Here are a couple of Articles that help explain what it is and is not.
https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-a ... ants#_edn3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1476......." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. This one explains the differences between Socialism and the United Order. The United Order was a system(based on the law of consecration) the early LDS were commanded to live and failed.

Great topic. Maybe we can have a better discussion. Thank you.

[2ndRateMind]

No. The world would be worse.
All economic activity would stop.
The only motivation to work, to produce things, like food, houses, tvs and all that other things that people want (you have a computer, don't you, maybe two?) and a phone, maybe, is to earn money, and more money.
None of that would be produced. Why work to give what you should get to someone who doesn't work, someone who shirks?
The world would become a cesspool, like those areas and countries where people don't work and don't produce.
You really have a dismal fantasy there.
dc

A little side question here for you. Do you have a job? Do you work?

I suppose I should also ask, how old are you?

It is not clear to me why economic activity would stop. People work for plenty of reasons other than the getting and keeping of money. Indeed, if that were the only reason people worked, we would all be merchant bankers, and there would be no nurses, teachers, clerics, designers, writers, etc. Then the world economic activity really would stop. That seems to me the truly dismal, not to say, misanthropic and impoverished, assessment of human motivations.

Now let's clear up a few personal points about my circumstances. Not because they are relevant in any but an ad hominem context, and certainly do not, on their own, make this idea of equitable economic distribution either a good one or bad. Simply because I am new here, and, though I dislike to talk about myself, you all might like to know where I am coming from, and the trajectory I travel. I worked for many years in the IT industry, and yes, I do own a computer. I do not own a car or a house. I became ill, and currently receive incapacity benefit. In many countries, less kind than the UK, there is no such safety net, and I would probably now be dead. My income is around $16000 per year, and my net worth, in purely financial terms, not including my computer, books, tools, furniture and other knick-knacks I have accrued is around -$300. My ambition is to start my own business, should I ever become fit for work again, and I have several ideas I work on intermittently, as my health allows.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

What are people doing for work in this economic system? Do you imagine that all work creates equal value, and that's why everyone is paid the same? How would you set it up so that a doctor and a bartender are each contributing the same economic value to society?

Well, it occurs to me that if the doctor is paid so far in excess of the bartender that the bartender cannot afford the doctor's services, then as far as the bartender is concerned, the doctor has no economic value whatsoever. And this is true of those who live in absolute poverty; their world is not our world, and I think the principle of fairness and the virtue of social justice both demand that it should be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

When we talk about redistributing wealth... we also have to talk about redistributing responsibility.

Some people are good for nothing, have no responsibilities and should be compensated accordingly.

Other people are good for much, carry heavy responsibilities and should be paid accordingly.

A man should be paid what the free market is willing to pay...not what the government is willing to pay.

I sense some contradictions here. Should people be paid what they are morally worth, or should they be paid what they are economically worth, or should they be paid according to their responsibilities (whether domestic or public) or should they be paid what the free-market decides is the going rate for the work? None of these ideas, all implicit in your post, are the same notion, at all. Which of them do you want?

Cheers, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

This is the very point at issue. If you have ever been poor, you will know that being poor is damnably hard work. Firstly, the work you will take tends to be arduous and ill-paid, and secondly you will confront a whole series of obstacles in life that a little money would solve and ease. And all this meanwhile, tends to be aggravated by hunger, thirst, the assaults of the climate, ill health and poor education. Truly, it seems to me, the absolutely poor work without receiving, while the absolutely rich receive without necessarily working as hard as they like to pretend.

Cheers, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

To the OP, I am sure that as long as we keep money in the equation, it will not be long at all before society reflects the broken dysfunction of each individual heart. Some will give away their money, some will capitalize and end up with most of the money and the rest will continue to live in bondage to usury. Only a mighty change of heart will cause people to have all property common with pure intentions and only such can abide a more pure society. Until then, as long as hearts are not one, there will not be equality for longer than day one of such an experiment.

There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we decide the scheme is impractical, then, of course, it is impractical.

Instead, I make you this pledge; I, for one, will voluntarily limit my net worth and income along the equitable lines I have outlined. I cannot do it immediately; I need to rearrange my affairs somewhat. But, I will work towards it. Anyone who cares to join in with a similar pledge is more than welcome.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[gclayjr]

2ndRateMind, I like your handle. I wonder why Robert Sinclair hasn't jumped in. You both think alike!

Regards,

George Clay

[Separatist]

Your distribution scheme would not create equality. Come day two, we'd all be unequal again. Real equality is a society that doesn't grant special privilege to individuals or groups of people.

What would help the poor of the world is greater freedom, and more capital (tools). Most nations do not allow this type of freedom. Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto documents how government policy in the third world stifles productive activity for most ordinary citizens.

Money is just a tool. Nothing more. Like anything it can be abused and manipulated, but is essential to smooth out trade and determine production calculations. Money ought to be free and decided by individuals.

The idea that we ought to have a lawnmower and car for a certain amount of people reminded me of an interview with a defected communist economist. That is exactly how the Russians lived, and nobody thought that was great.

Be productive, gain surplus, and then do good with it.

[lemuel]

When we talk about redistributing wealth... we also have to talk about redistributing responsibility.

Some people are good for nothing, have no responsibilities and should be compensated accordingly.

Other people are good for much, carry heavy responsibilities and should be paid accordingly.

A man should be paid what the free market is willing to pay...not what the government is willing to pay.

that's why spidey's the richest man in the world. if u don't like it your a commie.

[marc]

To the OP, I am sure that as long as we keep money in the equation, it will not be long at all before society reflects the broken dysfunction of each individual heart. Some will give away their money, some will capitalize and end up with most of the money and the rest will continue to live in bondage to usury. Only a mighty change of heart will cause people to have all property common with pure intentions and only such can abide a more pure society. Until then, as long as hearts are not one, there will not be equality for longer than day one of such an experiment.

There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we decide the scheme is impractical, then, of course, it is impractical.

Instead, I make you this pledge; I, for one, will voluntarily limit my net worth and income along the equitable lines I have outlined. I cannot do it immediately; I need to rearrange my affairs somewhat. But, I will work towards it. Anyone who cares to join in with a similar pledge is more than welcome.

Best wishes, 2RM.

That's fair. I have already pledged all things in my possession to the Lord for the benefit of my fellow man. If you need to borrow my truck or a tool or whatever resources I have, they are at your disposal.

[Separatist]

Most normal people borrow stuff from each other, Lord or no Lord. Do you give money to the poor?