LDS Freedom Forum

2ndRateMind wrote: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

Hmmm. By your figures then, my husband and I would have to sell our home in Southern Utah and move to some rural place where homes cost only $66,000. Why? Because the net worth of our home and 2 cars that are 15 years old, (no other real estate or motorhomes, etc.) far outstrips the allowable $66,000 for the two of us in net worth; our income is well within guidelines. Our home is small, we provide most of our own food from the garden, and don't live an extravagant lifestyle in any way, shape or form--our vacations are usually limited to short drives to nearby camping areas or hiking areas, our children who live far away only see us by Skype most of the time (once in 10 years have we been able to travel to see them). This plan fails to take into account the realities (like the Obamacare "everyone gets insurance" plan) that in some areas it is just more costly to live; the amount you have set out would leave a family in areas like New York or Los Angeles homeless or living in dire poverty. Make the pledge by all means if your resources allow it; while I will continue to be a good steward of what the Lord has provided my husband and I, and I will continue to give very generously to the fast offering and humanitarian funds, I'm not at all convinced that my diminishing my already modest life will benefit any of those in the nations of the world that suffer. They suffer not because of my greed or wealth, but because of the political corruption and greed of their own leaders. When you can change that, then the rest may actually happen. I expect that to remain or become worse until the real King arrives.

DR, your comment brings to mind that this kind of thinking implies busybodies in each other's business. "How much do you have?" asked a million times over. It's envy writ large. Totally agree about political corruption. It's key to understanding poverty.

Separatist wrote: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.

No rules for how many lawnmowers or cars for however many people....simply efficiency and economics as well as capital preservation and opportunity cost investments...albeit only possible with group of people committed to such an endeavor and willing to work through the occasional challenges/conflicts/compromises....which is why for the most part it will not work today.

Effeciency according to you. Maybe not to me, or somebody else. You're just acting the part of the central planner, or man of system.

"Capital preservation" is a non issue.

Separatist wrote:Effeciency according to you. Maybe not to me, or somebody else. Your just acting the part of the central planner, or man of system.

"Capital preservation" is a non issue.

I see that its lost on you....and its not hard to guess why (Mises). Nor am I acting the central planner...the setup can be however it needs to be by whoever's involved in whatever capacity they decide. The economic reality is there are gross inefficiencies in our current approach. I buy a tool that I use for 3 hours or less every other week....the rest of the time it sits. If its possible to utilize that tool to its capacity in a more efficient manner....all involved reap the economic benefits of the greater efficiency - i.e. they prosper. Whether its a lawnmower, a lathe, a router, car, printer, computer, or a 3D laser...the concept is the same. More production with less cost (the cost of multiple tools or pieces of equipment in non-producing capacity).

Communism takes away incentive and the tools gather dust because no one is motivated to use them. Capitalism works off self interest...which historically has proven to use tools including capital in a much more efficient manner vs. communism (which would cease to exist without capitalism). Consecration or Zion will be the best of both worlds and use tools in an even greater efficiency thus raising the economic tide for all involved. That said only possible through cooperation, commitment, and stewardship...ultimately living a Zion life....

What's more productive? Ten people with one tool or ten people with ten tools?

The problem with communism was not because excess tools were gathering dust, but because there were no tools and/or the wrong kind.

Separatist wrote:What's more productive? Ten people with one tool or ten people with ten tools?

The problem with communism was not because excess tools were gathering dust, but because there were no tools and/or the wrong kind.

LOL...depends.

Communism would be ten people with ten tools doing the work of one tool because they don't perceive any immediate benefit to it.

Knowing some folks that have been there....factories full of tools but no power to run them...just standing around for 8 hours a day next to their idle machines. Or building empty cities....or warehouses full of widgets nobody is buying.

If the tool is only utilized for a short time and 10 people can conceivably use the tool in different periods of time...thus freeing up capital for other tools...then the first. If not maybe its 10 people with 2 tools...or 3 or 4 or 5....or maybe it does take 10.

I'd bet a nickel to a dollar though that if you were to take stock of all the tools in your possession...the economic value vs. the economic utilization...there would be a large excess capacity of tools sitting around gathering dust. If you then take stock of all the similar tools your neighbors have acquired....and their utilization...uh yeah it gets quite staggering.

Why don't we share and work closer together? Trust...and ultimately who "we" as a people are inside right now. Can't even leave some nice knives at the church overnight after a ward party without them walking off right now....

We can share and work together, with many tools. Your ideas of idle resources is Keynesian 101. Recommend: WH Hutt's Theory of Idle Resources, a refutation of this Keynesian idea.

Shall we have one tool, a toilet, per one hundred families?, so as to keep it constantly working? Non sensical. So is the idea we have too many tools, and some should cut back. Lots of tools doesn't keep us from working together.

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

If you are asking me, then yes I do. I have. Regarding normal people borrowing, let me emphasize that I no longer consider anything in my possession as my property. I recognize that it is all God's. This earth is His and everything in it from which we all have forged, framed, constructed, manipulated and otherwise created everything we use. It was all given to us to use freely but not to be used by excess or extortion. It was intended for us to sustain ourselves while we come unto Christ.

But man has done something else. Rather than serve God, man has served Mammon. Man has taken ownership of land. So he sells it or rents it. He extorts money from others with it in all its forms, including taxes. Where God would open the windows of heaven and pour out blessings and rebuke the devourer, man has taken and trademarked and copyrighted. Man has constructed and has perfected a system of extortion and we have assimilated into it and have made it a way of life. You cannot live on the king's land without a price. You cannot hunt on the king's land without a permit. You cannot drive on the king's land without a license. As long as money is part of the equation, you will have Babylon.

Why would you give the poor something you despise? That's not a nice gift.

Separatist wrote:We can share and work together, with many tools. Your ideas of idle resources is Keynesian 101. Recommend: WH Hutt's Theory of Idle Resources, a refutation of this Keynesian idea.

Shall we have one tool, a toilet, per one hundred families?, so as to keep it constantly working? Non sensical. So is the idea we have too many tools, and some should cut back. Lots of tools doesn't keep us working together.

Well it is conceivable...but yes if taken to extreme...not so hot. Good one to pick by the way...gives quite the visualization. In my house we have 3 and that's often not enough spread across 9 people.

The idea is efficiency...99 people squeezing their legs together standing in line for the potty is not efficiency.

1 lawnmower that requires 1/2 tank of gas and 30 minutes to acquire for a 1 hour job isn't efficient either.

But if I had a shed in the center of say 4 1 acre lots (or 8 1/2 acre lots) that held lawn/garden tools...might be a different story and easily free up $15k+ to either by better tools for that job....or other different tools.

But it doesn't work right now....not even among family members across most of our society today.

Separatist wrote:Why would you give the poor something you despise? That's not a nice gift.

Thank you for the laugh...that's a very good point...

Sorry Marc...I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments...and where we need to go.

Separatist wrote:Why would you give the poor something you despise? That's not a nice gift.

Because he asked.

22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

The idea is not efficiency. That's more of a neoclassical view. I'm more concerned with liberty.

marc wrote:

Separatist wrote:Why would you give the poor something you despise? That's not a nice gift.

Because he asked.

Right, because they probably recognize it as a good thing. Like Jesus telling the young rich man to sell his stuff for money, and then give his money to the poor. Much more useful.

Jason wrote:
Sorry Marc...I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments...and where we need to go.

As do I, though we may disagree on a few things. Nice thing is, if we value liberty, we live and let live. We govern ourselves. I respect the liberty and choices of others and visa versa. We don't end up meddling telling each other we're doing it wrong.

Separatist wrote:

marc wrote:

Separatist wrote:Why would you give the poor something you despise? That's not a nice gift.

Because he asked.

Right, because they probably recognize it as a good thing. Like Jesus telling the young rich man to sell his stuff for money, and then give his money to the poor. Much more useful.

I don't understand. But anyway, I don't care why they value money. They need a couple bucks because they're on "hard times" or just need a cigarette. Whatever. Jesus Christ essentially told the rich man that he would be trading worldly wealth for heavenly wealth. It's useful to the poor at the time, but more to the point, by then following Christ, the rich man, now just as poor as Christ in terms of worldly treasures would have gained a far better reward.

The point being that money is not evil. It is a tool. It's a natural evolution from barter that people naturally chose because barter is problematic. Money should be sound however. God said as much in the OT, that there should be honest weights and measures, no devaluation etc. Blaming money is like blaming a shovel. Of course our national manipulators of money should be blamed. The love of money, just like the love of anything else besides God is the issue.

Fair enough. As long as man insists on using money, it should be sound, etc.

Separatist wrote: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.

LOL, yes, I do not really think it would create equality, on it's own. I have more modest ambition than that, for this project. I see it as one of many ideas that will help to eradicate absolute poverty, even while we remain comfortably within the ecological carrying capacity of spaceship Earth. And, should it ever turn into a popular movement, then I see it as bringing a small degree of sense and stability to our insane, hyper-emotional financial systems, to the benefit of us all.

As for 'what would help the poor?' well, I admit corruption and conflict and under-development are all challenges to be overcome by any would-be philanthropist. Nevertheless, it is my belief that an intelligent, committed donor can find charities and projects doing good and needing support if he or she tries hard enough.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Desert Roses wrote:
Hmmm. By your figures then, my husband and I would have to sell our home in Southern Utah and move to some rural place where homes cost only $66,000. ... I'm not at all convinced that my diminishing my already modest life will benefit any of those in the nations of the world that suffer. They suffer not because of my greed or wealth, but because of the political corruption and greed of their own leaders. When you can change that, then the rest may actually happen. I expect that to remain or become worse until the real King arrives.

As I said, this is a voluntary scheme. I am aware that LDS people already do quite considerable good work amongst the poor. If your circumstances make this kind of arrangement unworkable for you, then by all means skip it, and do other good things instead.

Just on the matter of house prices, though. Clearly, they are not equal everywhere, because money is not evenly distributed, everywhere. If it was, we could expect houses in the nature of what people need and could afford, rather than the inflated values that afflict many property markets today.

Finally, I am not persuaded that we can blame corruption and the greed of leaders for all of absolute poverty. Certainly they are factors. But I am always suspicious of sentiments along the lines of 'There is no point in helping the poor because of corruption/bad governance/fecklessness/absent property laws/vicious wars/gang rule/addiction*' It always smacks to me of an excuse to do nothing, rather than, as I see it, a challenge to be tackled.

Best wishes, 2RM

*insert your favorite

Analyzing wrote:

2ndRateMind wrote: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.

OK, so this is the quote about the Law of Consecration that I take to be key:

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).

The only difference between my position and this law is that I'm giving out specific figures, and the method by which those figures are to be calculated. The Law of Consecration, on the other hand, talks in terms of each deciding how much he or she needs for their support. I may be making an unwarranted intrusion into people's private and personal finances; the Law of Consecration may be leaving things too ill-defined to be a conceptual sword in the hand of the warrior for social justice. Whatever, I genuinely think we are more or less on the same page.

Cheers, 2RM

Separatist wrote:DR, your comment brings to mind that this kind of thinking implies busybodies in each other's business. "How much do you have?" asked a million times over. It's envy writ large. Totally agree about political corruption. It's key to understanding poverty.

It's not envy. If it was envy, I'd want the money, myself. I don't; I'm quite content as I am.

What it is, is thirst for Justice, and a hatred of injustice.

You may be able to think of ways to improve the plan. You are welcome to suggest them. The people who envy, though, are the people who would have nothing to do with the scheme, and criticise it, because they intend on accruing, or already have accrued, or both, more wealth than they need, and is fair on everyone else.

Cheers, 2RM.

1. The problem with current economics is that money has been gold or oil-backed or fiat. The problem is that not all countries have gold or oil or "we say so".

2. Next, fractional reserve lending lets the big banks create money from nothing and lets the little banks fail if there is a bank run, stock market crash or housing default. Banks lose fractional reserves and become insolvent.

Solution = (Constitutional) Safety Society System
1. Congress via US Treasury coins/prints/creates all money
2. Every country creates its own currency
3. Full reserve lending
4. Local banks (safety societies) lend only for real assets like land and houses and building etc
5. The land, houses, buildings, developement is the backing for the money creation
6. Since every country has land and every country can build buildings, every country has full control of their own credit and currency.
7. Treasury charges a simple prime interest rate.
8. Non-profit local Safety Society charge loan origination fee
9. Missed payment is deducted from equity (built-in reverse mortgage mortgage insurance)
10. default occurs when all equity is lost and SSS repossesses real asset.
11. prices of everything based on quantity and quality of labor required to produce and deliver priduct or service and not scarcity.
12. apprentice, journeyman, mastercraftsman pay scale

2ndRateMind wrote: As for 'what would help the poor?' well, I admit corruption and conflict and under-development are all challenges to be overcome by any would-be philanthropist. Nevertheless, it is my belief that an intelligent, committed donor can find charities and projects doing good and needing support if he or she tries hard enough.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Freedom and capital accumulation would help the poor. Recommended, Mystery of Capital by Hernando do Soto

We ought to beware of becoming men of system

The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.
-Adam Smith