DiscussMormonism.com

Wealth is anything that is of value in such a way that people would be willing to trade something else of value in order to obtain it. My watch constitutes part of my personal wealth because people would be willing to trade for it. My car constitutes another part of my wealth. Everything that I own which is valuable constitutes wealth.

Wealth increases when the value of something goes up. Wealth is created when the valuable things are produced for less than the cost of producing them. For example, if I turn $10 of parts into a widget which I can sell for $100, then by constructing the widget, I created $90 of wealth.

What if I hire you to create the same $100 widget—how much wealth is created then? $90 of wealth was still created. It doesn’t matter if I pay you $10 to build it or $90 or $1,000. The wealth that was created is the value of the widget less the value of the parts. How that value is distributed between you, me, and the purchaser doesn’t change what the wealth is or who created it—that’s just negotiations of who keeps the created wealth.

From the great God of Wikipedia...

In economics, wealth in a commonly applied accounting sense is the net worth of a person, household, or nation, that is, the value of all assets owned net of all liabilities owed at a point in time. For national wealth as measured in the national accounts, the net liabilities are those owed to the rest of the world.[10] The term may also be used more broadly as referring to the productive capacity of a society or as a contrast to poverty.[11] Analytical emphasis may be on its determinants or distribution.

For example, The Church of Jesus Christ is wealthy - as evidenced by spending $5 billion of available liquid funds on the City Creek Center. Conversely, children in parts of Africa are not wealthy, as evidenced by their starvation.

You described yourself as a dedicated Marxist in a previous thread. Am I right in equating liberals with Marxists?

ajax18 wrote:You described yourself as a dedicated Marxist in a previous thread. Am I right in equating liberals with Marxists?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

I'll take that as a yes. It might as well be the same in a two party country.

Why didn't you stand up and be accounted when I asked for all socialist to do so? Even Kevin Graham would not admit to being a socialist in that thread.

ajax18 wrote:I'll take that as a yes. It might as well be the same in a two party country.

Why didn't you stand up and be accounted when I asked for all socialist to do so? Even Kevin Graham would not admit to being a socialist in that thread.

Uh, because I'm not a Socialist? Speaking honestly, I'm politically moderate, with libertarian leanings.

ajax18 wrote: Am I right in equating liberals with Marxists?

If you are following Fox News Talking Points™ you are right® on.

moksha wrote:

ajax18 wrote: Am I right in equating liberals with Marxists?

If you are following Fox News Talking Points™ you are right® on.

No, every ideology follows certain "strains" of ideological thought and behaviors.

Maxism, Communism, Socialism, Facism all stem from the same ideological well of thought.
Yes, their are differences between them, but they have have many basic foundations as the same.
Likewise, there are differences between Conservatives, be they Ron Paul on the extreme right, or Bush on the moderate right, or Gay Conservatives and Religious Conservatives. There are differences between us, but we are ALL Conservatives, with communality's that unite us, that make us mostly conservative.

Likewise, Liberals most certainly are Marxists, depending on the Liberal of course. But the ideology's and behaviors of those ideology's and those who follow them are mostly the same.

Liberals for example falsely think Hitler was a Conservative simply because he had some religious leanings, took over Corporations and used them for his means, and crushed some Marxists. That however is false simplistic thinking. Everything about Hitler, including the WAY he used corporations was liberal in nature. Further, liberals sometimes are enemy's of each other. Just look at Obama and Hilary. Of course, sadly conservatives "can" do the same sometimes. Just look at how some conservatives ignorantly take liberal talking points and lie about Romney.

Anyway..... If you are a liberal, you are any number of titles, which all fall under the same perverted ideology's. Marxism is included.

It really helps when you allow yourself to think, as faqs does, that every negative term (even if you have to redefine them all because some are polar opposites) can rightly be applied to people you don't agree with.

That's how you can be labeled both a fascist and a communist.

ldsfaqs wrote: Maxism, Communism, Socialism, Facism all stem from the same ideological well of thought.

Visitors from the Planet Conservative Narrative, welcome to Planet History! We have much to teach you!

Have you ever heard of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade? The Spanish Civil War? No? Please enjoy the numerous historical writings we have on the subject. You see, we here on Planet History aren't so sure that the fascists and the communists were good ideological buddies.

If you explore Planet History further, might we suggest investigating the relationship between Fritz Thyssen and Adolf Hitler. It may give you a warm fuzzy feeling about having right-wing industrialists back charismatic speakers, then again it may not. Hitler DID promise to lower taxes, abolish Trade Unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. Hmm, that sounds vaguely familiar...

The Soviet Union lost 23,000,000 people in World War II. Guess where most of those deaths came from? We here on Planet history aren't entirely convinced it came from hugging their German brothers.

Yes, Communism and Fascism are similar in that they are not democratic and value the collective over the individual. And the Nation of Islam and the LDS Church are similar in that they are Abrahamic religions founded by Americans, and both have narratives where skin color plays a prominent role. Would you say that they spring from the same 'ideological well of thought'? Might be something worth exploring here on Planet History.

Thank you for visiting Planet History, and please visit the gift shop on the way out. Come back and stay a while!