Money

[Mark Metcalfe]

OKay, here is everyone's favorite topic. We hear a lot of people tell us that
the Bible has more to say about money than lots of other spiritual things.
So this thread is dedicated to Money.

My dad said in one of his sermons that money is a reflection of life.
By this, I take him to mean that we don't trade chickens for haircuts
(the barter system). Instead, if we think 3 chickens equals 1 haircut,
and 1 haircut is worth $9, then 1 chicken is worth $3. So we use
money to create an equitable exchange medium. If I need 6 haircuts
per year, then I need to raise 18 chickens. If I raise 180 chickens,
then 10% of my expenses/income goes to haircuts.

Where am I going with this?

Another thread suggested that a person who received prize money
for a photograph taken of a child in poverty should not have been paid,
or should have turned that money into poverty relief. Perhaps he is
right, but to me it brings up a deeper issue of the value of money.

For example, many might agree that Johnny Damon is not worth
$52 million in a NY Yankee Uniform. In fact, many people individually
will declare that this is obscene, and yet collectively, if we watch
baseball on TV or buy a ticket to Yankee Stadium, we are agreeing
that he is "worth" the $52 Million. That's a lot of money that Mr.
Damon could use to work the poverty issue, I suppose. And if Mr.
Damon is philanthropic (giving back to the community), would
people consider it "enough?" (Bill Gates gives more to charity than
anyone on the planet; he is "worth" about $50B - give or take.)

Those big corporations with their big CEO salaries are little different
than Johnny Damon, or Tom Hanks at $10M per movie. Individually,
we think they get paid too much; collectively, we applaud them with
our purchase of the computer, the movie ticket, etc. Perhaps, these
people should turn down what people are willing to pay them. "Oh,
$52Million is too much. I'll play baseball for $36,000. (median salary
in the US, I think)." But then how could he give as much to the
community (assuming that he does)? Maybe baseball tickets should be
50-cents to bring wages back into line. Supply and demand doesn't
work that way.

Perhaps we should tax the humungous profits and redistribute it
to the poor. Indeed, this is exactly what we try to do. The trick
is to tax them as much as they can bear to make it still "worthwhile"
(a value judgment) to remain in business, to play baseball, or to
act in a movie.

I said in the other note that it is easy for someone to know how to
spend someone else's money. Why do we trouble ourselves with
what other people earn?

Mark

[Dave McClung]

People who talk about taxing the "excess compensation" of CEO's don't understand how America's business works. Let me give a real life example.

I am chairman of Triton Marine Construction. As chairman, I am responsible for setting the compensation of the CEO. Last year, the CEO of Triton made compensation that many people would consider "excessive." It was certainly more than he needed to live comfortably.

What did he do with the "excess" compensation? He reinvested it in Triton Marine Construction, just as I did when I was CEO. By providing the capital that allows Triton to stay in business, more than 200 employees have good paying jobs. If the government decided to tax all of the CEO's compensation above what was "needed" to live comfortably, it wouldn't change the CEO's life style at all, but would cause the loss of employment of many of the 200 employees.

So, a tax intended to penalize the wealthy and help the poor would actually result in more people being poor.

Most people have never bothered to understand where the money that provides the capital needed by business comes from. It comes from "savings" -- money made by people that is in excess of what they need to live.

[Olive Knight]

I love discussions like these about topics that affect people's lives... but we barely have any understanding of them. Why doesn't the church at large give us some practical lessons about this and more?

I know that this world is not our home, but while we are here shouldn't we learn how to "have dominion?"

Olive

[Stan Hall]

Good post Dave.
It's been shown that raising corporate taxes results in fewer jobs. The same is true of raising the minimum wage.
Another example is if a new CEO takes over a company and finds ways of saving the company $100 million a year, then he's probably worth the $2 million salary to the stockholders.
When a company is successful and profitable, it's not just the CEO who makes money, more jobs open up, the employees get better benefits and raises and everyone who owns stock makes money.

[Marg Webb]

The Puble Library or if you are close to a University, their Library also, is great for information on this subject.
Marg.

[Hans Deventer]

I said in the other note that it is easy for someone to know how to spend someone else's money. Why do we trouble ourselves with
what other people earn?

Mark

Because the world is telling us that money makes us happy, and we want an equal share of the cake (not talking about putting IN an equal share of the labour!)

[Hans Deventer]

I love discussions like these about topics that affect people's lives... but we barely have any understanding of them. Why doesn't the church at large give us some practical lessons about this and more?

I know that this world is not our home, but while we are here shouldn't we learn how to "have dominion?"

Actually, there is such a thing! I remember a couple of years ago, I think it was Steve Weber from HQ who came to our region to share about and show a course that had been developed on stewardship, especially in dealing wisely with one's money. Not merely on how to get more money into the church, but first and foremost teaching people how to ste up budgets, limit debts etc.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Friends of mine groused about Oracle buying Siebels and then laying off up
to 2000 workers. What they did not realize is that Seibels was heading down
a path to lose ALL of its workers; that in a very real sense, Oracle would
be saving jobs, even as it was cutting them. Why do corporations do this?
Well, for one, when companies merge, why would you have two Human
Resources departments? Why have two IT departments? Reducing redundancy
is important to profitibility, which is important to keeping and generating
new jobs. Additionally, corporations will choose to eliminate some areas of
a business that are not as profitable, so that they can focus on core
competencies.

For example, let's say I have a woodworking business and I make $100
profit on my sign-making business. I have three workers making signs.
I also have a clothes pin making business which turns a profit, but I'm
only getting $35 for the same amount of effort and expense. Maybe I can
retrain my clothes pin makers to be sign makers, but then maybe they
don't have the skills to make signs. Should the employer be obligated to
keep the clothes pin makers? What if I hire new sign makers, and demand
for signs continues to grow? I want to then hire more sign workers.

What about the clothes pin workers? Well, if a $35 profit is lucrative,
then some of these clothes pin workers could form their own company.
(Or, spin them off.) If the clothes pin market is known to be dwindling,
then perhaps it is time to get out altogether.

While this is small comfort to the person who made clothes pins, it is
the reality of the changing market. If the public doesn't want lemonade,
switch to colas.

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

I recall a statistic (but I don't know where to verify it).
People were asked at all income levels, how much more money
would it take to make you comfortable (or happy; I forget which).
The answer was surprisingly about the same for everyone:
about 20% more than what they were currently making.

Of course, over the course of a career, some people do make
20% more and find themselves to be as dissatisfied as they
were before (and sometimes more!). Then, it is another 20%
that would move them into satisfaction - so they think.

Why is this?

As incomes rise, so do expenses. You can afford to buy a better TV,
so you do. You can afford to go out to eat now once a month, so
you do. Many, many, many things in life are choices we make, and
not necessities. There are people who take vows of poverty, giving
away everything except what they actually do need. These
people are rare. When such people are used as conduits of giving,
such as Mother Theresa, it can be great; because they have or
earn little on their own. Finding such people is as rare as the people
themselves. Those of us with money - and that is probably everyone
reading this, despite your current financial situation - must make
choices on how to spend it. But remember, money is only a reflection
of life. Many of us trade an hour of our time for a wage. Time is the
only real currency we have on this earth.

Mark

[Carsten Schermuly]

Ruth learning from the bible, following the book by the KJV, right her Luther bible, next the book in a two ring book her personally textes - answers to questions the book asked.
Some chapters we made in common - so I know, it is really a very good book!
The book our daughter Elisabeth used on EuNC.
http://www.EuNC.edu/



Author
Larry Burkett

Title
How To Manage Your Money


an in-depth bible study
on personal finances


The
Christian
Financial
Concepts
Series
.

[Carsten Schermuly]

As long Ruth has, the world is OK.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Exploitation. Treating people unfairly. Taking advantage of the working stiff.

I have similar conversations [about money and abuse of same] outside of
NazNet and it may surprise some to know that I have friends from the other
side of the political spectrum. A friend of mine advocates a middle ground
that "neither destroys the wealth-creation capabilities of the free market
enterprise, nor dooms the working and middle classes to a lifetime of ever
growing volatility and instability."

I thought that was pretty good, so I said, "I'm all ears. Where is the middle
ground?"

Ah, the rub appears, and his general answer as to the middle ground
had to do with ensuring that people don't get rich at the expense of
the "working stiffs" but it was otherwise perfectly okay to acquire as
much wealth as you could. As usual, the middle ground seems to be
very wide. We are both concerned about preventing greed and
desperation at the ends of the spectrum.

Money is a reflection of life, and it also enables choice. If you have too
little of it, your choices are limited. (Don't be fooled by credit, because
that just brings up a new set of problems.) If you have "too much" of it,
then you have more choices. It is good to have choices, even though
many people aren't very good at making them.

We know the Enron situation was clearly wrong, and legal action will
be small comfort to those who were raped of their life's savings. But
apart from fraud and stealing from the till... in "regular" situations, how
else would people gain wealth if not at "the expense of the working stiff"
(and by this I mean anyone who buys product or services, or provides
them)? I think he must mean the exploitation of the working class;
something that isn't out-and-out fraud (legal), but isn't right (ethical).
This is where things like minimum wage comes in, and sweat-shops and
child labor is illegal. I know that he means that certain tax laws and
loopholes should be amended, but it all sounds so indistinct. Hey, I'm
all for higher wages, lower taxes, closing loopholes, etc.

Speaking of volatility and instability, market forces are operating on a
global scale, thanks to technology (computers, planes, telecommunications);
we have virtual geography now. Competition isn't the store that opens in
your town and sells product similar to your own store. Competition is
anywhere and everywhere. Some jobs cannot be done anywhere:
trades such as dentistry is a good example, as well as other services.
Some jobs can be anywhere and in geographies that do it far more
cheaply (and sometimes without our labor laws and ethics). However,
the key to job security is not protectionism, but flexibility, adaptability,
and RELEVANCE. If you are relevant to the business in the marketplace, then
you're as stable (or volatile) as the market itself.

Mark

[Carsten Schermuly]

We need clean clothes.

[Stan Hall]

A common mistake made by many people is that the "rich" get rich at the expense of the poor. Many of us may remember the theme song from "The Jeffersons," "... we finally got a piece of the pie!" The fallacy is equating the economy with a pie. If a person gets a bigger piece, then someone has to get a smaller piece. But the pie is a fixed quantity, the economy isn't. When you take raw materials and make something that's worth more than the materials, you have just created value. You've made the pie bigger. So the idea that one person's success must hurt someone else is nonsense.

[Gina Stevenson]

Carsten, are you going to be the one to take the clothes out and scrub them on rocks if you take Ruth's washing machine away, eh? ha! :basic05

We need clean clothes.

[Hans Deventer]

Always makes me think of the line:

"The best things in life are free, but you can keep them for the birds and bees; I want money"

[Carsten Schermuly]

Carsten, are you going to be the one to take the clothes out and scrub them on rocks if you take Ruth's washing machine away, eh? ha! :basic05The cleaning method is secondairy. We could do it also without soap and water, for example by
short waves and a ventilator or by
molecular changings (similar like soap works) and magnetism
and other technics.

We think, we must have a conventional washing machine bacause it looks as to be normality.
Fact is, we do not need,
we need clean cotton or wool.

Some of the money themes
Think critical in all things - try to find out new, nonconventional ways.
We must not get a perfect working system - just a new idea is already enaugh - to lead to a new and maybe better technology. Better because we must save natural resources.

I have seen in Africa old car tires, used as hand driven water pumps. A cheap, good working solution.
They do not need electric driven turbine pumps,
they need water.
We do not need washing machines,
we need clean clothes.

[Mark Metcalfe]

The cleaning method is secondary. We could do it also without soap and water, for example by short waves and a ventilator or by molecular changings (similar like soap works) and magnetism
and other technics. ...


Carsten, thank you for touching on needs. The advent of the washing
machine was supposed to liberate us from the "Tuesday is Wash Day"
syndrome; to be a work saver. What we have found is that indeed
we have saved much time with modern conveniences and have found
many things to fill up that new-found time.

Some people think this is bad, and they long for "the simpler life."
The simple life may have been simple, but it wasn't EASY. And some
people think hard work (for its own sake) is a good thing.

I am of the opinion that efficiencies are a good thing; that just because
I have time on my hands, the assumption is that it ill be used for
insignificant and selfish things. It could just as easily be used for
doing good things. I said before that "time is the only real currency
we have." Just as we make choices with our money, we make choices
with our time. And though I don't need a washer to get clean clothes,
I'd rather have one to clean my clothes.

Mark

[Carsten Schermuly]

I think also - how much time is wasted by unimportant things.
We can not correct that, can not take back the lost values - and their consequences.

We could resist the call for life time and hear a few years before we die - looking only on ourself, it is enaugh to be saved - lonely.

What, we followed early - how many people we could have reached by mission work? Hundreds, thousands, tenthousands?


What method to wash clothes (or to cover other needings) is equal - absolutely not imposrtant. What all will do could be the simpliest way. What nonsense to wash by hands - byside washing machines. It were another thing, we lived in a culture without electric power or so.

[Gina Stevenson]

Yes, clothes washing methods may be "unimportant" compared to ministry to others. However, clean clothes are important enough so as to not distract from ministry by "bowling someone over" with a hefty clothing odor. :basic05

Yes, when we have electricity, it makes sense to use the washing machine ... quicker than handwashing, it leaves more time for ministry & such other more important things than the method by which we get those clothes clean. ;)

I think also - how much time is wasted by unimportant things .......... What method to wash clothes (or to cover other needings) is equal - absolutely not imposrtant. What nonsense to wash by hands - byside washing machines. It were another thing, we lived in a culture without electric power or so.