“The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice. Under such a system, carefully maintained there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force.

One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State, and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin.”

- Brigham Young, Daniel H. Wells, Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young Jr., George A. Smith, John taylor, Orson Hyde, Charles C,. Rich, Erastus Snow, George Q. Cannon, Albert Carrington, 1875

Kevin,
Not that I am apt defend BY, but he speaks in no way to the system in that quote eg socialism, communism, capitalism, etc but only that the best system has as an end result an equitable distribution of riches.

All of the systems when administered equitably have the capacity for producing that end.

Yes, this was tongue in cheek given the fact that when Obama or any progressive says something along these lines, they're accused of being a Socialist.



Well that's bogus. Capitalism requires a poorer class to exist. Free market capitalism, as regulation decreases, moves naturally towards this kind of system. Free market capitalism without any regulation whatsoever leaves us with a few monopolies owning everything. It isn't just a coincidence that the disparity in wealth increases as regulation decreases. CEO's salaries fifty years ago averaged a fraction of what they do today whereas the blue collar worker's wages have pretty much stagnated. That's capitalism at work. Making sure the workers are paid less than what they're worth. The bulk of the wealth the workers produce goes straight to the top of the food chain.

And the other isms tend to concentrate power so that when the administration and aplication of the ism runs into human nature the animal farm results.

The system is less important than the administration and application of the system.

Young was a slick businessman. This trait was well watered in the church. And he spoke there from experience. He had all the wealth, while many of his "saints" lived poor.

With Brigham the church's money was his money was the church' s money.

Pay your tithes! Daddy needs a new mansion for wife # 18.

The perfect tyrant and despot.

It depends on how you define power. I thought we were discussing wages and wealth. In Capitalism it is impossible for everyone to have equal wealth, no matter how the system is being administrated. In Pure Socialism, which has really never existed, the means of production is controlled by the working class, and so everyone receives at equal amount of wealth. No poor can exist and there is no wealthy dictator controlling the masses. If it is controlled any other way than by the working class, then it isn't Socialism anymore and so you're talking about something else entirely.



I disagree, for reasons listed above. Capitalism by its very nature requires a dominating wealthy class to rule over the poor. Equality cannot exist. Every time government regulations are enforced to prevent this from happening, the ruling capitalists cry about how "Socialism" is taking over. They want this system because they want their power. Others wants it because they seem to think Capitalism is synonymous with liberty, and so the ruling classes use propaganda and scare tactics to get the poor to vote against their own interests.

We were discussing wages and wealth, but they do not exist in a vacuum. Power is wages and wealth (amongst a wide list of other things). Every economic system on the planet suffers from the human element manifest in the application and administration of the idea.

Pure communism, socialism and capitalism while interesting academic exercises do not exist in practice as human nature takes over and skews the system.

Socialism has its own weaknesses. It discourages production and rewards laziness. Output and effort under socialism trends towards the lowest common denominator. While no one is poor (or is it everyone is poor?), and everyone is rewarded equally, then why be exceptional, or work hard, or devote a lot of time to developing yourself?

Again the ideal is skewed by human nature.

Kevin, please get rid of your liberal brainwashing and learn some actual REALITY!

1. Capitalism has "equalized" the differences between the rich and the poor more than any system. It has given a higher quality of life for ALL citizens than any system ever tried. Liberalism however destroys quality of life. Every country that follows it in whatever degree be it socialism, communism, marxism etc., is much less quality of life for all than America.

There are more Millionares in the U.S. than the entire world combined.... Use your brain what's left of it. Does that sound like a system that is "keeping people down"?

The poor in America have cell phones, TV's, etc. And the only reason they have a lower quality of life in certain poor areas like in certain city's is because of Liberal ideology and lower morality and character. The worst city's in this country are ran by liberals and liberal ideology. The best are ran by Conservatives and conservative ideology. The worst country's in the world are ran by liberal ideology, the best country's in the world are ran by conservative ideology, including capitalism.

Yes, there are things that can be improved, such as the systems with the poor and homeless, etc. But, you don't fix them by embracing the things that have been proven to NOT WORK, or things that don't work well, when there are better ways to do them, conservative ways.

2. What you promote is Satan's lie..... That perfect "equality" is possible. Equality comes when there is FREEDOM, and the Rule of Law, so people don't take advantage of others. Then people out of their own initiative and drive for a better life, SUCCEED!!!

What you liberals just don't get, is that not everyone has the drive to succeed. Not everyone has the morality and character to continue striving for something better, to live better. You ever seen most Mexican Illegals homes??? More often than not, they treat their homes like they still live in Mexico. Allow them to fall apart, don't take care of their yards, etc. That's a CHARACTER trait that has to be taught.....

MONEY is not the problem Kerry..... Character is. Throwing money at things don't fix things. It takes charactered individuals in a community that create a community, and create quality of life.

Further, you ignore the fact that this life is all about TESTING US.....

3. You liberals can't understand simple economics. You TAKE money from those who have, THAT MONEY NO LONGER EXISTS...... Banks then don't exist, Businesses aren't created, Jobs aren't created, etc. What do you think one of the main reasons third world country's exist??? It's because a small few wicked horde the money for themselves, and it's not distributed to the people. And what I mean distributed, I mean the people can't get loans to create businesses, their aren't investors to invest in a business. Most of these country's don't even have basic FREEDOM and RULE OF LAW. There is dictatorship, liberal fascism, and corruption. To get out of a ticket, you pay off a cop.... Tickets are falsely given, again, have to pay off the cop. On and on at every level, no rule of law, no justice. NO EQUALITY....

See, that's what you don't get. Equality is freedom and equal opportunity without being molested. Equality is not theft from others and forced distribution. That is satan's way.

Did you even know that before Social Security, Medicare, etc. that there were no old people dying on the streets, there was no huge homeless problem, anymore than today, etc. etc. That's because community's, family's, and Churches took care of the needy. And you could go to the doctor and get stitches for a dollar. Today however, that dollar in those times would cost you $100!!!!

You just don't get it..... "Government" is not the most efficient user of money. In fact, it's the worst efficiency, and it provides the worst equality.

Further, we already have socialized health care. The poor get the same care as anyone else. No one is turned away. The "rich" ALREADY pay for the health care of the poor. Problem is, you now want to add a HUGE Bureaucracy to the mix, making the money go even VASTLY less further.

You just don't get it..... More government, means less money in peoples pockets. Same for regulations. Obviously there are some "basic" regulations needed for things, that should cover all the main things. But 99% of them aren't required.

Please tell us why there needs to be a regulation banning "Lemonade Stands"?
Please tell us why there needs to be a regulation banning ICE CREAM CONES in California?
on and on too many to list, and things that are much more hindering.

Just to start a business in most places, it's a huge expensive cost to both do and maintain. Country's, city's, etc. that have streamlined the process (i.e. more capitalist) have been hugely prosperous.

The fact of the matter, in this country, not a single person needs to be "poor". They are poor because of their character. My family was poor..... We made some $25,000 a year.... We had two cars, a home, and all of our needs. But we didn't live poor. We budgeted, kept a clean home inside and out, fixed things when they broke, etc. The only thing we couldn't actually afford was Health Care, and that again is only because of liberalism which has caused it to go so high. We couldn't afford the high premiums. But, there was an outlet, we got help from the State. Thus, the "rich" WERE helping us.....

See, you fools instead of fixing the problems and keeping that which is good, you want to create a huge new bureaucracy, making things worse.

4. As to Brigham Young..... You seriously misrepresent him..... He was being critical of the greedy, the wicked, etc. He wasn't promoting "socialized" anything, especially where the government takes from one to give to another. He absolutely has condemned that.

How do you propose that pure socialism would ever possibly exist?

So, are you telling us that Iran is better than the Netherlands?

How come Scandinavian Liberal Country's are considered the healthiest and safest in the world in which to bring up children?

I suppose it depends on how ldsfaqs defines 'best'...

There’s a saying in business: “What gets measured gets done.” In a capitalist system, we primarily look at income and GNP as our measures of success. But what do they leave out?

Incarceration rate: United States has 730 prisoners per 100,00 people. By far the largest number in the world. The number dwarfs those of most industrialized nations. By comparison England/Wales has 156 per 100,000.

Infant mortality rate: The United States ranks 48th in the World, right between Croatia and the Faroe Islands, and behind every other Western Democracy.Cuba ranks 39th, 9 places better than the United States.

Life expenctancy: The U.S. ranks 50th.
Murder rate: The U.S. ranks 50th.

One index I think is interesting is a quality of life index that measures purchasing power, safety, health care, consumer price index, housing to income ratio, traffic commute time and pollution. On this index the United States ranks 10th (Switzerland, Germany and Norway are 1-2-3).

Economic mobility is regressing in the United States. The United States has less economic mobility than Denmark, Canada, Finland, Norway, France, Germany and Sweden.



Wealth distribution: in 2007 the top 1% of Americans had 34.6% of the wealth, the bottom 40% of Americans had 0.2% of the wealth.

After-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent from 1979 to 2007 while it grew only 9% for the lowest 20%



I would imagine it's rather difficult to get chemotherapy in an emergency room. By not having preventative medicine, many conditions that can be detected with a blood screening or normal medical checkup blossom into diseases that are very expensive to treat. Giving proper health care treatment to the poor would help mitigate those costs. And, (oh, by the way) possibly alleviate human suffering.)



People are not born with character. You learn character. You need a role model. If your family is lacking in role models, to whom do you turn? I would agree that the family is the best place to start, but if the family doesn't have the support structure, shouldn't someone be able to turn to their community? This is the whole 'it takes a village vs. it takes a family. Sometimes it takes both.

Mark Twain said: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."

We are approaching wealth inequality in this country that has not been seen since the Gilded Age (a term which Twain also coined), the age before Progressivism. Social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer argued that cutthroat competition was natural and that embodied "survival of the fittest". John D. Rockefeller argued that the age of the individual was over and that only large monopolies could provide order. (I guess corporations really are people after all!).

One of the most interesting political phenomenon today is watching the cognitive dissonance created when people believe in Social Darwinism (or Ayn Rand's Objectivism), and simultaneously believe in being a compassionate Christian. John Rockefeller concluded that 'God gave me my money.'

Perhaps closer to the truth is J. Paul Getty's guide to becoming rich:
1. Rise Early
2. Work Hard
3. Strike Oil

Now we have Herman Cain saying '"If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself." (Kinda takes the wind out of Romney's argument that all the unemployment is Obama's fault).

I just can't understand how someone (who considers themselves a Christian can say it's a fault (or a character flaw) NOT to be rich when Jesus said "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

I always imagine that somewhere is a gigantic consortium of stock brokers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists contracting with Bechtel or Haliburton to make a really big needle, or getting Genentech to engineer a really small camel.

By the way, still haven't seen your documentation for how over-regulation cause the housing bubble and market crash.

There’s a saying in business: “What gets measured gets done.” In a capitalist system, we primarily look at income and GNP as our measures of success. But what do they leave out?

Incarceration rate: United States has 730 prisoners per 100,00 people. By far the largest number in the world. The number dwarfs those of most industrialized nations. By comparison England/Wales has 156 per 100,000.

Infant mortality rate: The United States ranks 48th in the World, right between Croatia and the Faroe Islands, and behind every other Western Democracy.Cuba ranks 39th, 9 places better than the United States.

Life expenctancy: The U.S. ranks 50th.
Murder rate: The U.S. ranks 50th.

One index I think is interesting is a quality of life index that measures purchasing power, safety, health care, consumer price index, housing to income ratio, traffic commute time and pollution. On this index the United States ranks 10th (Switzerland, Germany and Norway are 1-2-3).

Economic mobility is regressing in the United States. The United States has less economic mobility than Denmark, Canada, Finland, Norway, France, Germany and Sweden.



Wealth distribution: in 2007 the top 1% of Americans had 34.6% of the wealth, the bottom 40% of Americans had 0.2% of the wealth.

After-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent from 1979 to 2007 while it grew only 9% for the lowest 20%



I would imagine it's rather difficult to get chemotherapy in an emergency room. By not having preventative medicine, many conditions that can be detected with a blood screening or normal medical checkup blossom into diseases that are very expensive to treat. Giving proper health care treatment to the poor would help mitigate those costs. And, (oh, by the way) possibly alleviate human suffering.)



People are not born with character. You learn character. You need a role model. If your family is lacking in role models, to whom do you turn? I would agree that the family is the best place to start, but if the family doesn't have the support structure, shouldn't someone be able to turn to their community? This is the whole 'it takes a village vs. it takes a family. Sometimes it takes both.

Mark Twain said: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."

We are approaching wealth inequality in this country that has not been seen since the Gilded Age (a term which Twain also coined), the age before Progressivism. Social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer argued that cutthroat competition was natural and that embodied "survival of the fittest". John D. Rockefeller argued that the age of the individual was over and that only large monopolies could provide order. (I guess corporations really are people after all!).

One of the most interesting political phenomenon today is watching the cognitive dissonance created when people believe in Social Darwinism (or Ayn Rand's Objectivism), and simultaneously believe in being a compassionate Christian. John Rockefeller concluded that 'God gave me my money.'

Perhaps closer to the truth is J. Paul Getty's guide to becoming rich:
1. Rise Early
2. Work Hard
3. Strike Oil

Now we have Herman Cain saying '"If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself." (Kinda takes the wind out of Romney's argument that all the unemployment is Obama's fault).

I just can't understand how someone (who considers themselves a Christian can say it's a fault (or a character flaw) NOT to be rich when Jesus said "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

I always imagine that somewhere is a gigantic consortium of stock brokers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists contracting with Bechtel or Haliburton to make a really big needle, or getting Genentech to engineer a really small camel.

By the way, still haven't seen your documentation for how over-regulation cause the housing bubble and market crash.

So why doesn't everyone emigrate to these countries if they're so great?

Doesn't matter what BY opinion was. LDS doctrine confirms socialism as evil and the LoC requires a capitalist system to work and itself relies on free market capitalist principles. See Enrichment section L of the appropriate manual.

The only reason I moved back from Brazil (considered by many to be a "third world country") is because most of my family is in the USA and I wanted them to have a relationship with my children. Most Americans have never left the country and live in their own world thinking this is without a question, the best country to live in. It isn't just coincidence that those who adopt this view are generally those stuck in rural areas of America, clinging to their guns and religion. They're not likely to leave their own state, much less the country. They lack culture and understanding.

Social democratic nations throughout Europe generally lead America in a number of quality of life categories. http://www.redfortyeight.com/2010/10/15 ... s-the-usa/

The flip answer is: they don't share a border with Mexico. (But seriously, I will answer your question).

But first, I want to point out that I was responding to ldsfaq's assertion that Capitalism has "equalized" the differences between the rich and the poor more than any system. It has given a higher quality of life for ALL citizens than any system ever tried. Liberalism however destroys quality of life.

If your're an American, chances are that you will make more money than you would if you lived in most European Liberal/Socialist Democracies.

You are also more likely to be shot, murdered, spend time in jail, work longer hours, get much less vacation time, have a shorter life and be less healthy. Your children will be more likely to die in infancy, be obese or have diabetes, and be less literate and educated.

In short I would say there is an ample body of evidence that suggests that perhaps America does NOT provide "a higher quality of life for ALL citizens than any system ever tried." And the idea that "Liberalism however destroys quality of life" is a case not made by the statistics I looked at.

If highest average annual income is the ultimate determinant factor, might I suggest Qatar? The IMF says the AVERAGE annual income is $102,000. Relative to its population, Qatar has the highest immigration rate in the world. Heck, even Dick Cheney's alma mater, Haliburton, gave up the good ol' US of A for sunny Qatar.

But most people, even looking at how much money they would make, would think twice about moving to Qatar. It makes you realize that there are a lot of quality of life factors other than money.

But in answer to your original question, why is America the number one immigrant destination in the world, I think there are several reasons:

1. Northern European Countries don't share a border with Mexico. Most of the countries mentioned do not share borders with countries that have high birth rates, lack of opportunities and economic problems of Mexico. (50,000 Mexicans have died in drug wars in the last decade).

2. The United States is the greatest exporter of popular cultural in the world. Many years ago I worked as a film processor for Technicolor, and spent many a night shift watching Spanish-dubbed 16mm prints of 'Leave it to Beaver' spool up for export to South America. American Television is probably the most exported cultural commodity in the world.

Quick: Name a television show from Denmark, Norway or Finland.

When you drive through very poor villages in Mexico, you'll often see a Coca-Cola sign. I bet there's a kid in Nigeria wearing a Spongebob T-shirt as you read this. American popular culture is our 24/7 immigration advertising campaign.

3. WE ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS. The Statue of Liberty looms large in our mythos, and is a symbol known throughout the world. We ARE a melting pot. I know where to find Chinatown in San Francisco, but I'm not sure I could find it in Helsinki. Immigrants know they are not alone here. And for the most part, we welcome them.

There is much to recommend in this country. But a country does not remain great by indulging in self-flattery. Acknowledge the things we do well, yes, but be equally honest about the things that don't work.

Not only that, but Hong Kong is by far the most Capitalist part of the world, second and third are Singapore and Taiwan.

So ldsfaqs, why don't conservatives move there?

My life is more enjoyable since I put faqs on my ignore list.

So why do so many Brazilians want to come to the USA and complain that we don't allow more of them to come be U.S. citizens? Brazil doesn't share a border with the U.S. Why wouldn't they try to go live in Portugal? It'd be an easier language barrier adjustment and whether it be the U.S. or Portugal, you still need to go by airplane.



Are they just more brutal than we are about not allowing more immigrants? If there is a world full of people who need a job, why don't they all flock to these European socialist states? Are they even allowed to do so?



You can't have it both ways. Working my life away is the lesser of two evils right now. It's a choice every individual must make. The only thing that can make it worse is to work my life away and have my wages seized in taxes to pay for those who don't work. That's why taxes make American people angry!