Ships Nostalgia banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,381 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Found this and thought it appropriate to the times.
Quote:
Stated way back in 1931 and says it says it all.
You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.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 take from somebody else. When half 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 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 about the end of a nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Dr Adrian Rogers.
Unquote
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,592 Posts
Found this and thought it appropriate to the times.
Quote:
Stated way back in 1931 and says it says it all.
You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.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 take from somebody else. When half 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 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 about the end of a nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Dr Adrian Rogers.
Unquote
Dr Adrian Rogers, was born in 1931 if he was handing out quotes at that time he must have been very good.....You also failed to mention that he is one of those American Baptist preachers.....

Here is some information that I got from the internet. Wikipedia

"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

This quote appears frequently] on the Internet and is often attributed to Rogers with an incorrect date of 1931. In fact, the quotation is part of a longer sermon by Dr. Rogers' from 1984 in a larger series titled God’s Way to Health, Wealth and Wisdom, but it also appears as a passage in Rogers' 1996 work Ten Secrets for a Successful Family stating that "by and large our young people do not know either the importance or the value of honest labor".

Rogers did not originate the quote at all. In fact, he did not claim to have originated it. Instead, he was citing almost verbatim a bit of anti-Soviet propaganda that had circulated in many magazines in the early 1960s. The quote appeared before that in the Congressional Record of 1958, where they were appended to the record by U.S. Representative Bruce Alger of Texas' 5th congressional district, based about Dallas.] Alger had taken the words from Gerald L. K. Smith, who had written them first in his magazine, The Cross and the Flag. Since the quote was attributed to Rogers in 2009, it has been regularly attributed to him; however, Rogers was essentially quoting Smith at the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,381 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Dr Adrian Rogers, was born in 1931 if he was handing out quotes at that time he must have been very good.....You also failed to mention that he is one of those American Baptist preachers.....

Here is some information that I got from the internet. Wikipedia

"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

This quote appears frequently] on the Internet and is often attributed to Rogers with an incorrect date of 1931. In fact, the quotation is part of a longer sermon by Dr. Rogers' from 1984 in a larger series titled God’s Way to Health, Wealth and Wisdom, but it also appears as a passage in Rogers' 1996 work Ten Secrets for a Successful Family stating that "by and large our young people do not know either the importance or the value of honest labor".

Rogers did not originate the quote at all. In fact, he did not claim to have originated it. Instead, he was citing almost verbatim a bit of anti-Soviet propaganda that had circulated in many magazines in the early 1960s. The quote appeared before that in the Congressional Record of 1958, where they were appended to the record by U.S. Representative Bruce Alger of Texas' 5th congressional district, based about Dallas.] Alger had taken the words from Gerald L. K. Smith, who had written them first in his magazine, The Cross and the Flag. Since the quote was attributed to Rogers in 2009, it has been regularly attributed to him; however, Rogers was essentially quoting Smith at the time.
Thanks for your input.
When I read this it was him that was attributed to have written same.
Just thought as title suggests What has changed.
Davie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,092 Posts
It does not matter who wrote it, neither how sternly it is demanded accepted by highly authorized authority, nor how joyfully applauded by the masses, what matters is whether the information is useful or not.

For extra effort, people demand, and usually get, extra remuneration. If money is confiscated and redistributed in a way that destroys that relationship, then people will attempt to earn more per day and hour worked by working less. And, as the many socialistic experiments have shown – the people who would be masters in the one discipline, would be masters in the other as well. It may be that it should not be so – but rather that the strong and inventive people should work at the limit of their strength just to enrich the society as a whole. And maybe one day half-human robots will be programmed to feel that way; not only to walk around and claim adherence to the idea, but even actually act upon it with visible results. In the meantime it could be smart to show some moderation in redistributive taxation, and to forget, if not even forgive, some excesses among the rich. But for them and their "delusions of grandeur" we would not have much art and architecture... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,479 Posts
The quote fails on two false premises. A) that those who do not work think they should be supported by the state. In actual fact nearly all of them would rather earn their way and be self sufficient, something called dignity. B) those in work would rather see their taxes being spent for those less well off, rather than on pointless foreign wars and nuclear deterrents.
The only people who would believe, and repeat, such drivel are the right wing elite who would do anything to protect their position in society.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
The quote fails on two false premises. A) that those who do not work think they should be supported by the state. In actual fact nearly all of them would rather earn their way and be self sufficient, something called dignity. B) those in work would rather see their taxes being spent for those less well off, rather than on pointless foreign wars and nuclear deterrents.
The only people who would believe, and repeat, such drivel are the right wing elite who would do anything to protect their position in society.
Totally agree with you. Wealth is gained by generating activity, not grinding money of those on the bottom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,083 Posts
Yes Ken!totally agree!If We assume for a moment that the Labour P arty win a future General Election ,and cancelled the whole of the Nuclear Programme,How do think the British People would react , in a post "BREXIT "Britain,..... where "Regaining Control" seem to be tantamount?..........The question is of course ..... Could We afford it Post Brexit ??..........Personally , I don·t see the point of IT anyway! Cheers KM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,092 Posts
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”
Yes, darn silly accusation. As we all know, they all ate sumptuous meals every day, in every country where they got rid of the free market.
 

·
Spongebob
Joined
·
9,392 Posts
No mater what your political bent, lean, colour or taste , one can only concede that the whole world would be a better place if inter - nation conflict and its verocious cost was out of the picture .
A stupid thought or dream ? Sure , but why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,092 Posts
Yes, things would have been better if we had got rid of a few lamentable facts, like the repeatedly proved one that people do not make any extra effort unless in the expectation of personal gain for it. Maybe this fact will go away if we all scream very loudly that we do not approve of it, that it just should not be that way, that we hate all "added value collectors" and that personally we will give to the starving multitudes all but what we need for our bare survival... sometime after tomorrow. And then, maybe not.

What question? Why they call you a member of the great famine production party when you ask why people starve? Beats me - I have never heard that asked by anyone. Besides, the question why some gets rich and some stay poor is a rather common one, asked by people with all sorts of political membership. Indeed, I have a great number of books by economic liberals; aside from a few economists that you could call democratic socialists, asking it.

My personal view is that to attain national affluence you need a free market defended against corruption and oversteering. Recently we have had US politicians forcing banks to give mortgages to people who did not have the income to service it, and then the banks "packaging" those mortgages to look like they were serviceable and then selling them to people who spent other people’s money, in narrow Norway valleys and elsewhere. The left ignores the first part of that story, the right the second - but it is the same problem - a hampered market unable to equilibrate true availability with true demand. Call the story and its participants whatever you like, it remains typically human, fully logical, and in every way to be expected repeated within the same cir***stances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,091 Posts
Ah yes the 'free market' - which is only able to take into account private costs and largely ignores the external impact of its workings, a fact that has been ignored for so long that we are facing imminent climate emergency. Perhaps it could do with a bit of 'hampering'?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,092 Posts
Of course it should be policed. Nobody actually needed Adam Smith to tell them that businessmen will try to cheat you. A thumb on the scales has been observed for as long as there has been trade. But doing away with free trade has never been the solution, but generally a chance to observe that politicians will cheat as well. And this with negative consequences equal to the power they have gained by strangling the market. The problem with communism is not that the promises made on its behalf has been in any way ugly, the problem is that it has never delivered its promises, but rather have caused the deaths of millions upon millions, by starvation, execution and torture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,218 Posts
What has changed?

Well I like to think we have finally started to move away from the Idea that poverty is a crime and the fault of the poor.

I was working in mid west America late last year and was having a conversation about the American health care system. The main argument for the American system was simply ‘I am not paying for others health care’ . So obviously I can’t wait for America to take control of the NHS as part of the amazing new trade deal (with 18 pages of pre conditions) that we are going for
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,092 Posts
What has changed?

Well I like to think we have finally started to move away from the Idea that poverty is a crime and the fault of the poor.

I was working in mid west America late last year and was having a conversation about the American health care system. The main argument for the American system was simply ‘I am not paying for others health care’ . So obviously I can’t wait for America to take control of the NHS as part of the amazing new trade deal (with 18 pages of pre conditions) that we are going for
I wonder who the "we" are who has deemed poverty a crime. (I see this picture of a Yemenite swollen-stomach-death-skull-child, photographed by the police in profile and from the front while holding up number.) I own a few hundred books on economics, political theory, philosophy, sociology and the like, and I have read newspapers for more than fifty years, and discussed the happenings there described on Ships Nostalgia and elsewhere - and I have never come across such a simplistic view of the causality involved. In fact I doubt that even the tweeting numbskull i the White House could present anything like it.
My impression is that the idea of the force of evil overpowering the initial paradisaical good, and condemnation and punishment as the right way to roll back the perfection covering evil, is a fantasy. I do not believe that anybody ever changed their beliefs unless given new positive factors in their base for decision. So, making it profitable to serve the interest of us all would be much more effective than punishing unobserved negative externalities. But in the meantime it is possible to sue, and very much so in the USA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,218 Posts
Its long established point of view with certain sections of society. but as you rightly point out its extremely unlikely that it would appear in any respectable economic work.

Within the UK it really started in the Victorian era as a counter to the increasing charity and philanthropy of that time and its never really gone away and indeed it could be said it has become established fact with many with the poor getting blamed for all the worlds ills. You hear it all the time:

1. I came from a poor background but I worked hard to improve myself
2. Single mothers - only themselves to blame
3. they are all just scroungers stealing my hard earned cash
etc etc etc

And in fact if you look at some of the tweets from the white house he does in fact say just that, he doesn't blame America's ills on the rich, the bankers, the industrialists does he?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,092 Posts
Its long established point of view with certain sections of society. but as you rightly point out its extremely unlikely that it would appear in any respectable economic work.

Within the UK it really started in the Victorian era as a counter to the increasing charity and philanthropy of that time and its never really gone away and indeed it could be said it has become established fact with many with the poor getting blamed for all the worlds ills. You hear it all the time:

1. I came from a poor background but I worked hard to improve myself
2. Single mothers - only themselves to blame
3. they are all just scroungers stealing my hard earned cash
etc etc etc

And in fact if you look at some of the tweets from the white house he does in fact say just that, he doesn't blame America's ills on the rich, the bankers, the industrialists does he?
No, he does not blame America’s ills on the institutions of capitalism; he might as well have blamed it on the American people, that is plumbers, stonecutters, housekeepers and stockbrokers all alike.

I am not a moralist. If you want to prove that the word greedy is correctly applied to people in business, I will say – so what? What you call them in moral denouncement does not change anything; to become possible change producing information you must find the criteria demanded by the lamented phenomena to appear.

Riches is not a problem, poverty is, and it ought to be obvious that poverty is not a product of trade, and not even of very successful traders. Where some people are rich, the poor are generally well off compared to poor people in countries that have no rich people. In this context observe the riches of Hong Kong and Singapore, and the increasing povery of Venezuela, a country that unlike the other two has great natural resources.

There can of course be great differences in earnings within a country, a rather unseemly pay gap does seem to exist in the Western countries now, but this might be more the result of the market not functioning rather than the opposite. The theory has it that executives as well as workers will be paid according to the profit earning value they add to the company, but with distant stockholders as owners, and a well-acquainted buddy-buddy-club board of directors, the chief executives may in reality be a "closed shop" and be paying themselves.

3. they are all just scroungers stealing my hard earned cash - Is that not what many say of the rich? At least the common ground seems to be the already baked pie for common consumption, where the gain of one is the loss of someone else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,390 Posts
Riches is not a problem, poverty is, and it ought to be obvious that poverty is not a product of trade, and successful traders. Where people are rich, the poor are generally well off compared to poor people in countries that have no rich people. .
Really? Try India, most African and Asian nations, etc.; some of the world's richest individuals and the poorest.

As for 'successful traders' that sounds very much like the 'trickle down' economy so beloved by the wealthy; there doesn't seem much trickling down at the moment.
'Greed' is where those with far more than they can ever use/spend devise new ways to milk the poor and avoid tax, etc.

BTW, regarding the opening post, Tax and benefit changes since 2015 have hit the poorest hardest and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) said that the number of workers in poverty hit 4 million last year, meaning about one in eight in the economy are now classified as working poor.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top