I've been listening to archives of "The Free Capitalist"

[ShineOn]

You're funny ShineOn. I've posted many times that I'm not involved in the free capitalist thing. I don't know Rick or anyone that works with him.

Ladies and Gentleman, Exhibit A.
A "Free Capitalist" declares that luxury cars are part of being successful.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You have done the FreeCapitalist\Producer equivalent of smoking. The reinforcement, their subtle messages, worked to convince you of a false ideas of "success" and they peddled a bunch of "principles" to cover it up. This is why I writing the blog. I don't expect to convince anyone already involved. It's more for the benefit up people try to learn about it.

See how silly one can be when they are emotionally attached to an idea? I've never said anywhere that I'm a free capitalist with Rick Kerber. I don't associate with that group (or any group) nor have I ever. I even posted earlier that I quit listening to the radio show July of '06. That's when I quit my job in Salt Lake. I don't get KTKK in Cache Valley. (I wish I did so I could listen to Jack Stockwell!) How can I give you any credibility when you make such erroneous statements regarding me as you have? You are the one playing the word games, not I.

Don't give me any credibility. Then you would just believe what I say because I was the one who said it. That would be just relying on authority.

[ShineOn]

I don't want this issue to dominate this board or go on and on forever here.

[shadow]

Don't give me any credibility. Then you would just believe what I say because I was the one who said it. That would be just relying on authority.

Sorry, I didn't quite follow you there. So are you saying that by your authority I'm a member of the free capitalist group or did you apologize for making false accusations of me?

[jnjnelson]

What, is this like your big brother coming to beat me up and set me straight?

Nope, sorry. What I meant was maybe we can start actually exploring fact and have some verifiable information on which to base our decisions. I intended no other implications by my statements. You seem to think I meant "Rick is going to take you down" or something like that. For all I know, you are going to take Rick down. However, I have no evidence either way, so I choose to reserve judgment until I discover some.

And drop the whole going off of rumor, "maintaining context" stuff.

I'll drop that "stuff" when there are no more comments that are rumors or quotes that do not maintain context.

You can't refute my points, so you try to claim that I'm not even doing a criticism correctly.

I can't refute your points because you haven't made any. If you want to make an argument, make one, but I highly recommend that you stop making comments that can only be defined as rumors.

Seriously, you've got to take a step back and look at all this.

Take a step back. Wonderful advice for everyone. Thank you.

You're emotionally involved and stuck in it and don't want to think that the Free Capitalist stuff is wrong.

What led you to believe I am emotionally involved? I assure you I am not. I'm not sure what you mean by "stuck in it", but I think Rick Koerber is wrong quite often. Today when he accused you of infringing on his intellectual property, for example.

... they will probably give a token rebuttal then claim victory and dismiss me as irrelevant and not worth their time.

Sounds familiar ... kind of.

I would also like to make it clear that I am not associated with Rick Koerber. I am as associated with FreeCapitalist.com as I am with the LDS Freedom Forum. I simply enjoy discussing true principles and FreeCapitalist.com and the LDS Freedom Forum provide that medium for me. I have no other association with Rick Koerber or any of his business associates.

[ShineOn]

ok jnjnelson, Rick Koerber says that avoiding debt means having "liabilities less than the liquid value of your assets." That's the definition of positive net worth, not debt.

He says that "if you have a $400,000 house and a $200,000 mortgage, you have no debt!" Wrong. You still have $200,000 of debt.

He's trying to change what "debt" means. Being out of debt doesn't mean having "positive net worth." Adding assets to existing "obligations" (debts) does not get you out of debt. Fulfilling the obligations (paying off the remaining amount of the loan) is what gets you out of debt. And what should be avoided is taking on financial obligations on credit (debt) at all, except for a few things like a modest house (look at the church quotes in the blog).

Listen to the audio clips in the blog if you don't believe that this is exactly what he says, multiple times. I am not twisting his words or taking them out of context.

So explain how that is even correct financial understanding. Explain how this adheres to the church's counsel to "avoid debt like the plague."

[Steve Clark]

So, sounds like everyone is ready to move on from arguing about who is associated with whom, and who is emotionally attached to what...

Howsabout we discuss the principles...? Shine- I saw that you expressed your views of the 13 principles on the blog. Is there one in particular that you don't feel is right that you would like to discuss?

As far as looking for sources... if we stick to discussing principles and practices, we can avoid the necessity of needing sources for arguments as a principle should be valid no matter the origin.

Take your last post. Let's just discuss debt. Are you free of debt if you have a $400,000 house and a $200,000 mortgage? Now it doesn't matter who said it.

[shadow]

ShineOn, I agree with you. If you have a 400k house and owe 200k you have 200k of debt.

[jbalm]

ShineOn, I agree with you. If you have a 400k house and owe 200k you have 200k of debt.

Correct. It's that simple.

How important is Koerber's incorrect definition of debt to the whole FreeCapitalist philosophy?

[jnjnelson]

Listen to the audio clips in the blog if you don't believe that this is exactly what he says, multiple times. I am not twisting his words or taking them out of context.

Now we are getting somewhere. I have listened to the entire show twice, so I believe I understand the context. This use of the word debt is another item I disagree with Rick Koerber. Does that mean I think he is evil? Absolutely not. Though I don't completely agree with his use of the word debt, I will try and explain the principle Rick is trying to teach. This is how I understand the principle:

You are correct in your claim that Rick Koerber is using an alternative definition of the word debt. The context of Rick's use of the word debt in the 17 August 2007 show (I suggest listening to the whole show) is not used in the same context as the way the Church uses the word debt when it advises to avoid debt. In my opinion, Rick should not mention the Church's counsel concerning debt within the same context he uses the word. However, the principle Rick was teaching is a true principle, one which the Church does teach. The principle Rick was trying to portray is to ensure, in the context of financial investments, that my assets are creating more value than my liabilities are consuming. Or, as the Church words the principle, "Spending less money than you make is essential to your financial security."

In the work place, I have an obligation (debt) to my employer, as a result of my receipt of a paycheck. Likewise, my employer has an obligation (debt) to me as a result of the value I provide to my employer. Is this the kind of "debt" that we should avoid? I think the Church would be very adamant in saying this is not the type of debt it was intending to use in its counsel to avoid debt. If I employ another individual to do some work for me or if I receive a good or service from another individual, I am in debt to that individual until I fulfill my obligations as they pertain to the agreement of the transaction. Also, according to Mosiah 2:23-24, every one of us is, and will always be, in debt. There are many instances and contexts of using the word debt where the counsel "avoid debt" does not apply.

This is the type of debt Rick Koerber is attempting to discuss in the 17 August 2007 show (which was repeated at least once on 29 January 2008.) When Rick mentions debt in this show, he is most often (and is during the comments ShineOn references) talking about total personal debt or total personal obligations, not specific, individual financial obligations. He discusses a balance sheet where the total financial liabilities, is contrasted with and balanced against the total financial assets. This an important principle and financial liabilities should never be more than financial assets.

The result of a financial liability could be a financial obligation (debt), but this is not always the case. I could have a financial liability that does not currently show up on my financial budget balance sheet, such as a deferred school loan or when an employer doesn't have to pay an employee until the employee has fulfilled terms of the employment agreement. When a financial liability is associated with a financial obligation (debt), it is also extremely important to ensure that the balance sheet of debts and income is maintained. Liabilities should never be larger than assets, and debts should never be larger than income.

If my total financial obligations are more than my total financial income, then I am "in debt", as Rick was using the word. I could be "in debt" even if I haven't borrowed any money from anyone, as any employer could tell you. Also, if my total financial obligations are less than my total financial income, then I am not "in debt". Being "in debt," in this context, is different than having debts. Of course I have debts, everyone has obligations, even those who do not borrow money. I need to be careful and educated about my finances and ensure that my financial income is always more than enough to cover my financial obligations. This financial balance is the principle the Church teaches concerning debt. I need to spend less money than I make. Listen to the whole 17 August 2007 show and you can maintain the context of how Rick uses the word debt. And you may learn some true principles in the process.

In listening to Rick Koerber, it is important to make sure I understand the difference between a principle and a principled strategy. Some of the strategies that Rick Koerber uses would be totally inappropriate for me to use and I should use a completely different strategy, though the principles involved in the two strategies could be completely identical. We don't need to agree on best strategy if we agree on the truth of the principle. Be careful to not call someone evil, when they are simply applying a true principle using a different strategy than you are using.

[jnjnelson]

Let's just discuss debt. Are you free of debt if you have a $400,000 house and a $200,000 mortgage?

No. I am not free of debt if I have a mortgage. It doesn't matter the amounts, I still have the obligation of paying off the mortgage, no matter how much I could sell the house for. I also have debt if I have a loan of $1,000 on a car that I can't sell - you could say it has an unlimited selling price. However, I could be free of financial obligations and still be in debt. Every time I go to work, I remember the debt I have owe to my employer. My employer pays me money in exchange for my services, and I have an obligation (a debt) to provide that service to my employer.

I think an interesting principle that Rick Koerber brings up is what to do after I have failed to avoid financial debt. What do I do if I have contracted the plague of financial debt? This is the topic and context of a large part of the Free Capitalist Radio show on 17 August 2007.

[ShineOn]

At this point, there are two steps that will probably be used by everyone but Rick himself: ...After this, some of them will try to give a knock out punch of "bearing their testimony" about how good the principles are, how much they've learned, how they have a new perspective on life, maybe even how great Rick and the other top guys are.

Bingo. I was right. Top comment on this post: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 0088032340

I was in the same boat when I first came across Free Capitalist Radio back in February of 2006. Much of it didn't make sense to me, especially with my current programming. But with patience and a willingness to learn, I came to understand the principles and to rationally come to the conclusion that they were true. I continue to this day to obtain a deeper understanding of them as I attempt to apply them in my life and I express my gratitude to the Lord daily for bringing me into contact with Rick, Garrett G., Garrett W., Ray, Les... My life has changed on a fundamental level and even though at times I am tempted to think, "Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?" I find myself glad that my understanding of reality and of my place in it has increased and that I have more personal power in my new found stewardships (where much is given, much is required) and that I CAN live the life I was meant to live! I don't mean to be so dramatic, but this is how I feel about my new life and I'm anxious to share my joy with everyone around me. I would suggest that you really study what Rick has taught without prejudice, do some soul searching, and allow yourself to admit that maybe you don't have all the answers. I don't have them, and Rick, I'm sure, would be the first to admit that he doesn't have them. He has some of them and as one who has been warned, it is incumbent upon him, and the rest of us who have been warned, to warn our brothers and sisters. I use the term 'warn' in the same way it is meant in the scriptures: To spread the truth to others.

C'mon, I gotta get credit for predicting this right on the money.

[shadow]

This question is to see how principles apply.

The church teaches to avoid debt. However, I have money deposited in the church owned credit union. It makes very little interest. But the credit union in essence, borrows my money (incurs a debt to me) and lends it to another. The other party it lends to pays a premium or interest for using that money (usery?). So the church owned credit union takes on a debt to me, in turn lends that borrowed money to a third party thus creating a debt for that person. The church did that also when it owned Zions Bank.

So is it OK for the church financial institutions to do business one way, but for it's members it's not OK? Is the church hypocritical? I don't know but I would guess not.

[shadow]

C'mon, I gotta get credit for predicting this right on the money.

You called that one for sure!

[ShineOn]

This question is to see how principles apply.

The church teaches to avoid debt. However, I have money deposited in the church owned credit union. It makes very little interest. But the credit union in essence, borrows my money (incurs a debt to me) and lends it to another. The other party it lends to pays a premium or interest for using that money (usery?). So the church owned credit union takes on a debt to me, in turn lends that borrowed money to a third party thus creating a debt for that person. The church did that also when it owned Zions Bank.

So is it OK for the church financial institutions to do business one way, but for it's members it's not OK? Is the church hypocritical? I don't know but I would guess not.

First, it is ok for the credit union to do this because it is not a person. We are not talking about personal finances when we are talking about what the credit union itself does.

Second, this is an example of "excusing myself because of other men," meaning, that if the church does it, it must be ok, regardless of what they teach. So the challenge is not to understand the teaching, but to determine if what one is doing is like what the church is doing. So, even if the church were involved in questionable business practices doesn't make it ok (not saying they are, just that this is not right approach for one to determine if his own actions are right or wrong). We definitely don't want to say, "Well, the church does it, so it's ok." If, for nothing else, for the reason that you may misunderstand exactly the church's role. For example, the church may own stock (as part of their investment portfolio) of a credit union. That doesn't necessary endorse what the credit union does, or make any comment if it's ok for individuals to do what a credit union does. It is ok for an organization, even the church, to have some high-risk, high return investments as part of their investment portfolio. And individual can do that, too, as part of their investment portfolio. But that's not "savings." That's a part of an investment portfolio. You wouldn't say, "well, the church has high-rick, high -return investments, so that's what I'll use as my "savings." That would be unwise.

[shadow]

I agree with some of your post ShineOn. However, I disagree with the idea that the church (credit union) can do it because it's not a person, but a person can't because it's personal. A principle is a truth and applies to everything, like gravity. So either there is a principle that I don't understand, or the church is hypocritical.

And I'm not excusing myself. I'm honestly curious why something can apply to an entity but not to a person. I think that's an honest and fair question. Maybe someone has the answer to that???

[ShineOn]

I'm honestly curious why something can apply to an entity but not to a person.

Then answer this: why doesn't the credit union pay tithing? How much time does a credit union get in jail if steals people's money? How much money is the credit union saving for retirement? What kind of job can a credit union get? How can it make money?

[shadow]

Actually, the credit union does pay tithing as does all the church owned businesses.

What keeps the credit union from floating away into outer space? It's held to this earth by the same principle that holds you to this earth, gravity. Principles are truths that are eternal. They apply to everything.

"How much time does the credit union get if it steals money?" Silly question. The credit union is made up of people. The person that works there that stole the money goes to jail. Check out what happened to the top dogs at Enron. They went to jail.

If there is a true principle, it will apply to all.

[shadow]

I'm honestly curious why something can apply to an entity but not to a person.

Let me rephrase this statement so some can more easily understand. -I'm honestly curious why a principle or technique can apply to an entity made up of people (a group of individuals) but not to an individual.

Truth is either eternal or it isn't. The word of wisdom for example is a principle with a promise, it's a truth. I don't think one can smoke in the celestial kingdom. Tithing is a principle with a promise. In fact, all commandments are principles and we are promised blessings for being obedient to that principle. Principles are nothing more than truths, are they not? So I can only assume that in order to prosper and succeed one must abide by some rules or principles. I have to conclude that those same principles must apply to corporations as well. After all, corps are nothing more than people (trust me on this one, I know, I'm the president of one). Corporations fail all the time. Why? Because the people running them don't follow principles. Darren speaks of working by the law. Get a group of 10 and incorporate he says. Does that mean that particular corporation can then not abide by the law and still think to succeed because now it's a corporation? I think not.

This reminds me of My cousin Vinny.

Vinny: How could it take you 5 minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire grit eating world 20 minutes?

Mr. Tipton: Um... I'm a fast cook, I guess.

Vinny: What? I'm sorry, I was all the way over here, I couldn't hear you. Did you just say you were a fast cook? Are we to believe that boiling water soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than any other place on the face of the earth?

Mr. Tipton: I don't know.

Vinny: Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove! Were these magic grits? Did you buy them from the guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?

I imagine it wouldn't matter if an individual were cooking these grits or a restaurant, it takes the same amount of time to cook. The laws of physics don't change for corporations. Principles don't change.


So does the Deseret First credit union owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follow principles or is it nothing more than hypocritical and completely opposite of what the church teaches? Maybe it is, I don't know. But after all, when I make a deposit at that place, they are in debt to me. They would love to be in debt to more people, and they would also love more people to be in debt to them.

[ShineOn]

shadow, I asked to to figure out how much a credit union should save for retirement. If the answer is "nothing" then why would an individual save for retirement? Shouldn't they be following the same principles?

The answer is that a credit union is a fundamentally different thing than a person. A credit union is an artificial construct that has different rules and which has a totally different life cycle than a person. It would be ridiculous for a president of a credit union to suggest that the credit union open an IRA for retirement for itself.

People get tripped up by this "principles are eternal" business. It is true, they are, but I think the people that say this don't know what they are, and aren't very good at figuring out how to adhere to them, as in the example of the president of the credit union. Is "saving for retirement" an eternal principle? If so, then the credit union should do it. But the credit union will never retire, so it would make no sense for the credit union to save for retirement.

Since the credit union will never retire, it will make different financial decisions than a person will. So we would not expect a person and a credit union to make the same financial decisions. Some things should be the same, like acting honestly and fairly in transactions. But what financial decisions they make, ie, how they invest and what they do with their money, should be different because they are fundamentally different entities.

So it would be a mistake to try to apply counsel from the church to individuals and compare it to the actions of a credit union. Only some things should be the same, others not. Apples and oranges.

[shadow]

I can kinda see your point Shineon, but how many employees does the credit union provide a retirement for? Remember, the credit union is nothing more than people.

And please don't suggest again that a credit union can't save. Certainly most successful corporations save. And they also have investments just like.....people . But a corporation does not have to retire, it just hires new people to replace the old people. (And a good corporation will take care of it's old people long after they quit working there via retirement plans )

And I agree that people can get tied up in this principles are eternal thing. While it is true that they (principles) are eternal, it's important to be sure that the principle is true. A false principle will always be false. That's why I brought up the church owned credit union. Are they practicing true principles or false ones? After all, they are just people. They could be wrong in what they practice. But if what they practice are true principles, then an individual can do the same thing. It's as simple as that in my mind.

Sorry if I've high jacked the free capitalist thing. I don't know much about it (them?) so I went my own way 8). I am curious about principles though.