America Is Not The Wealthiest Nation, Americans Are Not The Wealthiest People - Response To A Preacher

I Heard an interesting sermon on Sunday. This is my thoughts on it.

------------

Hi Pastor,

I enjoyed your message on Sunday May 23.

I understand the basic point of your message that we each individually need to figure out what we do with our own resources and wealth, but there were many parts of your sermon I disagreed with. I hope you don't mind me emailing you about them.

I've heard this basic message about how America is the wealthiest nation and how Americans are the richest people preached by a variety of preachers from many different denominations throughout my years as a Christian, and always previously I've believed much if not all of it. So - this is more of a resulting response from messages I've heard over the years than a direct response to you personally. In fact, for all I know, your sermon may have been perfectly targetted to your audience, the congregation.

Since this financial collapse began happening in 2008 I've been reading voraciously - mainly about how to protect myself and my family from the next great depression which I believe more and more everyday is soon coming, if it's not already upon us. Through my extensive reading and pondering I've come to the appalling conclusion that America is NOT the wealthiest nation, if we ever were the wealthiest nation.

Don't get me wrong - there are many wealthy Americans, but most American's are not the wealthiest people. There are basically two separate ideas here - individual worth and national worth. Let me explain.

Just because people have lots of stuff does not mean they are wealthy. I hate to generalize, but in this instance I believe it is accurate. Most people who have lots of stuff do not actually own that stuff ... yet. They've bought it on credit.They have borrowed from someone and hopefully will pay for it later. They now have an appearance of wealth, but if you subtract their assets (what they actually own) from what their debts are (what they actually owe) they often are far, far poorer than they appear or maybe even realize. What separates Americans from other citizens of other countries is the ease at which we can gain access to credit and can borrow money - this can be a useful tool or a cement block around ones neck because sooner or later the borrowed money will need to be paid back. This easy ability to borrow for the recent past has been reliable, but the assumptions many Americans have made (that they will make more in the future and their purchased goods - like houses - will always increase in value, etc) are proving to many people to have been bad assumptions. As a result many of these purchased goods purchased with borrowed money with the intentions of being paid back at a later date are now worth less than they were purchased for - making the purchaser even more poorer then before. To compound the problem, many Americans are finding they can not get jobs that make enough to pay back what they owe.

When you are indebted to someone you are basically enslaved to them. You lose a little bit of freedom. We have whole congregations of poor people who feel rich because they have lots of stuff which they think they own. And then they hear a message of how because they are so wealthy they need to give more and so instead of paying down their debts they give the money to some other cause - money that could be used to help free themselves from enslavement. If they then do not make a payment on their debts larger than the interest generated on what they owe (and on credit cards this can often be 20% or higher interest rate) they are in fact now going deeper into debt because they now owe MORE than before. All because they feel wealthy and are told by authority figures that they are wealthy and because, maybe, they don't want to face the fact that they are not wealthy.

But let's take this to a national level. It's essentially the same situation. Over and over we're told America is the wealthiest nation - yet when you look at the figures it doesn't add up! We, as a nation, currently owe over $12 Trillion - and the government has promised over $100 Trilllion in entitlements such as Social Security, Foreign Aid, Medicare, Pensions, etc.

If we owe $12 Trillion and have promised over $100 Trillion where does the money come from?

There are three current ways that money is gained for governments.

Taxes - the government can take money from it's citizens by force. Unfortunately - the government is coming close to owing more money than all the citizens together have. If the government takes all money and all assets from all citizens it will still owe money. This is compounded because the individuals will still owe their debts, but now have even less to pay the debts down with.

Borrowing - currently the government is borrowing money from foreign and domestic sources - mainly from China and Japan. Of course this money is charged an interest rate and sooner or later will need to be paid back - but how? Well - if it is pushed far enough into the future then it will be paid for by our kids and grandkids and other future generations through very excessive taxes. This is also assuming people and nations will be willing to always loan America money, but what if at some point they no longer want to? Then this option will no longer be viable.

Printing Press - Since the government has a monopoly on currency and since the currency is not tied to a tangible asset like gold the government can increase and decrease the money supply at it's own discretion. If the government chooses it can print up more and more money and then pay it's debts back. Individual citizens can not do this - it's called counterfeiting, but when it's done by the government it's called Good Economic Policy. At any rate the debts can now be paid off, but the end result is that the dollar is now worth less. This solution creates inflation and is essentially a hidden tax on citizens and theft from the individuals who money was borrowed from because they are being paid back in cheaper dollars - dollars intentionally cheapened. So far the US Government has been fairly lucky doing this - they haven't suffered the extreme inflation as quickly as other countries. It's taken the US government over 80 years to decrease the value of the dollar by 95% - some countries manage to do this same thing to their currencies in weeks and days!

Of course, a government and individuals can simply claim bankruptcy and default on their debts. If done completely intentionally this also is a form of theft as the borrowed money is never paid back and borrowed with an intention of never paying it back. Of course, between countries, doing this can often be a cause for war.

At any rate - when you look at the numbers much like how many individual Americans appear wealthy the US Government appears wealthy when in fact it's not. The Treasury has been pillaged, the coffers are empty, and the economic laws of give and take can not be repealed and the piper must be paid someday.

If you want to look globally the situation is even worse. Since 1972 the entire global economy has become unhinged from any tangible assets and is based entirely on faith in paper money and faith in governments ability to manage it. The entire system is simply an illusion - a house of cards that is now teetering. Even mainstream leaders are beginning to face up to the facts instead of simply ignore and deny it - recently on the David Letterman show in mid May of this year the news anchor Brian Williams admitted how economists are telling him that the dirty little secret is that "The world has no money and the emperor has no clothes."

But let's go back down to the individual level - many Americans are wealthy and many Christians are wealthy - and as you stated - the bible does not necessarily say this is bad. But by far most Christians are not wealthy and bible verses of what to do with wealth do not apply to them. I believe unneeded frustration and damage can be done when they apply the wrong verses to themselves. Instead - bible verses against debt and it's enslavement are what they should be worried about, not wealth. This is a free country and if indebted Christians want to pay themselves last and risk long term enslavement of themselves or intentionally enslave themselves to their debtors that's, of course, their prerogative. I personally think you can do more good the freer you are. But if Christians are borrowing and paying for charities, churches, etc. and have no intention of ever paying it back - that's just being dishonest and being a thief. I would hope Christians would not be considering that option.

You gave an example of how poor Bedouins are when compared to the wealthy who were in a bus driving pass them on your trip to Israel. But this isn't an accurate comparison. As you said - within their culture there are even wealth disparities - some have more goats than others. But further, just because they have less Stuff doesn't mean they are poorer. Stuff alone does not create wealth - owning stuff that retains value free and clear creates wealth. I would argue that many of these Bedouins may actually be more Free then many Americans because they may not be indebted like many Americans are. But again it's not an adequate comparison - they have different responsibilities which may actually hinder their own freedom - they are reliant on certain livestock, geography, etc for their survival and they are in a different economic system.

You state that wealth is having more than you need. This to me is not an accurate definition - wealth is simply retained value which you can use in the future at your discretion on things or services you desire to use the value on. As I've shown above - many individuals have lots of stuff, much stuff maybe they don't actually need, yet they are not wealthy since they actually do not own much of it. But for arguments sake, let's assume a person does own all the stuff they have in their possession - who is to say whether it is for a need? A need for what? Survival? Enjoyment? Their career? Their hobby? Government Central Planners attempt to answer this through force, but it always fails and never equalizes completely. Very often it simply makes most people poorer while enriching the select few. The reason it can never adequately succeed is simply because all humans value things differently. Whoever is in power will use their values to determine when someone has more than they need, based on whatever variables they desire to measure this by.

But let's assume having more than you need is simply about standard of living - how can another person determine what someone else's standard of living should be? I can tell you that my wife and I are probably on the bottom mid level of standard of living - and it's largely by choice - should other people not making the same choices as us be punished because they have more stuff or make more or have a bigger house or prefer a different hobby? We will, God willing, be increasing our standard of living soon, but the level of our standard of living will still largely be determined by all sorts of variables such as our future financial goals, career goals, hobby goals, recreational goals, etc. and will definitely differ from many other peoples standard of living.

Now let's assume two people have the exact same incomes. Person A receives $1000 and Person B received $1000. If Person A saves $200 of their money by choosing to go with less now and Person B spends all their money now - well Person A will now be more wealthy if Person B spent money on items that do not retain value. Done long enough Person A will have far more wealth than Person B - especially if Person B is purchasing consumables or items that do not retain value over time. Someone on the outside might be tempted to say Person A is selfish or greedy when all they are is a saver - they value things differently then Person B. Now what if Person A received $800 while Person B receives $1200 and Person A still saves and Person B still spends. Person A will still be more wealthy - and yet, even though they make less, because they have different values (and in my view are more responsible with their money) they will often be viewed as being more greedy, more selfish, OR be expected to give even MORE. After all - they are richer than Person B.

In a sense - every dime you save, assuming it's retaining most of it's value, is a dime that can be paid in the future to purchase various goods and expenses - that savings is what creates wealth. If you save enough than at some point you can stop working to generate an income and simply live off the savings - this is often called retirement. BUT who is to say when it's right or wrong for someone to retire? Is 62 the earliest someone needs to retire - why? If someone can retire at the age of 52 - why shouldn't they? If they saved their money and want to use their money to retire earlier - why shouldn't they? The current retirement ages are simply arbitrary numbers picked by the government for it's various entitlement programs. Most likely these retirement ages will need to be raised in order to keep programs like Social Security working. Once this happens will it now be wrong for someone to retire on their own at age 62? And what if someone doesn't even want to retire? Should all people be required to work as long as they physically can? Why is it called prudent to save for retirement, but only when you retire at a certain age, but possibly considered hoarding if it's being saved for other reasons or for an earlier retirement age?

I guess - my ultimate point is this. It would be a grand thing for Christians to be in a financial position where they need to grapple with many of the questions I've just asked, BUT as long as they owe more than they have these questions and many of the verses in the bible about wealth do not apply. It can not apply - because they are not wealthy!

I think individuals need to give to themselves first - free themselves from their enslavement to debtors, before they can ever do maximum good. This may sound selfish, but it's not when you think about it. If it is selfish, then all retirement savings are the epitome of selfishness because that's what retirement savings is all about - amassing enough wealth to no longer work. But it's not selfish because if individuals neglect themselves, if they martyr themselves financially, they are in the long run creating an unnecessary burden on their fellow brothers and sisters. It's unnecessary because it's being created by their own mismanagement of their resources and not a crisis or bad luck and circumstances. People who are genuinely in need are then competing with people suffering from self-inflicted needs for available resources. If the people were not inflicting the crisis on themselves then more resources would be available for the genuinely needy.

Once freed from debt then of course they will be in a position to start saving wealth. At this point they can individually grapple with what to do with that wealth. To these Christians you're well delivered sermon will be very applicable, but only when they are truly wealthy, when they are truly freed. Then again, maybe _______ is an exception - maybe most of the members are wealthy. If that's the case than please disregard all I've just said - you know your flock better than I.

Peace be with you.