****  ECONOMICS  ****

"Technology" is escalating to a very realistic level that is slowly antiquating the work force.  Example, a company hires computer programmers to upgrade their systems, which will eliminate a lot of the employees from the company, which will save that company a lot of money.  Well, where are those laid-off employees supposed to go?  People are making so many machines and better ideas, to do our laborious jobs, so people will not have to do so much laborious work.  Therefore, "technology" is a major cause of unemployment.  But isn't that what technology is supposed to do?  Yes, but our current economic leaders and people think that it is unethical for some people to work and some people to not work.  However, they are fighting a losing battle.—Technology is going to continue to escalate to the direction that not all people will have to work to produce all that is necessary and desirous.  The only solution: A lot of people that do not wish to work, would not have to, and can be paid (welfare) from the government; but, it should never exceed the pay of anyone who has a job.  People that work, should always make more than people that don't work, and be paid just enough extra money, so to maintain just enough motivation to keep the right amount of people working, so to maintain (but not exceed) the level that is necessary and desirous of all the people.  The way that the current system works, if somebody eventually created a machine that did all of the work in the world, then the owner/operator of that machine would be the only person in the would with a job; and would be the only person in the world with any money, to receive what his machine makes.  Everybody else would be starving (or on welfare).  This, of course, is an exaggeration, but it is the direction that technology is going.  The technology is here, right now, to feed and please the entire world ten times over; but only if it is organized correctly—with much less selfishness and ignorance.

I'm aware that everybody's going to say that the poor should just take care of themselves, but they are saying this thinking only for their own benefit/profit, not for God (the world).

The best current solution is to "raise welfare"; and most importantly of all, make them NOT feel guilty about being on it.—Making them feel good (or okay) about being on welfare, is the key to greatly reducing crime, drugs, and suicide.  You see, a lot of rich people don't work (or work the "easy" desirous jobs), and somehow they are able to stay out of trouble—it's because they don't feel guilty or unfairly wronged.  [Matt 26:7-10; Mark 14:3-6; John 12:3-7]—(Woman/Mary oiling Jesus' head/feet, instead of the other poor)—The message here is that it is very much okay to accept charity.—You see, the rich will brainwash the poor into believing that it is wrong (or not prideful) to take charity, with hopes that the poor will ask for less charity.  And, [Deut 15:7-15] the rich should find, and radiate, happiness ("not be grieved") in giving charity, because "the Lord your God will bless you."  Also see: 2 Cor 9:6-15; Prov 11:24,25; Ps 112:9.  Of course, asking for welfare to go up is exactly like Moses asking Pharaoh to free the Hebrew slaves.—No, I take that back; it's a lot less burdensome (and just initially) for the rich to raise welfare then Pharaoh to release all the Hebrew slaves. 

Or... just to make it appear ethical, just have the government tax all employers enough to support everybody, then have the government pay everybody (employed and unemployed) equally the same amount of money each month.  This would give everybody a way to make ends meet, then all people that have a job will get to (basically) keep all of the difference (the additional money), like gravy.  This will motivate people to still work, and not condemn people on welfare.  Example: The government might tax all employers $5.00 per hour, per employee, that their employee(s) work.  Then the government would pay all of the people equally about $160.00 a week ($4.00 x 40 hour week)—this is assuming about a 20% in unemployment (welfare).  Then a job where somebody is now grossing $10.00 per hour, would only be grossing $6.00 an hour, in addition to their $160.00 a week, which would be the exact same as they made before.  Then have this adjust accordingly as technology increases.

But rich people will say that "this will not make us (selfishly) more rich"; however, for one thing, the current rich people (also) walk around with a lot of hatred, anger, depression, etc. (all feelings from the Devil).—They will collaborate and make up their own one-sided superficial reasons why they should NOT give to the poor, then they will actually (stupidly) become angry, depressed, etc., against the poor, believing their own crooked distorted erroneous lies.  All they need to do is see the "non-greedy" Godly benefit of "giving" (sharing, in unbiased fair truth) then they will become a lot happier, in the long run.  God sees and feels for all people in the entire world; so when (or "if") the rich ask "what can I do for you God?" the true (highest) God will always answer: "give to those poor in the world, where the need is the greatest; and NOW!"

Technology improvements is very good and "wondrous" to God; however, technology is creating a type of "musical chairs" for the people.—Every time technology makes a "wonderful" leap, a chair gets taken out of the circle of employment.  And each time a chair gets taken out of the circle, somebody(s) is going to be out of an acceptable (non-condemning) source of income.  That person(s) can not walk out of the grocery store with their (God given) groceries, without paying the grocer the proper money.  Plus, with their mind being filled up with all of society's "angry condemning guilt" and "degrading put downs," their mind will become so useless that they will never be able to pull themselves out of their rut.—It's like filling up a computer's RAM with a bunch of condemning junk, then expecting the computer to process your next program efficiently—there's no more space available!  Welfare peoples' minds can only be able to dwell on the Satanic crάp that society places on them, so to ignorantly motivate them into "snapping their fingers" to "take responsibility" for themselves, in this very competitive, greedy, and monopolized world.  The fact is, the way our greedy backstabbing system works, there has to be losers to balance out all the winners.  Plus, since they are only human, their subconscious will actually believe, what they hear, that they are worthless people; which, will cause them to become exactly what they are "told" that they are (worthless people), which will totally destroy any chances of them becoming motivated enough to get on their feet.  When people "kick somebody when their down," they will usually just get worse; unless you bring forced slavery (with whips) back.  So, people should not put the blame on the poor that are on welfare, they should blame on themselves and Abraham Lincoln; [ha ha].  Again, taking the mental pressure off of the people on welfare, will absolutely "trickle up" to decrease crime, drug abuse, suicide, economic problems, bogus businesses, and a multitude of various sins and destruction.—[Not being given any precise futuristic time factors, I "personally" suspect that this "could" take generations, to repair this "damage"; but the earlier we start, the earlier the results will come].

[Acts 20:35] "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"—Therefore, another Antichrist "cop-out" is people that say: "If we raise welfare then those people are just going to buy drugs with it." Well, again, it could take generations until they quit feeling blameworthy for the sufferings of the rich; because that's how large of a rut that has been dug.  It will take time to redress their mental wounds (repair the damage).  I just know (or would suggest) that the more you give, the "less" they will feel the "need" for drugs.  So it's up to the rich!

Society's consumption and desires are not keeping up with the speedy advancement of modern technology.  You can't just create jobs out of the blue.  There has to be a demand, need, or desire, for a new product or service.  I should know; I used to be in direct sales, and if somebody doesn't want to buy your product, they won't—even after you've proved to them how they can benefit from it.  There's an ignorant prevailing "pride" to not be "talked into" buying something.—It's like a "cover-up" to "show" salespeople that they "already know it all"; therefore, they will always have a mysterious (unexplainable) reason why not to buy it; unless it becomes a product of a faddish majority "pride"; then everybody will want one/it, even if they don't need it, or, in many cases, makes things worse for them.  It amazes Me how easily the people can be told what to think (and desire) by anybody that is an idol.  The Devil has proved that people will literally jump off cliffs if their idol says to.—(Blind faith in your leaders).  Those who will follow (idol) the advice of the well-known, will likely not instinctively listen to Me; because I'm not well-known [John 5:43,44].  The only thing that you should "idol" is the Golden Rule.

Some people think that the only way to combat this unemployment problem is to basically destroy and rebuild, over and over; which, creates new jobs, that are really unnecessary (in vain).  The slow incremental releasing of computer and electronic technologies is a good example of this.  And many software companies that reach "apexes" with their "good productive" ideas, will actually purposely antiquate their old more productive systems, by just making things different and then call it new or better, when it's actually just "faddish," just so they can start all over again to slowly re-increment/release back up to essentially the same optimum productive system—and everybody (or the majority vote) will "sucker" (dupe) into it.  This is very wasteful and stupid.  Since it is difficult for people to not think in animal extremes, I should point out that not everything new and different is just faddish and/or regressive.  Also, just because it is faddish doesn't mean that it is evil: Changing the length of your sideburns, for instance, does not hurt anything; but changing the length of (style of) collars does.—Because it antiquates (destroys) useful goods.

"Competition" does extract new ideas, but it also causes a lot of dishonesty into products and what salespeople tell you, that isn't the best (or Godly) solution to productivity and technology. —It's an overall "working against each other," system, rather than a saintly "working together" system; which would be "fair" rewards for all (including the rich).  A lot of the ads in the newspaper are basically just employers that are trying to get people to work for them for lower wages, so they can compete better with (and underbid) their competitors; which, in turn, will cause their competitors to have to lay off.  Because what goes around, comes around.  If an employer really has a new idea or invention, that people really want or need, then they will have little problem offering higher wages, to get the better applicants, to fill those new jobs; because a new product (or idea) should sell very well and profitable; or otherwise, it's probably not that great of an idea or product.  Please note that new successful ideas and inventions are very Godly, and should be a special cause to handsomely reward the inventor; as an extra, extra special (employer or government) paid bonus, to motivate new thinking, to cause more Godly wonder.  Even the people on welfare (that don't have a job) will help think up new and improved ideas, if they could be rewarded (for successful ideas) by the government (or somebody); because, they would have more free time to ponder their thoughts; because their minds would be more open then somebody that has to keep their mind on their job.—It is progressive for mankind to start having more people that freely ponder and do unrestricted works.—This will create an all new kind of perspective and generation of "wonder" for God.

It would be better for the working class to keep as many people on welfare, as possible, because if you do motivate welfare people to go out and get a job, then they will just be competing with the working class and either "push" them out of a job, or lessen their chances for promotion. Say if you had 5 other applicants applying for the same job that you are currently working; if all the people on welfare were looking for jobs, then you may have had 10 other applicants applying for your job; which would have made it a lesser chance of you getting that job.  If you force people on welfare to obtain a job, then that will only "bump" others out of a job, like musical chairs.  If I was going to play musical chairs with only 5 chairs, I'd rather play it with only 4 or 5 other people, instead of playing it with 9 or 10 other people.  And, it would "trickle up" that could effect anybody's job security, because if somebody gets "bumped" at the low end, then they may have to compete to "bump" somebody at the next higher end; and so on, and so on, up the ladder.  If people were smart, they'd realize that just paying people (on welfare) to not compete with them, is better than losing a good job.  If they raise welfare, it will be the beginning of better and more motivational jobs available for us who want to work, for more (a true reward).

Many ignorant people would just like to take all the welfare people outside, line them up against the wall and shoot them, so to solve the problem once and for all; however, logically that would just make unemployment go up even more, because all the people that had been working to feed the people on the welfare, would not be needed anymore; which would just cause them to need welfare, and so on, and so on, until there would only be one guy left in the world.  Logically, the higher the welfare, that the world (or a country) has to pay, just shows the "success" of the world's (or a country's) technology and system of government.  Therefore, countries that are able to increase their welfare payouts, signifies that a better economy exists in that country.  A lot of people that desire to not work (that would be satisfied with just "making ends meet"), would not have to (or be pressured to) work.—This would, very much, decrease bogus businesses, bogus (and inferior) products, high pressure salespeople, etc.; because nobody would need to be continually pressured into having to come up with "something" or else. If people don't now see the benefit of raising welfare (and [most importantly] making them feel okay, about being on it), then the world will eventually, very likely, fall into a total communist system, that forces equality, and nobody would be happy with that.

Communism is close, but not perfect.  If the communists would have implemented "goal" motivation rather than "pain" motivation, then they would have economically been able to control and feed the entire world.  They should have motivated their people by paying more money (in a fair method) depending on the popularity of the job.—The easy and desirable jobs should have paid the least and the hardest and least desirable jobs should have paid the most.  And special bonuses for anyone that thought up a new (non-faddish) idea or invention; that would be implemented for the betterment of all.  Oh yes, communism does take from the rich and gives it to the poor, but apparently (basically) that's all it does.  [Acts 2:44,45]—"Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need."  [Acts 4:32,34,35]—"Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.  Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need."—These early Christians were so generously communal that they make communism, of the current age, look evil, but not near as evil as competitive capitalism; which is basically the total opposite of Jesus Christ (or "Antichrist," for short).  Technically, "free enterprise" actually means that the rich and lucky are "free" to lie, cheat, steal.—Well, the laws have to allow that (in vacillation) for it to work, thou they say (and think) it doesn't.  [Rev 22:11]—"He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; ..."—The message here means that if/when a "fair" plan is implemented, to allow the rich, who already have money and property, to keep it; instead of just forcefully taking it from them—(people allowed to work in true "fairness" basically don't need that stuff anyway).—Because, they (the rich) will soon pass on, which will allow their selfish possessions/land to blend back into society.  Since all they (the rich) really care about (down deep) is themselves, they will better be able to "allow" the planning of "fairness" after they are assured, and know for certain, that it will not affect them "personally"; especially, if they are able to pause from their greed for a moment, and realize that it will help them in their afterlife.

The free enterprise system sometimes (when it has to) accommodates more pay for harder (less desirous) work; but is greatly offset by the unfair monopolization of the lucky.  For example: If you are lucky to be smart enough to go to college, then likely you will have a much more desirous job then somebody that isn't smart.  The argument against that is that the dumb people are too dumb to realize how bad and unfair they have it; which is true; however, their animal subconscious (of fairness) is not as (naturally) as dumb as their (and everybody's) conscious.—This can lead them to war, crime, drugs, and suicide.  It is true that brainwashing does help the dumb remain dumb somewhat, but it will never conclusively work overall (in the long run); because selfish bias brainwashing will always (from time to time) contradict reality.  For example: After an (offensive) soldier receives several "flesh" wounds, his subconscious will slowly (depending on his I.Q.) reconsider if his "honor," anger, and revenge is really worth it; in which case, his emotions of Satanic anger may change to Godly fear.  Therefore, selfishness exclusively for the lucky, the rich, and the intelligent, will never universally be accepted (work).  On the other hand, many doctors, for example, are righteously motivated to do relatively difficult work, because they receive higher pay.

[Ps 28:4]—"Give to them according to the work of their hands; Render to them what they deserve."  [Rev 22:12]—"... give to every one according to his work."  In the work force, the most "fair" method, of payment, is that the people that do the hardest (least desirous), or most dangerous job, should be the ones that should be paid the most.  First, set up some kind of way to find the least to most desirous jobs; maybe by counting the number of applicants for certain jobs versus others.—At this point in time, I cannot just provide a list that describes this perfectly; but this should become easier to figure once people seek true and fair honesty instead of selfishness.  This will be another "research and figuring" problem for God's intelligent human being to solve.  All I can say is that once this method is implemented, and leaders accurately sort out (in fairness) what jobs pay what and how, then positive progressive technology and production will soar.  Plus, there should be bonuses for good innovative ideas—God doesn't have all the solutions (ideas) for all of man's problems.  So God created man so to feel happiness when an individual thinks up something new and/or better.  However, if there is no earthly material "reward" for the "inventor" or "thinker" then their motivation will be hampered by the depression that comes, after they come up with their new idea, but their fellow man does not materialistically "reward" them, for their new and innovative idea—and instead just uses them by stealing their idea, by giving nothing (or little) in return.  Humans will progress much faster when "good" (or better) ideas get handsomely rewarded.  Of course, not just any idea, just the Godly (wondrous) ideas.  Lots of people come up with worse (and faddish) ideas, just to make things "different"—this just pleases Satan and a lot of the wealthy people.  Natural skills, talents, and aptitudes, that people have by luck should not be rewarded; rather enhancements of that natural skill, talent, or aptitude is what should be rewarded.  Natural skill, talent, or aptitude should be just used to show what occupation(s) a person should pursue.  In many cases, bosses should earn less money than their workers, because they may have a more desirous job.  The person that works the least desirous job should be making the most money.—That is the definition of "fair," and the optimal "motivator" for production and technology to soar.—Obviously, Satan is going to fight this one big time.

When Jesus would "cast out demons," He would simply explain to the oppressed person(s) how their sins were really so minute compared to the sins of the wealthy and powerful, in the "fair" eyes of God.  This would relieve the stress and depression (cast out demons) of the unfair guilt trip put on them by the wealthy, lucky and powerful.  At worst, a poor person's sin can only harm a few, but a wealthy or powerful person's sin can hurt thousands (or millions).—And the greater the quantity of the sin, the longer the individual will spend in "purgatory"—paying (suffering equally) for their sins; regardless of what they want to believe.

I've got a question: I don't smoke, but is there any way that tobacco companies could leave out the harmful (or addictive) parts of the cigarette?  The reason I ask is because cigarette smoking is a simple and excellent temporary "reward" for a stressful life or job; which, in turn, does relieve stress and depression; which, the experts today are saying that stress and depression is what causes people to become "less" productive at their jobs.  In other words, if people could get "little" rewards, during the day, while they are working, then they would be happier and more enthused and therefore more productive—this is what the experts say.  This might also deter crime, suicide, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc.  If not, then I guess "open sex" would be the only total solution.

By-the-way, another cause for alcoholism and drug abuse is because "sweets" (candy, desserts, etc.) are defined by Satan as "not cool" or "not manly" to eat (or to desire at all) for adults, and is just for children; hence, satisfaction is replaced by alcohol or drugs.  Of course, too many sweets at once is not good for you; therefore, sweets should be eaten in correct moderation, instead of being completely forsaken.

— IS "UNFAIR" GODLY? —    Some people think that since unfairness is natural, it's what God wants.  I tell you that unfairness will never be universally accepted; and the "naturalness" of it is definitely of the Devil (selfishness), and his lies.  Where in the Bible does it say that things "should" be unfair?   The fact is, some "natural" and "impulsive" things are fair and Godly, and some are not.  This is part of the human's job, to see and separate the differences; which is what the police and a lot of government jobs are supposed to be for.—People contempt this Godly job when they are bias.

As of this date, things are not fair unless everybody in the world has: Enough healthy food/clean water; the best medicines/ doctor care; cloths; stable shelter; a good bed/basic furniture; plumbing (clean [hot & cold] running water/soap, toilets/toilet paper, shower/bathtub); electricity/electric lights; central heat; central air conditioning; smoke alarms; trash pickup/recycling; paved streets/wide highways; car/transportation; nearby hospital, ambulance, fire dept., police; refrigerator/freezer; stove/oven; washer and dryer; music system/music collection; radio; television; telephone; clock/watch; dishwasher; microwave oven; and a computer on the Internet—so that everybody will be able to "easily" access their needed/desired information.  (This is not necessarily a complete list, nor is it listed in order of importance).  Now, for some reason, the best "motivated" and "inventive" workers, in this world, seem to be the ones that have all of these popular "basic" or "fundamental" (foundational) "needs" and/or "desires" met; and they are the ones that commit the least amount of secular crimes.  Therefore, you will find a much more productive, motivated, and crime reduced world, when all people have these "basic" (elementary) needs and desires.—This is another global "motivational" and "progressive" resource that we've always had but never properly taped into.  Instead, history has shown a great deal of regressive wars, crime, and a lot of "excuses" why selfishness and unfairness should prevail, that leads to a cover-up and/or ignorance of the truth that will cause many people to believe that they are not selfish and not unfair, when they really are.  And when something else becomes discovered/ invented, that can be described as a "basic" need or "basic" desire, that becomes adopted by the majority as "essential" or "standard," or is "universally advantageous," then it should be priority that everybody in the world should have one/it.

Historically, the rich have always somehow been able to support their regressing, non-productive (destructive) militaries, with every soldier getting their "basic" needs met (e.g. food, cloths, shelter, pay check, killing tools, extremely expensive equipment, prostitutes, etc.); so, in the eyes of God, there is absolutely no good, honest, or fair reason (excuses) why the fortunate rich can't properly give these technological progressive "basics" to the unfortunate poor.

I just heard on the radio that the President is getting "success" in getting jobs for people on welfare.  ... Well hallelujah; since this "sounds good," I must be wrong about what I've been saying.—Maybe if we can get everybody working then that will surely solve problems and soar productivity.  Praise the President if he can get everybody a job.  Well, everybody except the rich, that just do what they feel like doing all day.  So I wonder how the President is going to get those rich people to work.  Maybe the President just considers his current "welfare reform" plan to be "fair" enough.

-- Index --