The Love of Other People’s Money (Covetousness) is the Root of All Evil

----

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many arrows. - I Timothy 6:10 (KJV)

The scripture above has been brutally butchered and bastardized over the years and has led to many great distortions and incorrect conclusions among many Christians. These distortions and wrongful conclusions have negatively impacted Christians and their attitudes toward money and have adversely affected their behavior toward the accumulation of wealth. The butchery and bastardization of I Timothy 6:10 takes place when the “love of money is the root of all evil” topic is wrongfully separated from the concept of covetousness. 

The above scripture, in Timothy, when taken in its complete context, implies that it is not the love of our own money that is the root of all evil, but the love of other people’s money. Covetousness is commonly defined as an inordinate desire for money or things we don’t own. Obviously, money and things we don’t own belong to someone else. We can’t covet money or property we’ve legitimately acquired through moral means. We can only covet that which belongs to someone else. Covetousness implies that the item, money, or property in question is in the rightful possession of someone else and implies also there may be a temptation, on the part of the one coveting, to acquire the property of another through immoral means. 

Covetousness also implies a lack of contentment or gratitude for what we already have (our capacity to earn) and a basic ignorance of the natural law that dictates we can’t have something for nothing. Another way of stating this natural law is that there is no free lunch. Genesis 3:19 supports the concept of there being no free lunch when it states, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return to the ground…” 

Sadly, church leaders, pastors, and preachers are often the worst offenders when it comes to taking I Timothy 6:10 out of context and may be the worst violators of the scripture’s truer meaning. They convince many of their flock that money is evil while it is residing in their member’s wallets but that the very same money is miraculously sanctified when it hits the church collection plate. Will the real coveters please stand up? These church leaders appear to be coveting the money of their flock while hypocritically preaching on money’s evil nature. Are they not deceiving their flocks and shearing them in much the same manner the profane Jewish religious leaders (Pharisees) did in early New Testament times?

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. – Luke 16:13-15 (KJV)

So, should Christians be good little sheep and stand ready to receive their shearing? Not hardly. While Christians were often given the descriptive attributes of sheep, they were also admonished to recognize the voice of their Shepherd and to be wary of human wolves (Pharisees, false prophets) dressed in sheep skins who were pretending to be something they weren’t. Whether modern day preachers and pastors have ill intent or are simply ignorant on this matter, we will let God be the judge. In the meantime, however, we will be more inclined to take responsibility for our own charitable giving rather than using religious institutions serving as wealth redistribution centers. Their bloated administrative budgets and staff absorb much of the charitable giving and far too few dollars ever reach those truly in need compared to the ratio of money going to glitzy buildings, massive bus fleets, and the Six Flags Over Jesus theme park atmosphere. 

Covetousness is truly the root of all evil and biblical examples of covetousness can be traced as far back as Eve, in the Garden of Eden, who was tempted, by Satan, to eat of the fruit from the tree that would give her knowledge of good and evil and make her equal to the gods. Eve, therefore, coveted knowledge and angelic esteem that was not hers to possess.

Defining Money

If one erroneously believes that the love of money is the root of all evil must they not first define what money really is? 

So, what is money? Is it not simply a tool of exchange? Is money not a representative unit of one’s labor or energy used to produce items or services others desire and voluntarily pay for with money they, themselves, have also earned? 

If one erroneously believes that the love of money is the root of all evil but correctly recognizes that the root of money, itself, is simply representative of one’s labor, would they not be forced to accept the uncomfortable conclusion that the love of labor is ultimately the root of all evil? If the love of labor is the root of all evil, by what means did labor originate? Did not God establish the natural law of labor shortly after the Garden of Eden incident? Should we not love and respect the natural laws God has instituted? How apropos was it that God selected a form of punishment (no free lunches) so precisely suited to the covetousness and crime exhibited in the Garden of Eden? 

The value of money is not determined by government decree, central banks, or by those who exist off the labor of others. The value of money is determined by those who produce items and services others value and who willingly and voluntarily exchange it by trading value-4-value absent the tools of guilt (fraud) or fear (force). 

Which comes first in the natural order of things; money, or looting and mooching? 

Looting is the forceful taking or plundering of products or services, or their monetary equivalent. Looting is, therefore, the forceful taking or plundering of another’s labor or energy. Mooching is the acquisition of products or services, or their monetary equivalent, by preying on producers in society through the use of guilt (fraud) and separating them from the fruits of their labor. Money attracts looters and moochers. The looters and moochers produce nothing but immorality and therefore lend nothing to the value of money.

Conclusion 

I Timothy 6:10 is not describing those who possess money gained through the use of their own mental faculties and labor, but instead is describing those looters and moochers who desire and/or possess something they have not earned. In other words, those who live off the backs of others are the ones guilty of loving money at the expense of morality (coveting). 

By what logic can we damn our money without damning our own existence? We exist by our ceaseless labor and money is just a representation of that labor. If we damn our money, we, by necessary inference, damn our labor. If we damn our labor, we, by necessary inference, damn our lives because to live is to labor. How can we damn our own lives or its moral derivatives without damning our Creator?

Money (honestly earned) is therefore the root of all good because it represents a form of indirect exchange we can use to exchange our labor for the labor of others. Trading value-4-value honors the principle of the golden rule in which we treat others as we would wish to be treated. Money, as previously defined, exemplifies and supports the golden rule. 

Looters and moochers who come by money through immoral means (fraud, theft, robbery, political and/or legislative) are the ones who denigrate money and dilute its value. Those who do so are society’s counterfeiters and hitchhikers.

Article credits: The Bible and Atlas Shrugged (Francisco D’Antonio’s Money Speech)

-----

Are YOU a Hoarder? Are You Sure? (Part IV of a Four Part Series)

----

Is it Hoarding or Energy Management?

We contend that to maintain life we have to expend energy.  Sustaining our lives requires either the expenditure of our own energy or the energy of others.  By what right can we expect others to supply our energy needs in the present or in the future? 

Successful living is about managing energy wisely and successful living is largely within the eye of the beholder. You know…different strokes for different folks.  It isn’t our desire to determine what success is for others, individually or collectively, but rather our desire is to determine what success means to us. 

What is the answer to the topical question…Are YOU a Hoarder? Are You Sure?  Drum roll please.  The answer is - we ALL are hoarders.  We hoard energy in various forms and combinations.  We can hoard the derivatives of our energy manifested in the form of money or supplies gleaned from our “hard work in the garden” and we can hoard our energy in the form of leisure.  So, it is not a matter if we hoard, but rather what we hoard. What do you hoard?

Since the modern day usage of the word “hoarding” has been skewed somewhat, from its original meaning, we believe a less offensive and more accurate label to describe the concept of putting away nuts for the winter might be called energy management.

Think of energy management in terms familiar to pilots of aircraft.  The pilot spends fuel (energy) to achieve altitude (a form of stored energy).  Stored energy, in the form of altitude, is precious to a pilot as that stored energy can be used sparingly, in an engine out scenario, to glide to a safe landing.  The pilot, at altitude, has hoarded an extra margin of energy that translates to an extra margin of safety and peace of mind. 

Is the pilot who hoards energy, in the form of altitude, and who prefers an extra margin of peace of mind for himself and an extra margin of safety for his passengers exhibiting a lack of faith in God or is he just showing gratitude for the innate reasoning ability God gave him?  Would you want to entrust your life to the pilot who thinks God will bail them out of every stupid decision they make or would you prefer to entrust your life to the pilot who assumes full responsibility for their risk profile and acts responsibly in mitigating, to the highest degree professionally possible, the inherent risks associated with that activity?

Everyone, without exception, hoards something.  If we value leisure, we hoard our energy.  If we value putting away nuts for the winter, we spend our present energy for future leisure when nut gathering isn’t feasible.  If we value our leisure time and nut gathering, we delicately balance the two objectives. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with either hoarding energy, in the form of leisure, or hoarding nuts.  The issue of morality only comes into play when we attempt to misappropriate someone else’s stored nuts by stealing them directly or through political or religious proxy.  The issue of envy and covetousness comes into play when we feel entitled to the energy of others or the derivatives of their energy (their property).  When the entitlement mindset morphs into quasi-theft, with institutions serving as brokers of goods appropriated from the productive to supply to those who worship leisure, a form of slavery begins to emerge.  In the extreme, the productive cease to produce because they are disincentivized and society soon implodes on itself.

As hoarders of energy, in one form or another, we get to choose the financial altitude we fly at and the corresponding margin of financial safety that suits our individual preferences and risk profile.  Some may be quite content to fly low and slow on the edge of the performance envelope, with little room for error, while others may seek more certainty, more peace of mind, and a greater margin of financial safety for themselves and those they care about.

We also, in addition to answering the title question about whether or not you are a hoarder, promised to answer the question of how we know when enough is enough when saving for retirement. 

If we keep moving our target goals out further, in time, or to a particular financial figure, are we showing a lack of faith in God?  Should we just take a leap of faith?  In a nutshell, enough savings for retirement is reached at whatever point we can sleep with our decision after carefully evaluating the constantly changing dynamics going on in the world around us.  Are we paying attention to what is going on around us and around the world?  It does matter. 

Should we put our faith in government and religious institutions to help us make this most critical decision?  Did THEY see the current financial disaster coming or are they now scrambling for liquidity like everyone else?  If they didn’t see the financial disaster coming, why would we trust them to show us the way out of the financial calamity? 

If we make the wrong decision, will we expect to be bailed out of our mistake by someone else?  And, by what right can we expect to be bailed out by others when we know we have no right to anyone else’s energy?  Isn’t our energy representative of life itself?  By what perverted logic would anyone assume to have the right to someone else’s life? 

If we’ve carefully considered these questions and can sleep soundly with the answers, retirement is no longer a far off dream. The time for retirement is now.

This was a fun series to write and we hope you enjoyed it and found value in it.

----

Are YOU a Hoarder? Are You Sure? (Part III of a Four Part Series)

----

The Poor People of PNG

We realize this series has become a bit long in the tooth but we felt it absolutely essential to lay a solid foundation of understanding before moving forward with this discussion.  We’ve already touched on the issue of how much savings for retirement is enough and we will answer the question completely in Part IV.

Now we want to explore the second article Craig penned regarding his interview with the poor people of PNG.  If you haven’t already read parts I and II of this series, please do so now and follow the links to the two articles penned by Craig Ford at Money Help for Christians titled How Much Savings for Retirement is Enough? and The Rich and Poor: My Interview With The Poor People of PNG.  Both articles are relatively short but vitally important in answering the topical question of…Are YOU a Hoarder? Are You Sure?

Craig, as we’ve stated previously, is a missionary evangelist in Papua, New Guinea (PNG).  He recently, as an experiment, invited a group over to his house to explore the conundrum between the rich and the poor.  It is an extremely interesting story and offers an abundance of understanding concerning the interrelationships between our beliefs, choices, and consequences.  Craig interviewed this group as he was curious about how the poor people he interacts with perceive his standard of living, as compared to theirs, what their attitudes were about money, how they defined or described the “rich,” what they thought they needed to do to be rich, whether being rich was a worthy goal, the advantages and disadvantages of being poor, and what they expected of the rich when it comes to benevolence extended them. 

Craig, during this interview, discovered that none in the group considered themselves rich and since, as is the case in most third world countries, there is no middle class in PNG, the financial condition or status of the group being interviewed automatically defaulted to being poor.  In many societies, being poor is also attributed with being disadvantaged, oppressed, or victimized by the greed and ambition of others who have more wealth.

One of the first questions asked of the group is how they would describe or define a rich person.  The answer was most telling.  They described rich people as generally putting in a lot of time, effort and hard work in the garden.  If their descriptions were an accurate assessment of many of those who are rich in that country, it is assumed that the rich labor in the fields planting, caring for, and harvesting food for the consumption of their families along with a surplus of food to be taken to the market to be sold for money or traded directly for other goods and services needed now or in the future.  Could the “rich” logically be called “hoarders,” in this instance, since they produced more food than they directly consumed?  According to the dictionary definition, these “rich” people qualify as “hoarders.” 

The group being interviewed considered themselves “poor,” but they expressed that they valued their free time or leisure. Their free time and leisure to spend with family is obviously important to them.  When questioned about how much of their disposable income went for food, the answer was around 99 percent.  Obviously, they valued their leisure time much more than they valued the exorbitant amount of money they were paying for food grown by others.  We deducted, from the interview, that the rich grew their own food while the poor bought their food at the grocery store or local market.  Obviously, in terms of cost, growing their own food would have left the poor with much more disposable income for other desired items to include luxuries more commonly associated with the rich people of PNG who grew their own food and took their surplus to market.

The poor people Craig interviewed have chosen to conserve or hoard their physical energy, in the form of leisure time, contrasted to the rich who’ve chosen to forego some of their leisure activities while spending their surplus physical energy reserves in the planting, caring for and harvesting of food for personal and commercial uses.  The rich were basically building a storehouse of wealth to use for future needs when their bodies aged and they no longer had an abundance of physical energy to expend toiling in the garden. 

The poor, on the other hand, hoarded their abundance of physical energy when they were young with little hope of prosperity in the present or the future.  Although these people are poor, in financial terms, the fact cannot be overlooked that these poor people are “rich” in leisure.  Some in the group expressed that some in their families are reluctant to work harder to make a better life for themselves because of family freeloaders who are mooching off their backs.  Apparently, they’ve not considered kicking these moochers off the island or at least out of their households even though they recognize it is one of the things possibly interfering with their aspirations to improve their standard of living.  Or, it could also be an excuse or justification for their choice of leisure over being more ambitious. In either case, it appears that we can have unique cultural expectations within families that can influence our beliefs, choices, and consequences. 

In Part IV of…Are YOU a Hoarder? Are You Sure?, we will get to the essence of answering the question the series title poses and you may be very surprised at the answer we offer.

----

Are YOU a Hoarder? Are You Sure? (Part II of a Four Part Series)

----

Defining Our Terms Continued…

So far, we’ve discussed two extreme usages of the word “hoarding.” The first one being the rather benign dictionary definition of simply having stored supplies or money beyond our immediate needs and the second usage, on the other end of the spectrum, associated with psychosis. Is there a definition or usage of the term “hoarding” somewhere between these two extremes? We believe so. 

Just as we often label others “rich” simply on the basis that they have more than we have, don’t we sometimes label others as “hoarders” on a similar basis? If we have a one car garage with one car parked inside and our rich neighbor has a six car garage containing a variety of exotic automobiles, wouldn’t it be tempting to label our rich neighbor as a “hoarder” of automobiles? If our neighbor on the next block over doesn’t have any car at all, we possibly look upon them as being “poor.” We usually perceive ourselves, however, as being situated quite righteously in the middle of these two extremes. But let’s take a look at ourselves from our neighbor’s point of view. Our rich neighbor could just as easily perceive us, with our one car garage and old jalopy sitting inside, as poor, in much the same way we perceive our poor neighbor who doesn’t have any car at all. And, our poor neighbor, without a car, may perceive us as being “rich.” 

The usage of the terms “poor” and “rich” is often a misappropriation of sorts and we do ourselves a great disservice when we attempt applying them to anyone other than ourselves. This is an especially hazardous undertaking when we travel outside our own cultures and view, through our “American Eyes,” the extreme differences in standards of living respective to those of our foreign neighbors. We can certainly be thankful when noting these comparative differences, but do we also struggle with some measure of guilt in the process? Do we sometimes feel compelled to walk with a financial limp before those whom we perceive as being financially lame so as to make ourselves feel less guilty about our comparative prosperity? Do we sometimes pity others who have less, according to our own definitions of what less is, and why are we sometimes obsessed with the need to be the great economic equalizer among those whom we perceive to be less fortunate? Would a worldwide uniform standard of living be desirable? Is a worldwide uniform standard of living achievable? And, why are the terms “hoarding” and “hoarders” suddenly re-emerging in recent times when discussions arise as to the handling of personal finances and preparations for retirement? Is it quite possible the reason these terms are being re-energized is because the expanding gulf between rich and poor, in our own country, is becoming more noticeable? 

The Term “Hoarding” Reincarnated

What’s up with the revived interest in the usage of the terms “hoarding” or “hoarder”? Former President Bill Clinton supplied, unbeknownst to him, the answer to this question when he, on numerous occasions, said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” 

When the economy was rolling along quite nicely people often had two SUVs parked in the oversized garages that adjoined their McMansions and they were planning their next cruise, shopping extravaganza, and house flipping party. Life was good…even if it was on borrowed money. No one really cared what the President was doing or what was going on in the world. 

Well, flipping houses has flopped and the house flipping parties are over. The McMansion is in foreclosure, the cars have been repossessed, the jobs are gone, and people are scared. They are really scared. The words of former President Clinton are as true today, during this current economic crisis, as they were during the boom. The reason the usage of the terms “hoarding” and “hoarder” have seen such a revival is because of the economy. No one really minds being charitable during the good times when enjoying what could be perceived as perpetual prosperity. But, was it real prosperity we were enjoying or was it the false illusion of prosperity? Was it a false prosperity built on the shifting sands of debt or was it true prosperity built on the bedrock of savings? Is it now quite possible many of those finding themselves trapped by the folly of the financial bubble are enviously viewing the “hoarders,” who didn’t succumb to the temptation of living beyond their means, as their financial escape hatch or social safety net? Will the “hoarders” capitulate? Not voluntarily.

The revival of the terms “hoarding” and “hoarder” is a natural occurrence associated with a tapped out and debt ridden consumer. Charitable contributions are understandably dropping and they are dropping drastically as individual households are appropriately retrenching from two and a half decades of irresponsible spending and consumption when many households used inflated home prices to leverage their consumption and charitable giving by borrowing against their home equity. 

Since the stock market crash in 2000, the economy has been on a steady downward spiral and many disillusioned stock market investors viewed real estate as a safe haven for their investment funds. Later, when the real estate bubble also popped, these same investors suddenly found themselves immobilized, like deer caught in the headlights, with an illiquid portfolio of real estate, not enough cash flow, and possibly no job. The liquidity crisis quickly spread to the rest of the financial markets that had irresponsibly pyramided derivative products on top of an already overextended and overleveraged property market. The rest of the story is like watching dominoes fall. The next dominoes to fall are the commercial real estate market and residential option ARM re-sets. The crisis in real estate is far from over. 

During the boom times, local, county, state, and federal bureaucracies expanded with reckless abandon. Many charitable and religious institutions also increased their own bureaucracies and overhead. This institutional obesity was symbolized best, in the religious realm, by the evolution of the megachurch. Many of these religious institutions are bearing unsustainable debt loads and are on the financial ropes sucking wind alongside their members who are currently dealing with personal bankruptcy, foreclosure, and sustained unemployment. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/us/30brfs-MEGACHURCHMA_BRF.html

Governments use force (taxes) and fraud (inflation) to extract needed funding, in this declining economy, while charitable institutions and churches often use false guilt to extract needed funding from those they’ve become dependent on. 

Socialist or collectivist thinking has invaded both government and religious institutions and while government can always resort to coercive taxation to get needed funding, they desire to package their forced extractions into more palatable rhetoric like the religious institutions do. The charitable and religious institutions use words such as “hoarding” to make people feel guilty for looking out after their own self-interests (family and household). In the secular realm, hoarders are frequently labeled as isolationists, as being anti-social, or as not being socially responsible. Government and religious institutions serve as brokers in the redistribution of wealth…after, of course, they take their quite respectable cuts squarely off the top to service severely bloated administrative budgets and other costly overhead. A fact grossly overlooked, in the fog of labeling and name calling, is that if households had been more diligent in looking out after their own self-interests, prior to the economic downturn, there would have been fewer personal bankruptcies, foreclosures, and much less stress on our existing social safety nets that are now looking extremely distended and frayed. 

Keeping Up With The Joneses Psychosis

We can clearly see that the need to keep up with the Joneses, to our own detriment, during the credit bubble, was not a psychosis exclusive to individuals but it was also a dis-ease embraced by governments, corporations, financial institutions, and many religious groups. We would contend that the obsession to keep up with the Joneses, at the individual or institutional level, is a not-so-distant cousin to the obsessive compulsive psychosis associated with those “hoarders,” previously described, who constantly enlarge their inventory of acquisitions simply for the sake of acquiring them. In the case of individuals and institutions obsessed with the idea of living beyond their means, did not the psychosis take on the characteristics of being a nationwide obsessive compulsive behavioral pandemic? The escalating rate of individual and corporate bankruptcies and home foreclosures would suggest that the answer to that question is yes. 

Although it might make us all feel better when we watch daytime TV shows that depict the obsessive compulsive behaviors of others who have seemingly pointless habits, wouldn’t we all be better served by focusing on more pertinent behaviors? Have any of these rather benign behaviors contributed to the implosion of our national economy? 

Now that we’ve discussed what hoarding is and how the usage of the word has morphed into something else entirely and the reasons why, we are now ready to move into the next phase of the discussion in Part III of this four part series where we will analyze the interview Craig Ford had with the poor people of PNG. We believe you will find Part III very interesting. 

----

Are YOU a Hoarder? Are You Sure? (Part I of a Four Part Series)

----

Hoarding is a word often bandied about as if everyone intuitively knows what it means and it is usually, in this day and age, associated with something disdainful. We know that hoarding has to be evil because when someone uses the word they crunch up their face, crinkle their nose, and look as if they are trying to barf up their breakfast. 

Has the common usage of the word “hoarding” strayed a bit from the dictionary definition? We’re a bit suspicious the meaning of the word has been intentionally hijacked on a couple of fronts and we think we understand why. We are going to attempt to cull the stray usages of the word out from the more accurate dictionary definition and properly throw a rope on ‘em, brand ‘em and send these bawlin’ strays back to their mommas where they belong.

The inspiration for this post came from a couple of postings by Craig Ford at Money Help for Christians titled How Much Savings for Retirement is Enough? and The Rich and Poor: My Interview With The Poor People of PNG. Both articles are linked below and are worthy of a close read.

http://www.moneyhelpforchristians.com/how-much-savings-for-retirement-is-enough/

http://www.moneyhelpforchristians.com/the-rich-and-poor-my-interview-with-the-poor-people-of-png/

Craig Ford is a missionary evangelist in Papua, New Guinea (PNG). Craig was curious about how the poor people he interacts with perceive his standard of living, as compared to theirs, and what their attitudes were about money, how they defined or described the “rich," what they thought they needed to do to be rich, whether being rich was a worthy goal, the advantages and disadvantages of being poor, and what they expected of the “rich” when it comes to benevolence extended them. This article was of particular interest to us because it demonstrates very clearly how our beliefs about money affect our financial destinies. It also reaffirms how unquestioned beliefs are often passed from one generation to the next with rather predictable outcomes. 

The first article we linked to, on retirement, deals with the very interesting and elusive topic of how much is enough when it comes to saving for retirement. Craig uses Luke 12:16-21 as a guide in determining when enough is enough and labels those who have too much as being hoarders. Craig derives his conclusion from focusing on the fact the “rich man” in the story had what might be considered an over abundance of riches. We disagree with Craig’s conclusion because there are Biblical examples of those having an over abundance of riches who were not disparaged in this manner. So what is the answer? In our view, as stated in verse 21, it was not the “rich man’s” over abundance of riches that was the problem, but rather his scarcity toward God. In other words, the “rich man” was rich in things, but was bankrupt toward God. A person not rich toward God is a person not living with an attitude of gratitude.

How do the two linked articles above relate to one another? The two articles deal with two groups of people…the rich and the poor. The assumption is that those who have a surplus they’ve set aside for retirement are rich and those who don’t have a surplus set aside for the future are poor. An additional assumption is that the “rich” have a duty to help the poor and that the rich might really have more than they need anyway.

We thank Craig for these two postings because we will be drawing heavily from them as we form an answer to the question stated in the title to our post…Are YOU a Hoarder? Are You Sure? Normally, we avoid attempting to answer questions for others and prefer, instead, to seek the answers to life’s critical questions for ourselves since we’ve learned long ago that we have no control over the behavior of others nor believe such control is desirable. In this case, however, the answer to the question of hoarding is so universal, unequivocal, and straightforward that we felt we were safe in directing the question to the reader directly. 

The question of hoarding is a vitally important question because the perversion of the meaning of words is the basis of misunderstanding, social conflict, tyranny, and oppression. In our view, the perversion of the meaning of words has facilitated the advance of collectivist (socialist) thinking and action in government, public education, AND religion. When these misrepresentations are appropriately stripped away and we see the naked truth underneath them we are then faced with the choice of clinging to our old beliefs or accepting new and more empowering beliefs. Our beliefs and associated choices determine our destinies. We urge you to begin this journey with us by reading the linked postings above before going any further as they will give much weight to what we have to say going forward. 

We will not only be answering the question of whether or not you are a hoarder, but we will also be chasing down the ever elusive answer to the question of when enough is enough when it comes to saving for retirement. 

Defining Our Terms

Words have significance. How can we logically communicate with each other and share vital information if we don’t understand how we each may be defining important words? We don’t have to agree with each other’s definition of terms, but if we want to understand the human dynamics going on around us and how the world works we had better define our own terms, determine how other people define them, note the differences, and have a plan to deal with these differences when we interact with one another so we can have more harmonious interpersonal relationships and outcomes. The goal of good communication is not uniformity in our thoughts, beliefs, and actions, but rather it is about understanding how our fellow human beings think, believe, and act so we can better interact with them in relative peace and harmony.

So, let’s begin by exploring the meaning of the word hoarding. How can we know if we are a hoarder if we haven’t yet defined it?

The dictionary defines hoarding as the simple act of…storing up supplies or money beyond our current needs. That definition doesn’t sound so evil does it? When someone crinkles up their nose and crunches up their face when using this term, what definition are THEY using? It must mean something more to them than what the dictionary implies.

If you type in the word “hoarding” into your favorite search engine what usually comes up first are articles associated with obsessive compulsive behavior disorders involving people labeled as “hoarders” who have an obsession to collect things to the extent their lives and sometimes their health (physical or mental) are adversely affected. People diagnosed with this behavioral disorder will sometimes collect so many things that they can hardly traverse from one room of their house to the next. Items they’ve collected are stacked floor-to-ceiling or from furniture-to-ceiling and they move about their house and from room to room via narrow passageways and aisles they’ve created between these stacked items. They are not generally collecting these items as a means to an end, but rather seem to be collecting these items as an end unto itself. 

We will dismiss that usage of the word “hoarding” as not being germane to the discussion because most people saving toward retirement are looking forward to retiring with great anticipation and saving money is a definite component to achieve that end. And, many retirees are finding out that they’ve miscalculated how much money is needed in retirement. Most retirement calculations are based on the government’s calculation of the inflation rate which is deceptively low compared to the actual rate of inflation. The government’s purposeful miscalculation of the inflation rate excludes the high cost of housing, food, and energy from its index. This deceit is by no means an accident because the government’s calculation of the inflation rate is also used to determine cost of living raises for government employees, government retirees, and social security recipients. The government’s calculation of the inflation rate is often factored into the benefits and compensation packages of corporate employees and retirees. This deceit has allowed for the scaling down of wages and retirement benefits across all sectors, public and private. This deceit will no doubt continue and become even more pronounced in the future since most people are seemingly unaware of its existence. 

It is also becoming even more important to save aggressively for retirement, of late, due to the current economic conditions prevailing upon us as more and more corporations are going bankrupt and not honoring their pension promises. In addition, banksters and politicians have reached and are continuing to reach into all of our wallets to fix what they broke. The banksters and politicians we are relying on to fix this mess are the same ones who did not see the financial train wreck coming until the derailed cars were strewn for miles and miles in all directions. Matter of fact, these very same banksters and politicians were the ones shoveling coal (credit) into the engine of this runaway financial train while ignoring the numerous warnings of impending disaster just up ahead. Well, the train wreck is still a work in progress and the taxpayer is on the hook for picking up the tab. So, saving for retirement and emergencies are even more important now than ever before. 

Far too many people, including Christians, have placed far too much faith in government to fix the very things the government broke in the first place. The deceived taxpayer is literally signing a blank check and has no idea of what the final amount printed on the check will be. Again, this is an on-going swindle of uncertain duration and cost; and the moral hazard associated with its continuance is compounding by the day. Before it is over many individuals will want and expect a personal bailout themselves without any regard as to how their own choices and misplaced faith in government and political hacks contributed to their plight. These individuals will show increasing willingness to use the political process to pillage the wallets of their neighbors and there seems to be no shortage of political prostitutes to accommodate their lusts and desires. The ranks of the unemployed are growing by leaps and bounds and there seems to be no end in sight; and there is also a growing expectation that their basic needs will be met by society at large. 

What does all this mean? It means that the remaining employed, are not only going to be pillaged by government and corporate pickpockets, but they will also be pillaged by the growing entitlement mentality among the newly minted “poor.” There will, however, come a day that the entitlement check bounces and it will be returned marked with the startling words, “account overdrawn.” There has never been a society that has traveled the path we are currently on that has escaped the inevitable conclusion of national bankruptcy and the end of empire. 

Should it give us any real comfort to be able to blame others for our individual plight once we recognize our own choices may have contributed to the crisis? Did we buy into the credit bubble swindle? Did we flip houses and use our homes as ATM machines thinking this real estate bubble and associated credit bubble were somehow different than the financial bubbles of the past? Did we buy the lie that spending money, beyond our means, was the patriotic thing to do? Did the deceivers snooker us or did we snooker ourselves with our own financial greed, the lure of easy credit, and the lust of the eye? In blaming the banksters and the government for our plight, are we not piously negating our own personal responsibility? If we so easily exercise tyranny upon ourselves, with our own false beliefs and choices, what hope do we have of overcoming the tyranny of the government, the banksters, or the political prostitutes and their johns (voter)? If we continue to place our faith in these scoundrels are we not, to some degree, accomplices to the tyranny and economic oppression that befalls us?

To be continued…

----