Thur. morning, 7.19.12 Joanna Brooks on radio re BusinessWee

[_lulu]

cover streaming live here
http://www.wnyc.org/

10:00 am to noon EDT, the Brian Lehrer Show. This is NYC's NPR station, very intellegent interviewer. I don't know the exact time she will be on and I doubt she will take the whole 2 hours.

[_lulu]

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/Brian Laundrie/2012/jul/19/Mormonism/

the take away "aggressive pragmatic asset management."

[_angsty]

Did she just try to sell “We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” as "a basic Christian Principle"? Her ability to spin is fascinating.

[_Stormy Waters]

I thought it was interesting the way that she justified the corporate holdings as a way to subsidize the expansion of the church into poorer countries. Although, I would think that if you have enough of a surplus to build a 2 billion dollar mall money isn't a real problem.
I'll give her credit though. It's a better explanation than the 'job creation' line others have offered.

[_moksha]

I thought it was interesting the way that she justified the corporate holdings as a way to subsidize the expansion of the church into poorer countries.

When a massive project drains the coffers, you ask yourself if we really needed the Hotel Dubai, expecially if it does not contribute to the goal of continual expansion into third world countries.

[_Drifting]

I thought it was interesting the way that she justified the corporate holdings as a way to subsidize the expansion of the church into poorer countries. Although, I would think that if you have enough of a surplus to build a 2 billion dollar mall money isn't a real problem.
I'll give her credit though. It's a better explanation than the 'job creation' line others have offered.

It would be if the $5 billion dollar project was forecast to make a healthy profit. It's not. McMullin himself admitted in the interview with Businesweek that it didn't make commercial sense and if decided upon using a financial return basis then it wouldn't have happend.

McMullin explains that City Creek exists to combat urban blight, not to fill church coffers. “Will there be a return?” he asks rhetorically. “Yes, but so modest that you would never have made such an investment—the real return comes in folks moving back downtown and the revitalization of businesses.” Businessweek

The reason, the ony reason, for City Creek is that the Church wanted to make downtown Salt Lake City less of a ghost town and less scruffy and they spent $5 billion of the widows mite doing so. Joanna's spin is disingenuous if she is trying to promote the view that returns from City Creek are going to help the spiritually unblossomed temporally impoverished people of the world.

[_Stormy Waters]

Well it looks like they need to get their story straight.