“$143 trillion amounts to 85% of the net wealth Americans have accuмulated since the nation’s founding, estimated by the Federal Reserve to be $169 trillion"

Luke 16:1-9

At that time, Jesus spoke to His disciples this parable: There was a certain rich man who had a steward, who was reported to him as squandering his possessions. And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear of you? Make an accounting of your stewardship, for you can be steward no longer.’ And the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do, seeing that my master is taking away the stewardship from me? To dig I am not able; to beg I am ashamed. I know what I shall do, that when I am removed from my stewardship they may receive me into their houses.’ And he summoned each of his master’s debtors and said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ And he said, ‘A hundred jars of oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bond and sit down at once and write fifty.’ Then he said to another, ‘How much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred kors of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bond and write eighty.’ And the master commended the unjust steward, in that he had acted prudently; for the children of this world, in relation to their own generation, are more prudent than the children of the light. And I say to you, make friends for yourselves with the mammon of wickedness, so that when you fail they may receive you into the everlasting dwellings.

Luke 16:1-9

I sat there in Mass today, puzzled as usual whenever I hear this passage.  I have never understood this passage of Scripture.  It's never made any sense to me how the master could be happy with the steward going around and writing down everyone's debts.  Nowhere does it say that the debtors were unable to pay the full amount of their debts, just that the steward went around and "did everyone a solid", so to speak.  It makes sense that they would be grateful to him, and would find some way to repay him for his generosity to them, but he basically gave away some of the master's goods, apparently so that he would have some sustenance after he got fired.  Shouldn't the master have been angry with him for doing that, instead of commending him?  Neither does it say anywhere that the master had acted unjustly in requiring the full payment of the debts.