What a great way to explain socialism…had to pass this on.
A simple analogy
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had
never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire
class.
That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be
poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class
on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive
the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied
little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had
studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a
free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all
resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of
anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that
socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great,
the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the
reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
I have been reading this blog for a long time now, without ever leaving a comment. This time, I must comment. BC....BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is so true.
Thanks for sharing.
Sounds like the Town Council.
Excellent. Very good point BC.
Time to enlighten us BC on the Rose issue. What is your side?
Brian,
Been on the internet for months.
No it does not sound like the Town Council it sounds like every last one of us that are trying to get our 3 minutes of fame. Bravo BC well put and now let us all look forward and work towards that A
anon 7:12,
In due time!
I accept the argument that "socialism" is not a perfect solution.
But, Capitalism also has problems. When the market is set up to value limited supplies, that market is set up to make only a few rich and the Majority significantly less advantaged.
This is why we have mega rich people and the rest of us believe we are middle class. Recent statistics say 1 out of 6 homes are or will go into foreclosure.
Does this sound like the perfect way to run a population?
Perhaps there are better ways. Perhaps we should start with the question, "what do we value the most?". Don't we all value time with our family as the most valuable? Don't all value clean air, soil, etc?
Your attack on socialism is lacking.
What is new?
Nick
Brian,
Well written, I hope this country isn't headed down this dangerous road..
Nick...if you don't want to work to be at the top that's your CHOICE, don't blame the foreclosures on greedy banks, don't forget there were greedy people out there trying to get more than they could afford..remember you have choice with capitalism..where are your choices with socialism???
Nick,
Attack on Socialism? I think it was just one example from the internet. if you truly favor Socialism I am glad that you did not get enough votes last election. Thats a major platform that you did not divulge.
Nick,
What does "the market is set up to value limited supplies" mean? No one "set up" the market. The market is raw information reflecting the decisions and desires of free people. It's just you might not like what the market says.
The market loves plentiful resources like computing, the cost of which has fallen about 99% in the last ten years. That's why you can afford the computer you are typing on now. Historically speaking that product is almost free and unlimited in supply today. Price is not determined simply by supply but by the value that free men and women put on goods and services.
"Majority significantly less advantaged" than the rich” yes but the majority is more advantaged under capitalism than any other system. Never have the majority of the population been as well off as under American capitalism. Would you rather be living in a shack secure in the knowledge that everyone else has a shack too? Not me.
Under capitalism we make the decisions every day as to what we value most. If you value time with your family above all, quite your job and go on welfare... spend all the time you want with them. Oh you sometimes value a nice house more than time with the family, under capitalism you are "Free to Choose".
I encourage you to get rich yourself but unless you are counting on the lottery be prepared for hard work. Studying economics would be a good start.
False argument, as I said both are not perfect.
And, "working to be at the top" is way off. "Blue collar" workers work harder than "white collar" workers. At the end of their (blue collar) day they are tired, and can look back at what they have done. White collar workers don't (on average) have an exhausting day.
"Greedy Banks", again you don't seem to understand my argument. Capatalism values limited supplies, De Beers for example burns some of their diamonds to keep the supply low thus keeping the value high. Oil production is kept low to keep its' value high. The underlying theme is limited supply makes it valuable.
A blog is no place for a full discussion, if you don't get it, then you don't get it.
The email you received was designed to get you to say what you have. Your lack of thought demonstrates the power and control "they" have over you. Their is a name for followers, "sheeple".
Move along, into your chorale.
Nick
Like you said in your message Nick:
'You just do not get it'
Wow Nick, you are exposing your true colors. You resent successful people, even if they worked hard to get where they are. You have a chip on your shoulder, as if you are a victim. We are not sheep because we believe in free enterprise. We gave you lattitude during your campaign because we respected youthful enthusiasm, even if naive. Now you are coming across as bitter.
Your implying that I am not successful or a hard worker? I am an IT Manager, I am successful. I broke my back and neck a long time ago, and I over came that too. My work output is second to no one. I can physically out work most young people, and I make my company tons of money.
Your comments are all typical Republican. Most of your comments are personal attacks. Not very classy.
Now you are calling me a Socialist because I bring up positives about socialism and negatives about capitalisms, when all the while my point is that there must be a better system out there.
And if you think you have choices in this capitalistic market, then you once again are blind, deaf, and dumb.
Notice who keeps signing their remarks and who doesn't. I can debate anyone and stand behind my name and my arguments.
None of you have the mustard to leave your name, cause you know your arguments are selfish.
All of my proposed bills were all about helping people. Every blog on this site is about how you don't want to share anything. Your A-Moralism is an act of self destruction.
And by the way, the internet was created by the Federal Goverment, so were computers, the highway, and the postal service. Without them, most companies would not succeed.
Enjoy your Republican party ;-)
Nick
Nick,
Why would Debeers burn diamonds? Storage costs in a vault too high? They really want to spend million digging them up to burn them as opposed to simply reducing production?
As for oil, capitalism is not the whole story here in that you may have heard of the cartel managed (not by greedy corporations but gasp) by national governments. Exxon is not holding back production Saudi Arabia is.
"if you don't get it, then you don't get it." Looks like you are raising the white flag.
Who is "they?" Nick "Paranoia Runs Deep into your heart it will creep..."
I have one example where socialism has worked: The National Football League. With revenue sharing, the successful owners carry the idiot loser owners and the league is remarkably balanced and even the idiots can sneak in and win every so often. Fan interest is off the charts and the money keeps rolling in. That's it. Carry on.
Nick,
You said... ""Blue collar" workers work harder than "white collar" workers. At the end of their (blue collar) day they are tired, and can look back at what they have done. White collar workers don't (on average) have an exhausting day."
Sorry Nick but value isn't based upon the amount of physical labor but value of what is produced. Splitting wood by hand with a splitting maul is hard work but produces little value, designing a drought resistant strain of corn is not physically demanding but could save a million lives. Which would you suggest is more valuable to society?
Drop the proletarian bs please this isn't 1917. We have seen your movie before, it doesn't have a happy ending.
Nick,
I wish you were right. I wish the opinions expressed in opposition to yours were the values of the Republican Party. If they were, the Republicans would be in power and we would all be much better off. Unfortunately they have become another party advocating big government with little consideration for the Constitution.
I'm happy to sign blog postings.
You seemed like a nice enough guy when we met but I find virtually all of your ideas to be ill-formed and ill-considered. I strongly disagree with almost everything you say.
Regards,
Doug Newell
Corn has zero nutritional value.
And, I thought it was you.
Appreciate adding your name.
I will not continue this discussion as I don't think either of us will budge.
Nick
Was this page taken out of an old EDFP meeting.
I remember once they had all the answers and look at them now DISOLVED!
Now they are called ADTP.
Same ole snake different skin thats all
Wow!True colors it is! Thankfully no one had ever taken this kid seriously when he was desperate to get into some elected position. I will enjoy the Republican Party. I've never wanted to bash his ridiculous ideas that he continues to post on here, because he seemed harmless.
8:48... have you used your part of the saving from consolidation to vacation in Florida lately? No? What's that... creating a monopoly only served to raise costs and give the unions more power? Go figure.
EDFD meetings were the closest thing I've seen to democracy since I moved here and the lower tax rates in the district were an embarsement to DFD. But our "well paid" politicians took care of that.
EDFD Commisioners where even more crocked than the council we have.
Talk about the Unions with big pay.
Just look at the Package they gave Nadeua when he left.
$95000.00 thats not peanuts
and we also now all pay the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"we also now all pay the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Ah another socialist. Good everning Comrade.
The people who argue that capitalism works are the same people who argue that we should have less government interference in the market. Now, I'm all for less government; however, the plain fact of the matter is that capitalism can’t function without this interference; capitalism relies on an expanded state to balance aggregate supply and demand. But clearly Capitalism goes beyond economics. It's impossible to talk about capitalism without talking about political and social viewpoints. Capitalism is rooted in views about individual rights, liberty and human nature. In theoretical capitalism, the world revolves around the individual, the individual is inherently good, and individual self-interest benefits society as a whole. History proves that the actual practice of capitalism is quite the different story.
We already have a level of socialism here in the U.S.-- social security, energy and food prices subsidized by tax cuts, Medicare, federal highways, (and yup anon 7:33, the NFL) etc. So the question isn't whether we should be capitalist or socialist, but what combination of the two we should seek. People do work harder when (a) they need to and (b) they want to.
With capitalism and socialism we need to find the right balance to provide a basic lower standard of living, without removing the incentive to work.
"capitalism relies on an expanded state to balance aggregate supply and demand."
Huh??? Not sure where you studied economics but it may not be too late to ask for a refund.
MA in Economics, Northwestern University, 1969. My point wasn't to have a debate on Keynesian theory vs. monetary theories; although I will say that the "do nothing" approach prevailed until the Great Depression and this economic catastrophe caused Keynesian economics to become influential. I'm assuming we wouldn't be in agreement about how to achieve desired macro outcomes but I could at least debate either theory without having an ad hominem argument which I see wouldn't be easy for you. Course your comment seems right on target for this blog and resonates with; "if you don't like it, move"!
Forget it anon 8:53, I don't think the "Huh???" was meant in the context of disagreement but rather they didn't understand the statement therefore the need for the personal attack. But I would like to know why a system like Keynesianism gets better results than pure capitalism, when it shouldn’t work at all. Yet work it has, and we have lived our whole lives under it, in a time of not only great prosperity and peace, but relative equality (until the last 10 years or so.) This is remarkable. People keep trying to tell me that capitalism works, and I keep asking "When?" "Where?" The system they praise might not ever have existed, but the closer we get to it, the more misery results. That's history.
You might check out the "Economic History of the United States" by Milton and Rose Friedman.
By the way if "capitalism relies on an expanded state to balance aggregate supply and demand." then logically the expanded state must come before the growth of capitalism. Check you history books it didn't happen in that order.
So what happens in your view if the expanded state (taking property at the point of a gun from those who created the wealth) was not there.. if aggregate supply and demand were what "out of balance"?
Sorry but I've got to say huh? to "The system they praise might not ever have existed, but the closer we get to it, the more misery results." I think you need to recheck your history. When has there been a country with a general population that is as affluent as the USA? I live better than any king or emperor who lived before the rise of capitalism, so do you.
Where is the most misery and where is the most capitalism? Contrast the U.S. (one of the more capitalistic countries) to the economic stagnation of socialist Europe. To the third world? (can't call it the “developing world”... it isn't.) No one outside of N. Korea or Cambridge is crazed enough to suggest Communism is better.
Also, why do you think equality is a good thing? If my neighbor sits on his ass and I cure cancer we should be treated equally? I find that abhorrent and ultimately incredibly destructive to society. (Because I won’t cure cancer and you may die of it.) In doing well for myself I do even better for others. Capitalism is the only moral system. Taking the product of my labors and my intelligence at the point of a gun to give to someone you deem to be more worthy is immoral. It is theft and I won’t be robbed.
7:33 It's been 20 years since I read it but I believe the book is the "The Monetary History of the United States."
Also I think we can bring his "expanded state balancing supply and demand" back to a local example. Let's take a million dollars for example. That million could have bought 3 houses in Derry providing shelter to families for dozens or hundreds of years, or given 5 Derry children Ivy League educations, or made 500 to 1000 mortgage payments, or started a local business. But instead our wise leaders saw there was too much demand so they used the power of the state to take that money and turn it into a worthless EIS Study for a 4A project that will never happen. No one will ever read the book, no one will be entertained by its plot; it will sit on a shelf, unfinished until the wise leaders are all dead at which time a petty bureaucrat will feel that it is safe to throw it away to be recycled into toilet paper.
We will have zero dollars and zero assets to show for it. 0=0 Balance is achieved. It's a Ying/Yang thing those ADT people are not smart enough to understand. They probably did not even go to an Ivy.
Post a Comment