*Thanks JSMINESET.*
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had 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 the present administration’s plan".
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.
If you like this post, consider subscribing to my full feed RSS.
.jpg){kind=small}
You bring us a false dichotomy, Jay. And, it doesn't escape me that this is a political hit piece, with an intent to paint Obama's policies as Socialism.
Surely, you know better than that.
Here is why it is false: Socialism does reward those who work. True socialism compensates (rewards) for the amount of labor produced, as opposed to the Capitalistic method, which minimizes labor wages and overhead to try and make even MORE money for those that lift not a single finger.
Rich "capitalists" bitch about low wage folks and how some take advantage of the system. But the system is rigged against the normal man.
One can argue and debate Socialism vs Capitalism, but let us use realistic analogies to do so.
In your thought experiment, there is no individual fervor or initiative taken into consideration. Even Socialists can be competitive.
I advise studying Socialism from more of a perspective than what we are hearing from Tea baggers and the like. "Socialism" isn't some easily defined entity. There are two basic trains of thought, reformist and revolutionary. One is more attuned to the story line above, one is not.
Capitalism has proved itself a dismal failure when it comes to the overall citizenry. Only a very few really enrich and excel themselves via Capitalism while the others are shit out of luck. Lapping up the crumbs.
Then we get to the place we are now: Big Money owns and controls every aspect of our existence as a nation (Good or bad).
I think a mix of capitalism and socialism is best. Socialism when it comes to health and the poor.
And i don't know what TRUE socialism is so if you have a post or link i can go to to see exactly what you mean that would help...
Socialism is pretty vague, unless absolutely focused on finance. One of the very best descriptions of the socialistic value system I ever read is from Albert Einstein:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19037.htm
The issue with mixing is that in the end you have neither one of them.
Exactly its not best to have 100% of one or 100% of the other. First, all of this doesn't matter because I came to the conclusion that the type of system we want, where liberty is priority but power cannot be concentrated so unevenly is almost impossible unless every citizen knows history and economics, and participates in the policy of gov. Everybody wants to have the easy life and not focus on complex problems. This is why ELITES can exist. They make sure the serfs are just content enough to not revolt but poor enough to keep the top percentile rich. And they also are masters of psyops, keeping the people divided or confused. Morally, the society must have some kind of ethical standards. People should have that conscience that presses them to help others succeed if they themselves have succeeded.
Anyway... I've read that Einstein piece, it's interesting.
" I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger."
This is Bilderberg's reason for creating a world government. They finance and create wars until we beg for the solution provided by them. A world gov, no sovereignty.
Besides that, I agree with his whole argument.
"Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?"
But like I said above, this type of system requires a society that doesn't worship money, greed, and status to execute this system successfully. Basically, there is deterioration of man, like Einstein said, that must be reversed and fixed before this system could work without producing another RULING CLASS that plans everything for the serfs according to their own selfish needs.
Great discussion Buelahman
YEAH. I AGREE. VERY STRONG DEBATE. AMERIKKKANS HAVE TO FOLLOW YOUR EXAMPLES OR IT´S CURTAINS FOR THEM. LIKE THE WAY NEITHER OF YOU "REIFY" THE WORD SOCIALISM RATHER GOING DEEPER AND BROADER WITH THE CONCEPT.
I fall somewhere between you both on the subject, because unlike the cartel capitallism which nearly destroyed the Russian Republic from 1994 through 2000, I am very impressed with the way most South American countries have recognied the limiting argument in all or nothing social contract.
Communism will work on a kibbutz and maybe within a grange, but it´s not working in its plutocatic form, let alone any definitioo of the state "melting away."
It comes down to this. every modern capitalist needs SOCIALISM FOR FAIRNESS and markets for EFFCIENT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES. Wealth concentration is a massive problem because the poor and working class will have rightfully so, a lack of societal commitment. And the cartel will be able to do what they want, and as we´ve found out this year, THERE IS NO BOTTOM TO THEIR GREED.
But expropriation is just as bad. And it will be violent. Take that to the bank and borrow against it.
Chavez and Correa seem to have come up with something that is pretty fair and pretty efficient. Venezuela has a non-planned soccial-deocratic republic which in 1998 made the call of allowing the ultra-rich to keep their money run a tight fiscal and monetary ship and with aggressive moves to avoid inflation but maintaining enough of a rainy day fund to allow a generous socialsector, which is as good for the owners ofthe means of production as well as for the workers´ themselve. Chavez is a real auto-didact because he was voted in it was on a platform of a RETURN OF SIMON BOLIVAR, kicking AmericçKKKab nmiliary out, getting Cargill out of their AG business and doing corporate finance the correct and understanable way.If an elitist Perez/Gomez affiliated company went bust, there would be no bailout. Division of assets would follow the rules of corporate finance(1) if the unions agree the rank and file´s pension claim would put them at the head of the line, followed by the normal senioriy ofdebt down to oreferred stockholder with common stock holders getting a fringe amount at best.
There was no rightto allow a failed business to stay in receivership indefinitely. Short work-out period and if no progres, good bye commonstockholders, lets cut this thing up the right ways and it however the convenants held division of assets was more or less the guide.
When this worked chavez created lots and lots of new millionaires but noadd-ons to billionaire failures.
If you go back to Adam Smith and then take a look at Black-Scholes, you´d swear Hugo Chavez far from being a dictatorial thug, is one of a very few classical conservatives if not the only one amnng the top 50 countries. American propagandists ndon´t hate him for his none existent communist or terrorist "VIEWS." They hate him forbeing too good a capitalist conservative.
Thr tax issue is a joke. No AmeriKKKan alive would prefer the IRS to the HACIENDA. Wealth transfer using the TAX COLLECTOR IS A OONFISCATORY AND TRULY FASCIST WAY TO CORRECT WEALTH DISRIBUTION. ONly the dumbest deluded "faux-gressive" could come up with that.
What works for Venezuela a natural resource and green techh powerhouse, could never work in Panaaa which is a commecial banking a trade giant. Perez-BAlladares went the opposite way with 18%-82% cullective/indiidual, added some great "libertarian ideas," such as: no military, de militarized police, 5% sales tax and a flat personal and corporate rate, with no tax on foreign source, ironclad privacy rights, anda Privacy Of Contract Law That works too.
Many ways to skin a cat if that cat is corporate fascsim.
I thought this was appropriate for this conversation (and it is a good one, Jay).
What has morphed into what we call "Free-market capitalism" is nothing more than an unfair advantage for those who have access to money over the vast majority that don't.
Greed will always rule. It always has and always will.
So regulation and reform (as the author of the following link suggests) should be imperative. IF we are going to continue this model, it needs huge reform and a dedicated effort towards social welfare since this model is forcing the need.
By far, most of the people that I know that don't work aren't slackers. It is because there are no jobs. And for the ones that are recently made available (some new Stimulus funded road construction locally), most of the ground crew I see are Mexicans (which tells me that the wages are probably pretty low and the contracts went to firms that employ these lower wage folks). Just a guess. But there is not a very large Mexican population here.
I have passed through this congestion four times this week and kept an eye out for what the labor mix appeared to be (I did notice several more women who were white).
The machine operators, by and large, were white men. The ones who appeared to supervise (maybe engineers) were white.
But this area is mostly white folk (I would guess 85%).
Not sure what that observation means.
Anyway, read the following:
http://prorev.com/2009/11/world-dissatisfied-with-capitalism.html
I wanted to pick up on the educated populace that Jay touched on. The people have to be knowledgeable and conscious, desiring an active and collective part in the operation and functioning of whatever economic system they are in. Such is not what we are experiencing here in America today.
It's clear that the recent wealth transfer and divide can in many ways be attributed to a dumbing down of Americans. The quality of education has diminished considerably over the last several decades. To the detriment of our society the importance of education has taken a back seat to sports, entertainment, etc. It's a return to the dark ages.
Yeah Jay, this one was interesting.
Buelahman
The problem with that link is they say people don't like free market capitalism and think its failed them. but we don't have free market capitalism. We have a fascist economy where the corporations that are largest and most powerful are protected from any failures. In a free market me and you and all of us here would be happy cuz AIG, GOLDMAN, GM, CITIGROUP, B OF A, JP MORGAN, ALL OF THEM WOULD BE GONE!!
On top of that, if they knew that the risks they took on could lead them to total collapse with nobody to bail them out, they wouldn't have took the risks. That's what's missing.
I agree with KELSO that an economy needs some free markets to allocate resources efficiently.
And Nicki said what I said but with more skill and accuracy! lol you cant rob the people in broad day if they have some courage and are smart!
LOL
Yeah, the title says it all.
You are correct, what we have is NOT free market capitalism, but free market capitalism led to what we have now. We have taken the "free" (which should never be free to begin with) and totally untethered it and are allowing the elephant to roam wild as hell. It tramples everyone in its way that can't afford to move out of the way. It entices people to participate, only to stomp them back down to nothingness as they steal the last piece of bread from your hand.
But, alas, neither can we have the Socialism that Einstein speaks of (which is the ideal view). Why, because IT will become corrupted much the same way our current system has become.
Socialism does take an educated constituency. And what is falling for education on the subject right now is nothing more than the same old boogey man stories of old.
How do I feel about free market capitalism? It is a vampire that sucks until there is nothing but a shell left. Dead and wasted away.
Remember I have worked and owned my own business for a number of years and I have witnessed the demise first hand.
Raygun-Omics does NOT work and it is NOT free market capitalism.
The example posed by the professor is weak. Why? Because students in a class are a poor match for people working for an enterprise.
However, if you look at the experience of businesses that operated in the former Soviet Union and in East Germany, you will find that many of them failed when they had to compete with businesses that entered their markets after the fall of communism.
Notice that Cuba and North Korea export NOTHING of consequence. Why? Because their moronic governments hamstring their output with counter-productive rules, which results in shortages of goods.
IN the US, you can look at the public school system for an example of how socialist practices undermine quality.
Teachers are paid on a scale that rewards years of service and nothing else. Thus, when science and math teachers leave teaching for better pay in other fields, the teaching positions are usually left empty. If filled, they are filled by unqualified people.
The shortage of science and math teachers becomes a bargaining point to raise the salaries of ALL teachers. Teachers and their unions abhor paying some teachers more than others. The impact on students means nothing to those fighting to raise the paychecks of gym teachers when there is a shortage of math and science teachers.
Of course the ponderous school systems develop ponderous bureaucracies to handle all the issues that arise among the teachers and students.
However, even though students are the customers of school systems, they and their parents have few rights and get little respect among the operators of the school systems.
There is no need for the monopolistic bureaucracy to respond to the demands and concersn of the students because these customers have no power over the socialistic school system. It answers only to itself.
On the other hand it constantly demands more money from taxpayers.
To educate students in the latest school year, the Department of Education in NY City spent about $16,500.
The NYC DOE budget for the current year is about $17,000 per student. That's what socialism does for you. And NY City has the academic results to prove it.
By the way, the schools in NY City with the best students are the cheapest to run. They have no need for the vast amount of remedial efforts that are required at the schools with high percentages of minority students.
The top schools are run for about $10,000 per student. This there is a cost advantage to luring in the good students -- and they must be lured. The good schools are good because they require students to pass an entrance exam.
If they score high enough they get in. If not, they go to a school with a lot of less motivated students who cost more to educate.