A practical example of socialism

[wobbycarly]

Don't know if this is a true story or not, as it came via email - a usually credible source of info! However, I found it thought-provoking.



An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's 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 Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A....
(substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

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.

As the tests proceeded, 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.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED 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.

It could not be any simpler than that.


These are possibly the 5 best sentences that are applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Fantastic.

 

[mary&mat]

Ha ha, that's gold...or is it copper?

 

[lizzie]

Very well put ... another reason why the fundamentals of communisn doesn't work either.

 

[tom32]

I like it. It is missing a fundamental found in the USSR though and likely why it held together as long as it did.

If it was like real life socialism the professor would have needed a Siberian work camp to send those who failed the test to.

I bet they would have all passed then.

Socialism may not have a carrot approach but it usually involves some kind of stick for the lacklustre performers in society.

 

[wobbycarly]

I like it. It is missing a fundamental found in the USSR though and likely why it held together as long as it did.

If it was like real life socialism the professor would have needed a Siberian work camp to send those who failed the test to.

I bet they would have all passed then.

Socialism may not have a carrot approach but it usually involves some kind of stick for the lacklustre performers in society.

Nice! Sometimes I wish our bosses here had a Siberian work camp... but not for me, of course!

 

[gooram]

It certainly sounds true

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

Australia and it's psuedo socialist model already does this to a degree, and you could argue that it works.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

See previous comment.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

See previous comment.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

I'm not sure who said that it does, or why this statement is necessary. Are you suggesting that an uneven distribution of wealth is more productive than an even one?

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Why do you keep mentioning half? 80% of the world's population is at or below the poverty line and you are arguing that capitalism works??

 

[jaycee]

It certainly sounds true


Australia and it's psuedo socialist model already does this to a degree, and you could argue that it works.



See previous comment.



See previous comment.



I'm not sure who said that it does, or why this statement is necessary. Are you suggesting that an uneven distribution of wealth is more productive than an even one?


Why do you keep mentioning half? 80% of the world's population is at or below the poverty line and you are arguing that capitalism works??

I had the same question...

Even if socialism doesn't work, what is the moral of the story ?

 

[Aaron_C]

Why do you keep mentioning half? 80% of the world's population is at or below the poverty line and you are arguing that capitalism works??

I think you're talking about different causes here. Famine, bad climate etc are responsible for poverty rather than capitalism per se.

 

[wobbycarly]

I had the same question...

Even if socialism doesn't work, what is the moral of the story ?

I didn't write it, just copied and pasted.

It got me thinking, and that's what's good about it. Gooram raises some great points, too, but the moral of the story, in my mind, is that if you try and make everyone "average", then the average becomes less than average!

 

[kathryn d]

Poverty line.
I don't know the number it should be, but for the sake of this argument it is $25k for a family of 4.

Family lives on 50 acres. Raises enough pigs,chooks,goats..livestock to feed this family. There are fruit trees, and a vegetable garden that is enough to feed and store throughout the year. What seeds can be saved for future years, or bartered for ..is enough.
Excess eggs and produce is sold. What is not able to be provided for by the land, is purchased.

There is a wind turbine, solar hotwater and power.Compostable toilets, watertanks etc.

This family brings in very little income. Is it below the poverty line?
No one is hungry. No one goes without the fundamentals of life.


I love the OP socialism story.
People need to be awarded for taking risks, and working hard.

 

[Terryw]

Don't know if this is a true story or not, as it came via email - a usually credible source of info! However, I found it thought-provoking.



An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's 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 Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A....
(substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

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.

As the tests proceeded, 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.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED 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.

It could not be any simpler than that.


These are possibly the 5 best sentences that are applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Great post.

I hereby renounce any socialist views that I have held.

 

[tom32]

I wonder if their is one of these for capitalism at its finest. Perhaps we have a real world example of the GFC and aftermath in 2007-08, though purists will say; no the markets should have been left to fix that on their own and it would have all been fine.

I think everyone agrees that some redistribution of incomes / wealth is necessary and is now a part of any realistic market economic model for an economy.

In the same way any socialist model has some form of reward for those who work hard or some parts of the economy that are market based.

Who knows where we will all be in 100 years but it seems capitalist countries are introducing more welfare policies like the USA and socialist countries are allowing markets to have more bearing on their economies like China.

Maybe both kinds of economies will all meet somewhere in the middle.

 

[evand]

It will be interesting to see where America is in 20 years time. That will show where extreme capitalism leads.

And where Chine is at the same time will show a sensible mix of centrally controlled socialism and capitalism.

Here is the ideal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)

 

[jaycee]

I didn't write it, just copied and pasted.

It got me thinking, and that's what's good about it. Gooram raises some great points, too, but the moral of the story, in my mind, is that if you try and make everyone "average", then the average becomes less than average!

Sure, if what was written was actually more accurate, like including what Tom said, and the result was still the same.......

 

[tom32]

I was not trying to take anything away from the OP. I think this example and the myriad of others from the ant and the grasshopper to the going shouts at the pub, all have the potential to give people insight into the human condition especially around the power of incentives in economics.

Just trying to point out it is not that simple. Really the siberian work camps are another reason socialism is not real flash. This is what you end up with for the dissenters. Sure people will claim the two are unconnected (suppression and socialism) but I suspect socialism does need a stronger policing and punishment regime to achieve the centrally planned economy / state.

I just want to see one for the socialists (i.e. showing the flaw in capitalism). I am sure someone creative could make one up? I guess we see it everytime we see a child on the streets going hungry in an otherwise wealthy society or perhaps a talented boy gymnast where his father won't let him do gymastics because he thinks its poncy in Australia. That stuff does not happen in the USSR, "send the old man to the work camps if he does not like poncy."

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

Socialism & Capitalism are akin to Communism & Facism (but perhaps not as extreme).

These were once described to me as opposite ends of the policial spectrum but my opinion is that the political spectrum is somewhat circular.

If you take extreme capitalism, ultimately you get a ruling class and essentially a slave class. It's possible to bridge the gap inbetween, but definitely not very easy to move up and beyond the reach of most of the population. Like extreme socialism, the wealthy ruling class are able to use their position to ensure that most people at the bottom stay there.

Personally I beleive that there's a need for elements of both socialism and capitalism in society.

Some people do need a helping hand and it's the role of government to ensure that the basic necessities of life are covered. The spectrum of required community services is wide, but right up there would be health and education.

At the same time, inovation and hard work should be rewarded and encouraged.

Overall I think Australia is a pretty good place to live. It's not perfect, but I'd prefer to live here than almost anywhere else I've visited.

 

[jaycee]

I was not trying to take anything away from the OP. I think this example and the myriad of others from the ant and the grasshopper to the going shouts at the pub, all have the potential to give people insight into the human condition especially around the power of incentives in economics.

Just trying to point out it is not that simple. Really the siberian work camps are another reason socialism is not real flash. This is what you end up with for the dissenters. Sure people will claim the two are unconnected (suppression and socialism) but I suspect socialism does need a stronger policing and punishment regime to achieve the centrally planned economy / state.

I just want to see one for the socialists (i.e. showing the flaw in capitalism). I am sure someone creative could make one up? I guess we see it everytime we see a child on the streets going hungry in an otherwise wealthy society or perhaps a talented boy gymnast where his father won't let him do gymastics because he thinks its poncy in Australia. That stuff does not happen in the USSR, "send the old man to the work camps if he does not like poncy."

Tom I agree

I think someotimes though people trty too hard to mock/knock others - communistis/socialist/left wingers .. whoever..... .when they really don't understand what theyr'e talking about as well as their "post" or whatever tries to suggest.

 

[gooram]

I think you're talking about different causes here. Famine, bad climate etc are responsible for poverty rather than capitalism per se.

I'm not sure if that helps you sleep better at night but I put it to you that neither famine nor bad climate are responsible for poverty... Diversion of wealth and resources from developing to developed countries is by far the biggest source of the problem.

 

[kathryn d]

and sometimes poverty is defined only by a definition..as seen by others.