Socialism in action: why it does NOT work - New England Patriots Forums

Fogbuster · 06-30-2009, 01:32 PM

It's really very simple. A professor at a U.S. university decided to demonstrate how socialism works in real life. This is what he did:

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 on socialism. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade, so no one individual will fail and no one individual will receive an A. Fair enough.

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 studied even less, and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

On the second test the 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 begin to occur which 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 away all the reward, no one will try or want to succeed.

Can it be any simpler than that?

I've got my hard hat on, so bring it on, usual suspects!!

//

***Patters*** · 06-30-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

It's really very simple. A professor at a U.S. university decided to demonstrate how socialism works in real life. This is what he did:

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 on socialism. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade, so no one individual will fail and no one individual will receive an A. Fair enough.

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 studied even less, and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

On the second test the 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 begin to occur which 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 away all the reward, no one will try or want to succeed.

Can it be any simpler than that?

I've got my hard hat on, so bring it on, usual suspects!!

But, that's not socialism. Even taking it to an extreme, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, it's obvious that the students did not work up to their ability. And there were no rewards. Even in the most idealized form for socialism, those who have more ability get more responsibility, are honored as heroes, and get opportunities related to their skill set. That economics professor should have been fired since he didn't understand that even in pure socialism, there are rewards for hard work and ability.

atomdomb · 06-30-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

But, that's not socialism. Even taking it to an extreme, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, it's obvious that the students did not work up to their ability. And there were no rewards. Even in the most idealized form for socialism, those who have more ability get more responsibility, are honored as heroes, and get opportunities related to their skill set. That economics professor should have been fired since he didn't understand that even in pure socialism, there are rewards for hard work and ability.

What exactly is this reward you speak of? Do you get to shoot the dissenters, gays, cripple, Christians, instead of getting shot? Sounds great. Where do I sign?

A socialist is someone who has nothing and wants to share it with you.

Capitalism recognizes that virtually everything that human life requires is ultimately a product of human reason. A Western, capitalist society protects this link between survival and reason by upholding one’s freedom to act upon one’s own rational judgment (in the pursuit of one’s own self-interest).[5]

Therefore, it’s no wonder that the countless achievements that make human life secure and enjoyable were created under capitalism, such as air travel, refrigeration, radio, television, nuclear power, medical cures, indoor plumbing, the motion picture, the telephone, the light bulb, the computer, the Internet and the automobile.

Capitalism and its definition, characteristics, strengths, history and benefits. Western culture and non Western culture and free entreprise, market economy, market economies

***Patters*** · 06-30-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atomdomb

What exactly is this reward you speak of? Do you get to shoot the dissenters, gays, cripple, Christians, instead of getting shot? Sounds great. Where do I sign?

A socialist is someone who has nothing and wants to share it with you.

Capitalism recognizes that virtually everything that human life requires is ultimately a product of human reason. A Western, capitalist society protects this link between survival and reason by upholding one’s freedom to act upon one’s own rational judgment (in the pursuit of one’s own self-interest).[5]

Therefore, it’s no wonder that the countless achievements that make human life secure and enjoyable were created under capitalism, such as air travel, refrigeration, radio, television, nuclear power, medical cures, indoor plumbing, the motion picture, the telephone, the light bulb, the computer, the Internet and the automobile.

Capitalism and its definition, characteristics, strengths, history and benefits. Western culture and non Western culture and free entreprise, market economy, market economies

I'm not defending socialism, but pointing out the error of the professor. Even in communist China under Mao, those who contributed disproportionately did better than those who did not. True, the wealth gap was extremely narrow, but it did exist. In addition, if you were good at something, you got the plum assignments in the plum locations with the perks that typically come with success -- an office, opportunities to travel, recognition, and so on. In Maoism, in theory, we all pitch in, and then we have more leisure time. If we don't have to earn income to support the shareholders, we can either live better or work less. That's in theory, only, of course. I don't know about other forms of communism, but when I was in seventh or eighth grade I liked some of what Mao had to say. Boy, I've moved to the right since then

STFarmy · 06-30-2009, 02:30 PM

I'm no fan of socialism either, but it's a little difficult to wrap up a socio-economic scheme like socialism in one little anecdote. There's certainly different ways to practically implement socialism and they're not all covered by this scenario.

CrazyDave · 06-30-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STFarmy

I'm no fan of socialism either, but it's a little difficult to wrap up a socio-economic scheme like socialism in one little anecdote. There's certainly different ways to practically implement socialism and they're not all covered by this scenario.

That's true, but some people like to oversimplify things.

CrazyDave · 06-30-2009, 02:40 PM

"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved."

Just a little bit from wikipedia.
Does'nt sound quite like what that Professor did. Not at all.

State · 06-30-2009, 03:09 PM

Under socialism prices are meaningless.

On a theoretical level the Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk showed how this must necessarily be so, since prices reflect subjective or marginal values that reflect anticipated supply and demand.

Like when a hurricane is poised to strike a metropolis things like bottled water, batteries, and canned food become a premium--people know they'll be needing them soon and are willing to pay much more.

Marx borrowed the erroneous labor theory of value from J.S. Mill, the idea that a product's price was reflected in the effort that went into making it.

That didn't explain subjective interpretations like, when a was a kid, the craze for Cabbage Patch Kids.

***Harry Boy*** · 06-30-2009, 03:42 PM

If socialism would destroy rich people like Kerry, Kennedys, George Soros, Hollywood Wife Swappers, Oprah, Millionaire Rap Crap Boppers, etc etc I'm all for it.

GOD DAMN AMERICA
GOD DAMN RICH BASTARDS
GOD DAMN BUSH

Fogbuster · 06-30-2009, 04:31 PM

Any system that destroys personal incentive is a system that will fail. It will produce only mediocrity, and people don't want that. Somewhere on earth there will be those who will do and produce, and they will get others to pay for their goods and services; or they will stop providing those goods and services. Don't pay a pro ball player and he won't play any more, not up to his full capacity, anyway. Why risk it??? Playing for the fun of it won't be enough incentive for an adult. Right, Peyton??

.... hey, maybe socialism isn't all bad.

//