Socialism - a simple experiement....He failed the whole class

[JRKH]

Now - I will issue the caveat that this comes from Facebook and may never have actually occurred or perhaps did occur but has been embellished…Who knows??
But it IS a good “parable” whether historically true or not and so I share it here for possible comment…

---

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. Could not be any simpler than that.

---

Peace
James

 

[mountee]

I saw this also but it came to me in an email from an old professor. Socialism may be a little harsh but many people do seem to be using that word more and more when referring to the Prsident’s agenda. I guess we’ll see over the next few years whether it was a fair label or not. As for the “story” I enjoyed it the first time I read it and find the moral of the story to be true.

 

[10gr8kids]

Whether it really happened or not, it is an excellent comparison. Once you take away the carrot, you have to apply the whip.

 

[TimeEntrance]

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. Could not be any simpler than that.

I guess that wouldn’t suggest much a good outcome for the Jesuits or Dominicans then.

JRKH, have you ever read about the Cuban medical schools and their dormitories and campus life? They are Spartan. Only those with ambition and perseverance–especially for the ethnic Black-American United Statesians that pass through its doors–can succeed. And the Cuban medical schools produce competent physicians.

Your model doesn’t account for how the former “second world” competed with the former “first world” when the “third world” was left out the picture while being run by right-wing military dictatorships. When the Soviet Union existed the Western World divided the world up into first world (capitalist democracies) second world (socialist countries) and third world (everyone else).

Though we use those terms today they are in practical terms obsolete. Not to mention they are superficial and convey little accuracy given nations like Brazil, China, and South Africa are thrown into the same box as Haiti, Mali, and Cambodia.

It also fails to account for why a number of Latin American nations increased their economic growth at impressive rates after dumping American neo-colonial right wing policies and adopting more of the Chinese mixed communist/capitalist model of a semi-controlled economy from the top (government).

And I don’t see anything of the United States under the Obama administration that resembles your total egalitarian society. It’s completely the opposite.

This is now making me recall some points made in journalist author Geoff Colvin’s book Talent is Overrated. amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-World-Class-Performers-EverybodyElse/dp/1591842948

I forget what oil company it is… but it makes something like $30 billion a year and returns $20 billion a year to shareholders. According to Colvin, we entered a new age at the close of the 20th Century. For the first time human capital is more a deficit than financial capital. Today there is so much financial capital floating the hands of wealthy companies and people that they have no idea what to do with it. They need human capital to figure out how to put it to use. So, this is one reason according to him, that unsolicited checks with your name printed on them are sent to you in the mail, because there is so much money out there that few people know what to do with it.

Take Vatican City. It operates an annual economy of roughly $300 million. There are people with Ph.D.'s in the Vatican earning around U.S. $16,000 a year. Now, compare that to Jack Welch and Mark Zuckerberg.

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch
2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg

John Francis “Jack” Welch, Jr. (born November 19, 1935) is an American chemical engineer, business executive, and author. He was Chairman and CEO of General Electric between 1981 and 2001. During his tenure at GE, the company’s value rose 4000%.[2] In 2006 Welch’s net worth was estimated at $720 million.[1]

Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (born May 14, 1984) is an American computer programmer and Internet entrepreneur. He is best known as one of five co-founders of the social networking site Facebook. Zuckerberg is the chairman and chief executive of Facebook, Inc.[5][6] Zuckerberg’s personal wealth is estimated to be $9.4 billion as of 2012.[4]

I don’t begrudge either their wealth. Nor the man earning in personal profit $1 billion a year (and it has happened). But don’t try and convince me that these people are really poor and the U.S. is an egalitarian society due to Obama promoting one or more forms of relief for those families more financially strapped in the U.S.

At age 41 if I divided $35 million by 40 (so, it lasts me till I was age 81) this is what I would have:

**$875,000 a year

$72,917 a month

$18,229 a week**

For $300 million:

**$7,500,000 a year

$625,000 a month

$156,250 a week**

For $1 billion:

**$25,000,000 a year

$2,083,333 a month

$520,833 a week**

I receive welfare cash-transfer from the Veterans Administration in non-service connected disability. That is approximately $12,000 a year. Which is a little over $1,000 a month. Rounded off to $1,000 a month that’s $250 a week. That is a far cry from $520,833 a week. There are non-veteran Americans that receive about $400 less a month than I do, through the Social Security Administration. Which often means they are forced to live in the inner-cities with all the pathologies and risks that come with that.

I respect peoples hard work–like that of Jack Welch and Mark Zuckerberg–actually, I admire them. But… plenty of Jesuits work hard too. And there is nothing in physics, chemistry, or biology that is a law of nature that if you can crunch numbers good you automatically must rate wealth beyond most peoples imagination. My point here is that $18,000 a week is pretty good money. I really don’t want to hear anyone making that or more crying about how they’re in the poor house. I did not tell you or force you to buy a private jet (you have no pilots license) or a yacht the size of a floating city.

 

[DaveBj]

Yeah, you were right…I just fact-checked that and it’s an email chain hoax that has been going around for four years, since 2009.

It’s odd that whoever wrote this fake story calls Obama a socialist. That’s a rather extreme category to put him in and not quite accurate.

I agree. From what I’ve read on the subject, Obama is more fascist than socialist. In simple terms (the best way I operate ), socialism is government ownership of the means of production. The current regime is not moving in that direction. In contrast, under fascism, the means of production (industrial and service companies, in other words) remain in private hands, but they are under strict government control. That certainly describes what this administration appears to be striving for.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

web.streetauthority.com/m/gc/egc12/gcs-sample.asp?TC=GC1484

 

[triumphguy]

I agree. From what I’ve read on the subject, Obama is more fascist than socialist. In simple terms (the best way I operate ), socialism is government ownership of the means of production. The current regime is not moving in that direction. In contrast, under fascism, the means of production (industrial and service companies, in other words) remain in private hands, but they are under strict government control. That certainly describes what this administration appears to be striving for.

Obama is neither a Fascist or a Socialist.

Our right wing conservative Government is probably more left wing that the US government.

 

[JRKH]

Very interesting relies…

I’m not going to comment on any of them though I am reading them with interest.

What I liked about the “experiment” - perhaps we might call it a parable - is how it demonstrates the fallacy of trying to legislate economic equality.
Certainly we can debate particulars of it…but I think the underlying lesson is a good one.

Oh - I guess I lied above…I am going to comment on one of the replies.
Someone mentioned religious orders. I think that this is a very very good point.
Those who belong to a religious order join of their own will and freely consent to embrace the communal life.

The “experiment” in the OP was certainly written from a secular mindset…
I wonder how it would be different if written from a purely Christian mindset?

Something to ponder.

Peace
James

 

[Iron_Donkey]

It is an interesting thought experiment, and I imagine it would be close to what happens.

Obama is neither a Fascist or a Socialist.

Our right wing conservative Government is probably more left wing that the US government.

Yeah, but the more right leaning of us see that as more of a horrible warning of what could happen then as any sort of comment that our lefties aren’t all that left.

 

[marywarfield]

Yeah, you were right…I just fact-checked that and it’s an email chain hoax that has been going around for four years, since 2009.

It’s odd that whoever wrote this fake story calls Obama a socialist. That’s a rather extreme category to put him in and not quite accurate.

Word: Obamacare. Case closed.

 

[St_Francis]

I think the original version of the story was different and now it has turned into a fable with lots of different versions. Without the mention of any particular person or party, just socialism, it makes its point, which is a very good point.

The issues of what happened when and how among different nations at various times leaves a lot to be desired. One has to consider the differing economic environments and one has to consider what happened before and after. It’s like everyone talking about how well Clinton governed because the economy was so good in his day and the budget was balanced, etc, totally ignoring the context: expanding credit and the dot.com boom. The whole thing was completely artificial.

Similar things happened around the wworld. Pointing out that certain nations did well at a time when everyone was doing well, when you would have to work at it to not donwell, shows nothing. The true test of a system has to be much more long-term. It has to extend beeyond the use of previous “social capital,” beyond the novelty for those who have had so little, over the natural ups and downs of the economic environment…

 

[Lost_and_Found_1]

From the Chicago Democratic Socialist of America website.

chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Yeah, I’ve heard this before, though worded differently. A very old criticism.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Oh - I guess I lied above…I am going to comment on one of the replies.
Someone mentioned religious orders. I think that this is a very very good point.
Those who belong to a religious order join of their own will and freely consent to embrace the communal life.

That was me. And I’m aware of that. But my point is not everyone on earth is motivated to learn, deepen their knowledge, or excel in a given skill or profession only for the sake of monetary reward.

Not that I’m denying the motivational power of money (so is status and so is sex) nor am I suggesting most people won’t or aren’t motivated by systems of punishment and rewards. Most are. Some would argue all are including the Jesuit or the pious Christian giving a donation to charity.

But I also pointed out the Cuban medical school. Which begs questioning why Cubans go to medical school but most Americans not only don’t but the majority never attain a bachelor degree? Capitalism does not drive everyone to become Einsteins’ or Jack Welchs’.

College degree attainment is up in the United States and not down. When my German-American grandfather was a young kid on a Wisconsin farm the rural people were just pleased to graduate the 8th grade (he never did). Many if not most never went to high school.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States

 

[St_Francis]

That was me. And I’m aware of that. But my point is not everyone on earth is motivated to learn, deepen their knowledge, or excel in a given skill or profession only for the sake of monetary reward.

It is true that when one is single, one has many options, one of which is to do things for the love of God and for our neighbors for the love of God.

And in the Middle Ages, this was something which existed and provided a “social safety net” for societies.

**However, **this is only a part of society. Another part of society provides the future of the society, ie, families, and those whose vocation is marriage need to provide for their families. They need more than the subsistence living which the religious live under.

Not that I’m denying the motivational power of money (so is status and so is sex) nor am I suggesting most people won’t or aren’t motivated by systems of punishment and rewards.

Distributism does not provide for a change of human nature (which the other two major systems do), but to work *with *human nature, drawing out the best while discouraging the worst.

So the motivation would not be money, money, money. The motivations would be to accomplish something, to do one’s work well, to create, to own one’s living, etc.

Our current system in the US undermines a poor person’s incentive to work in many different ways… too many to go into here. Distributism would not motivate everyone to become a ga-zillionaire, but would increase the possibilities for providing for oneself and one’s family, and decrease the incentive for not doing what one can.

Most are. Some would argue all are including the Jesuit or the pious Christian giving a donation to charity.

These people tend to lack understanding of a relationship with God.

But I also pointed out the Cuban medical school. Which begs questioning why Cubans go to medical school but most Americans not only don’t but the majority never attain a bachelor degree? Capitalism does not drive everyone to become Einsteins’ or Jack Welchs’.

There has not been a socialist system yet in which some were not “more equal” than others

College degree attainment is up in the United States and not down.

When my husband entered his profession in the 1980s, no BA was needed. Now they require an MBA for the same job my husband had without any college degree at all.

When my German-American grandfather was a young kid on a Wisconsin farm the rural people were just pleased to graduate the 8th grade (he never did). Many if not most never went to high school.

Back then, people could make a living working on farms. Now big ag provides most of the food grown in the US and machines do the work previously done by people.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Hey, St. Fran,

It is true that when one is single, one has many options, one of which is to do things for the love of God and for our neighbors for the love of God.

And in the Middle Ages, this was something which existed and provided a “social safety net” for societies.

This is a good point and reminder. I’m thinking of someone right now my age with several kids and a dead end job (unskilled labor). That is a tough and depressing predicament to be in.

**However, **this is only a part of society. Another part of society provides the future of the society, ie, families, and those whose vocation is marriage need to provide for their families. They need more than the subsistence living which the religious live under.

Completely in agreement.

I might have made myself misunderstood. Maybe a better way of explaining myself would be two pose a hypothetical situation of two men in a respected and decently compensated profession in society. Two medical doctors. Say both are family physicians, one is satisfied with what he knows and understands about practicing medicine. He just wishes to apply what he knows and do that well. And to be justly compensated for it. The other has a far more inquisitive mind and a deep desire to deepen what he knows, to understand better, and has a particular interest in gastrointestinal disorders which he keeps up to date on and reads widely on. Having his financial situation (income) already secure his main motivation is simply his insatiable desire to know more and to solve more and to do be more efficient and accurate in practicing medicine and diagnosing problems.

That second doctor is more like the Jesuit in the sense an additional million dollars is not the sole or even primary motivation he wants to excel past his already impressive and educated position. He’s already accomplished as a medical doctor. An M.D. behind your surname gives you good social standing in the community.

Distributism does not provide for a change of human nature (which the other two major systems do), but to work *with *human nature, drawing out the best while discouraging the worst.

So the motivation would not be money, money, money. The motivations would be to accomplish something, to do one’s work well, to create, to own one’s living, etc.

Our current system in the US undermines a poor person’s incentive to work in many different ways… too many to go into here. Distributism would not motivate everyone to become a ga-zillionaire, but would increase the possibilities for providing for oneself and one’s family, and decrease the incentive for not doing what one can.

These people tend to lack understanding of a relationship with God.

There has not been a socialist system yet in which some were not “more equal” than others

Distributism is an interesting economic theory.

When my husband entered his profession in the 1980s, no BA was needed. Now they require an MBA for the same job my husband had without any college degree at all.

Back then, people could make a living working on farms. Now big ag provides most of the food grown in the US and machines do the work previously done by people.

I have conflicting feelings about the increased credentialization of American society.

And even for professions like law and medicine, while I can see the need and benefit of having a certain amount of prerequisite education from a properly accredited college or university, I still think both professions can intern or apprentice people. This is far easier in law perhaps and probably more problematic in medicine. I also don’t think either profession in the long term really needs to be grade dependent. By that I mean, I’m not convinced in the long run, that a A student in medical school makes any better a doctor than a C student in medical school. In fact, it would not surprise me that if in many cases the the former C student develops into a better practitioner of medicine.

There is also an issue of monetary rewards not being attractive enough to meet the scale of debt repayment some 4 or more year degrees. Going to a 4 year school to become licensed to fly a commercial airline plane (which requires a certain number of flight hours as well) will put you in over $100,000 in student loan debt. And airlines will start you off with a salary of around $20,000 a year. It will take you around 10 years to make captain and $80,000 or a six figure income.

Needless to say… less young people are being drawn to become flight pilots.

 

[triumphguy]

It is an interesting thought experiment, and I imagine it would be close to what happens.

Yeah, but the more right leaning of us see that as more of a horrible warning of what could happen then as any sort of comment that our lefties aren’t all that left.

What about Canada is so horrific? Our freedoms, our Universal Health Care, our excellent schools, our low crime rates, our high gun-ownership/low gun violence rates, our economy which is probably the most stable of the western democracies, our high standard of living, or vast amounts of clean and fresh water, our untapped mineral reserves or our wilderness expanse?

 

[Mark121359]

Yeah, you were right…I just fact-checked that and it’s an email chain hoax that has been going around for four years, since 2009.

It’s odd that whoever wrote this fake story calls Obama a socialist. That’s a rather extreme category to put him in and not quite accurate.

I don’t know, socialist seems quite right to me.

 

[Mark121359]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl
Yeah, you were right…I just fact-checked that and it’s an email chain hoax that has been going around for four years, since 2009.

It’s odd that whoever wrote this fake story calls Obama a socialist. That’s a rather extreme category to put him in and not quite accurate.

Word: Obamacare. Case closed.

 

[triumphguy]

Freedom indices

Canada pushed the US from the top seven economies deemed to have an entirely free economy due to “notable decreases in financial freedom, monetary freedom, and property rights,” the [Heritage Foundation’s annual] report said. nationalreview.com/corner/193370/canada-officially-more-free-united-states/kevin-d-williamson