The great equalizer!

[Pete McCluskey.]

An economics teacher 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 socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The teacher then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on the social 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 teacher 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.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all 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.

 

[Larry L.]

"...socialism (will) 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."

^THAT^ should have been #6...and all 6 of 'em should be MANDITORY DAILY READING for everyone in the Capitol Bldg and at 1600 Penn. Ave.

 

[Keith]

Of course, Capitalism is also a flawed system, which is doomed to eternal boom & bust cycles. It needs Socialism in the workforce to perpetuate (Marx) but out of the two political systems, Socialism definitely has the moral high ground...

 

[Larry L.]

...but out of the two political systems, Socialism definitely has the moral high ground...

How so? E.g.: Capitalism produced Bill Gates. Gates has created a trainload of millionaires and has given b-i-l-l-i-o-n-s toward the betterment of people 'round the world...not to mention what his company has done. Name a socialist equivalent.

It's only after creating/earning wealth that one can give it away. So, it bears repeating:

"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"

Socialism embodies all of that.

Your own Maggie Thatcher probably summed it up best when she said, "The trouble with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money." To which I would add, '...and then by what means could/would additional money be supplied?'

I would argue that all socialism does in the end is make everyone equally 'mizzerbull'. What kind of "moral high ground" is that?

 

[Keith]

The concept of Community which embraces a degree of Socialism should never make anyone miserable. Quite the contrary, it is enlightening.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the free market, I just do not jive with the 'unacceptable face' of Capitalism.

You don't really want to push me any further down this road, and personally, I have no desire to travel it...

 

[Doc Kaler]

Keith,

Perhaps Philanthropy is the actual moral high ground. To give freely to those in need rather than mandated by a government.

 

[Keith]

Indeed, but unfortunately often utilised to ease conscience, save tax or gain political clout, hence my reference to Community a concept which embraces social acts of sharing. Israel's kibbutz system has much to recommend it for example.

 

[Jack]

I always thought that .45 caliber was the great equalizer...
(WOGGish response)

 

[Larry L.]

Perhaps Philanthropy is the actual moral high ground. To give freely to those in need rather than mandated by a government.

There you go.

Exactly.

 

[Pat]

Of course, Capitalism is also a flawed system, which is doomed to eternal boom & bust cycles. It needs Socialism in the workforce to perpetuate (Marx) but out of the two political systems, Socialism definitely has the moral high ground...

Are you serious?

Your objection to capitalism is the "boom and bust cycle"?

How that economic stability worked in China? The Soviet Union? Cuba? North Korea? Venezuela? Eastern Europe? The former actively engages in industrial espionage and currency manipulation, the latter have primarily had "bust cycles". Several ruthlessly suppress their populations.

How are things going in France? After 2013, and the election of President François Hollande, foreign investment in France declined by 77 percent. That’s 77 percent. Consider Spain, where youth unemployment now stands at 57 percent. You can't buy toilet paper in Venezuela.

Socialism, by its very nature, is an inherently tyrannical ideology that uses force or the threat of force to take from those who produce and redistribute to those who don't (after the ruling elites take their cut). Europeans seem convinced that a socialist magic kingdom lurks just over the horizon. Some leftists are so committed to this delusion that they fervently celebrate the repressive and murderous regimes of Cuba and Venezuela — beacons for a 21st-century European enlightenment? That's moral????

 

[Nick]

The problem is Western capitalism is structurally reliant on growth that growth is not sustainable ad infinitum.
We need to move beyond simple notions about growth to discussions about human progress. Capitalism socialism and that economics lecturer Pete mentioned at the start have all failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day.

We need to take the good bits of the responsible face of capitalism and the good bits of socialism.

I would argue that all socialism does in the end is make everyone equally 'mizzerbull'. What kind of "moral high ground" is that?

CNN list of the worlds happiest countries quite a few European socialist countries on the list and Australia in at number 10. Pete must have been on holiday when the survey was done, USA not on there, probably all to busy shooting at each other to do the survey


1. Denmark

2. Norway

3. Switzerland

4. Netherlands

5. Sweden

6. Canada

7. Finland

8. Austria

9. Iceland

10. Australia

 

[Keith]

The problem is Western capitalism is structurally reliant on growth that growth is not sustainable ad infinitum.
We need to move beyond simple notions about growth to discussions about human progress. Capitalism socialism and that economics lecturer Pete mentioned at the start have all failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day.

We need to take the good bits of the responsible face of capitalism and the good bits of socialism.

Indeed Nick. The current and popular Capitalism model is deeply flawed, or is that not the echo of "hang the bankers high" I hear even from 'Conservative' ranks? Pat you appear to have a fairly reactionary position on what must be considered an outmoded and discredited capitalist system.

As Nick says, the bogeyman socialists are also scrambling in the weeds and the type of socialism Pat references are all either victims or perpetrators of a totalitarian con trick.

There should be a new way, a new initiative which combines the best of both. Personally, I like to think that the concept of Community deserves development.

It's just a gut feeling but I am not half clever or fit enough to expand this further myself...

Would that I were younger.

 

[Steve]

Wise man once said:

If you're not a socialist at age 20 you don't have a heart.

If you're not a capitalist at the age of 30 you don't have a brain.



Democracy is also the worst form of government out there, except for all the rest. The same is true for capitalism. In an ideal world where a sense of "community" trumps personal gain socialist tendencies might succeed. That has never succeeded in the history of mankind on a longterm basis and the European countries listed are homogeneous and very small populations, not good examples of "the success of socialism." Of course, Norway has some serious north sea oil that is a tremendous financial resource.

 

[Pat]

The problem is Western capitalism is structurally reliant on growth that growth is not sustainable ad infinitum.
We need to move beyond simple notions about growth to discussions about human progress. Capitalism socialism and that economics lecturer Pete mentioned at the start have all failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day.

We need to take the good bits of the responsible face of capitalism and the good bits of socialism.



CNN list of the worlds happiest countries quite a few European socialist countries on the list and Australia in at number 10. Pete must have been on holiday when the survey was done, USA not on there, probably all to busy shooting at each other to do the survey


1. Denmark

First, as you suggest, there is not a single Socialist country on that list. Every single one is a mixed economy, involving degrees of socialism, capitalism, and good ole fascism. Private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods in each is generally characterized by a competitive market and the motivation of profit. Obvious exceptions are those bastions of efficiency the postal service, civil service and in some areas transportation, health care and utilities.

But let's take your #1 Denmark as an example.

Denmark has the highest total tax pressure in the world and much higher than the European average. It also has the smallest private sector in Europe, one that supports one of the biggest public sectors. Add to that a generous entitlement system allowing unemployed and unemployable citizens an income well above that achieved by full time employees in the private sector in many European countries, and you will observe a need for tax revenues nearly unmatched anywhere else in the world.

This is not surprising, since more than half of the adult population is either working in the public sector or living on some form of social transfer payment. Out of a total population of 5.6 million, a little more than 2 million are pensioners, unemployed, sick or on social transfer payments for other reasons. Around 800,000 are employed in the public sector. There are only around 1.8 million that are not directly dependent on state payments in some shape or form. But even among this group, there is high focus on cheap, subsidized childcare, free health care, child bonus payments, subsidized housing and an infinite number of other ways to secure some additional income from the state.

It highlights the fundamental challenges of a social welfare society, and the extreme vulnerability of business and capitalism operating within it. How long does it last before it turns into Greece, or Italy, or Spain, Or Ireland? Then what?

One of the biggest problems with full socialism is that it turns everyone but the very rich into de facto wards of the state. There is also little reward for innovation or risk taking, (the lifeblood of capitalism).
That means, in socialism you have to continually looking to what the state does to improve your life. Apparently, based on the European model, one must march in the streets every few years to fight with the government to increase benefits or avoid cutting programs.
I personally don’t trust the government to divide up the prime benefits of a wealthy society on a fair basis. Conversely, I know that a pure capitalist society cannot divide those benefits fairly, either, but I would rather take my chances with doing some things on my own. Yes, I’d rather lose out with a chance to control my own fate that little or no chance at all.
Actually in the good ole USA, firearms only ranks #9 on the list of how most of us meet us with the inevitable. #1 is the real killer, old age... I'm personally against that too.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Wise man once said:

If you're not a socialist at age 20 you don't have a heart.

If you're not a capitalist at the age of 30 you don't have a brain.



Democracy is also the worst form of government out there, except for all the rest. The same is true for capitalism. In an ideal world where a sense of "community" trumps personal gain socialist tendencies might succeed. That has never succeeded in the history of mankind on a longterm basis and the European countries listed are homogeneous and very small populations, not good examples of "the success of socialism." Of course, Norway has some serious north sea oil that is a tremendous financial resource.

Well said. Oil ain't enough. Look at Venezuela. Maybe having too many of the world's most beautiful women has a destabilizing effect on society.

 

[Steve]

Well said. Oil ain't enough. Look at Venezuela. Maybe having too many of the world's most beautiful women has a destabilizing effect on society.

Well, Sophia Vergara could probably make me a socialist.....at least for a night:thumbsup:

 

[Larry L.]

CNN list of the worlds happiest countries quite a few European socialist countries on the list and Australia in at number 10...USA not on there, probably all to busy shooting at each other to do the survey


1. Denmark

2. Norway

3. Switzerland

4. Netherlands

5. Sweden

6. Canada

7. Finland

8. Austria

9. Iceland

10. Australia

Aaaaah, yes. Socialist 'paradises' all. How do you suppose they all can AFFORD to provide the 'luxuries' of socialism for their populations?

Which amongst them has a population in the hundreds of millions? Which amongst the countries you've listed are economic powerhouses in the world??? Which amongst them, if any, would play any significant role in their own defense were push come to shove? Which has allocated/committed the $$$ resources needed to fund and build its/their own effective defense force(s)...and why do you suppose that is?

Which amongst them is the first to be called upon and EXPECTED to act in any crisis that pops up anywhere in the world?

'Point being?

GUESS. :squint:

 

[Nick]

Aaaaah, yes. Socialist 'paradises' all. How do you suppose they all can AFFORD to provide the 'luxuries' of socialism for their populations?

Which amongst them has a population in the hundreds of millions? Which amongst the countries you've listed are economic powerhouses in the world??? Which amongst them, if any, would play any significant role in their own defense were push come to shove? Which has allocated/committed the $$$ resources needed to fund and build its/their own effective defense force(s)...and why do you suppose that is?

Which amongst them is the first to be called upon and EXPECTED to act in any crisis that pops up anywhere in the world?

'Point being?

GUESS. :squint:

Larry,

Are you saying present day USA meets all the above criteria then?

 

[Larry L.]

'Not the point I was making. Try again.

(Hint #1, point #1: $$$s a country does not have to spend on "A" [because the cost of "A" is born by some other country] will then enable said country to spend those $$$s on "B" instead...like govt handouts.)

 

[Terry Oxandale]

Nick's post was about the "happiest" of the countries on that list. What does it matter on how they achieve it? It seems a little conceded for us to justify their happiness by our standards and values.