Share the Wealth?

[Care4all]

Then you need to seriously think about ALL of the lessons you are teaching your children in this analogy. How is the work one puts forth for candy different from the work put forth for an alloowance?

i understand more now of what you were trying to get across bern and missed it initially because somehow i glazed over the ages of her children when reading her initial post and felt at a very young age, when first starting out trick or treating, i think the lesson of sharing with family and friends is appropriate....

my older sister, got to continue trick or treating, after she did the rounds with me and then brought me home, she then went out with her friends for more.

so, no matter what, for a few years there in my youth, my sister always got more, because as you indicated, she worked harder for it....by walking to many more houses than me...mainly due to her being older....either way, all of her candy hit the table as well as my measly amount and it was shared for the night....my sister never complained or felt abused by having to share her candy with me and (dad)....

in fact, we shared everything when young, including a bedroom for many years, even though we had an extra one....until she became a teen.

i don't think my parents failed me....they also taught me work ethics and the importance of studying and making something of myself....halloween was not used to do this....in our household....

it was not until i was a preteen and began working by babysitting did those lessons begin and carry throughout high school...for example, they bought me only the basics when it came to school clothes, if i wanted more, i had to work for the money to buy them myself, my allowances were also performanced based, i also got paid for every A on my report card....had to save for my first car ...a multitude of things that actually, in hindsite, might have made me a workaholic for more than 20 years...due to the rewarding feelings i got from accomplishing things....

care

 

[Luissa]

So the parent is lieing about his child's ability to compete equally with his sister?

No physical limitation! not mental limitations, do you know what autism is?

 

[Zoom-boing]

I don't see the equal opportunity here! No one with special needs as same opportunities as one without! And like Pauli said your daughter does not need that much candy and neither does your son. Maybe you should donate some out of the kindness of your heart!

True my son is ASD (autistic specturm disorder) but . . . he has no physical limitations that would prevent him from going to more houses. My oldest daughter (18) was home from college and she walked around with him. The fact that he is special needs probably doesn't factor into this, I just thought I'd mention it since he's 15 and is really too old to trick or treat, imo.

Don't play dumb Care. This is an analogy. Of course we need our children to do the 'right thing'. You just can't make a case for that here. Two people chose the level of effort they were going to put forth. Their outcomes reflect that effort. You aren't teaching any good behavior by even encouraging the daughter to give to the son.

You want to talk about good life lessons? Let's assume for arguments sake that some of the daughters candy is given to the son. What have you really taught each individual? You have taught the son that his effort is irrelevant and that someone will always make outcomes even for him. Lets say junior wants more candy. Since we have taken candy from daughter to give to son, if he has any brain at all, what will son do next year?

Meanwhile you have also reduced daughters incentive to put effort forth. Why would she if it's simply going to be taken away in the end?

You did read the part about him being special needs, right? lol

So the parent is lieing about his child's ability to compete equally with his sister?

Not lying at all. He could have walked to many more houses but he chose not to do this because he wanted to hang with the neighbor. My neighbor is a cop and my son is enthralled with this fact.

This is the biggest moral hazzard in regards to socialism, or in this case, candy hand-outs.

It reduces the incentive to work hard and achieve more, and increases the mentality that minimal work still pays maximal benefits.

So the hard workers will work less hard, and the lazy people will continue to be lazy, knowing that they will still be rewarded for it.

That's really a society you want to live in, Care?

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

i don't see any relation to working....and feel at a young age, it is important to teach your children about sharing with ones own family siblings and with others....there is a way to teach them about work ethics, of which Glockmail had a good example with how he pays his children an allowance based on work and work load....

this really isn't about work....halloween....it is a holiday that can be used to teach your children about sharing, (they always get excesses of candy that is not even good for them)....but by all means, you and bern can teach them about work ethics if that is what you feel is more important!!!

I did not note that her children were old, until now....i never even went trick or treating over the age of 12 or so....was more in to "mischief nite" at the age of her son...

Yeah, my yougest is 11 nearly 12 and my son is 15. She's nearly too old (I stopped when I was in 7th or 8th grade) and frankly, so is he. But he also believes in Santa . . . and some kid in school told him what it means to 'play with himself' last week. Can you say challenging? lol

 

[Zoom-boing]

No physical limitation! not mental limitations, do you know what autism is?

He's not autistic, rather ASD. He's 'high functioning' (God I HATE that term)and is very conversational, albeit about things he likes, but his disorder does not prevent him or limit him with regards to trick or treating.

 

[Bern80]

No physical limitation! not mental limitations, do you know what autism is?

yes. Probably more so than you do haveing worked with one myself and a parent that has made a career out of it. There levels of autism. And the original poster didint' even claim their child was diagnosed as autisitic, just that they had an autisim spectrum disorder. Based on the brief information given it sounds as if the child is quite mentally capable. I simply went by what the original poster stated and to me that sounded like regardless of the extent of the mental defect the child was perfectly capable of obtaining as much candy as he desired.

 

[Luc1]

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

WTF? You're not even considering what other people have said. While it's true that total communism inevitably fails, total capitalism inevitably fails too. That's what led to the Great Depression, and creating an economic system that's a balance between capitalism and communism played a huge part in getting us out of the Great Depression. With total capitalism, the rich get richer and the middle class disappears, leading to a Monarchy. Had we not integrated socialism into our, back then, truly capitalistic system we would have made our way into a feudal system with the Rockefellers as royalty. If we went back to a true system of capitalism today, families like the Buffets would become royalty in only a short amount of time. I can see now why you used this silly analogy: to take out the factors that defeat your pro-pure-capitalism viewpoint. You may have even exaggerated your son's condition just to prove your point.

And feel free to keep ignoring everything I say. I expect that.

 

[Zoom-boing]

WTF? You're not even considering what other people have said. While it's true that total communism inevitably fails, total capitalism inevitably fails too. That's what led to the Great Depression, and creating an economic system that's a balance between capitalism and communism played a huge part in getting us out of the Great Depression. With total capitalism, the rich get richer and the middle class disappears, leading to a Monarchy. Had we not integrated socialism into our, back then, truly capitalistic system we would have made our way into a feudal system with the Rockefellers as royalty. If we went back to a true system of capitalism today, families like the Buffets would become royalty in only a short amount of time. I can see now why you used this silly analogy: to take out the factors that defeat your pro-pure-capitalism viewpoint. You may have even exaggerated your son's condition just to prove your point.And feel free to keep ignoring everything I say. I expect that.

I didn't really think it was a silly analogy, I was just trying to look at the idea of 'sharing the wealth' on rather simple terms, that's all. Getting rid of anything extraneous and just looking at the bare bones, if you will.

. . . pro-pure-capitalism viewpoint. Never stated this anywhere. I was just curious is all. Just looking for other's view points and why they see things the way they do. I just happen to think that what Paulitics posted is true: It reduces the incentive to work hard and achieve more, and increases the mentality that minimal work still pays maximal benefits. At least, that's the agrument I'm having with my son until the candy is all gone.

FWIW, I didn't exaggerate anything. He is 15 and was dx'd with ASD at the late old age of 6 1/2. I just got done attending his latest IEP meeting last week. He's doing extraordinarily well. His English and History classes are very, very modified for him but he is doing more than we ever expected. He definintely has limitations but . . . trick or treating isn't one of them.

 

[Luc1]

Yeah, I'm sorry. I lost my cool and went too far.

And I must give you credit, too, for understanding what's bad about communism. Unfortunately, the average American can't even explain that when asked about it.

 

[Luissa]

yes. Probably more so than you do haveing worked with one myself and a parent that has made a career out of it. There levels of autism. And the original poster didint' even claim their child was diagnosed as autisitic, just that they had an autisim spectrum disorder. Based on the brief information given it sounds as if the child is quite mentally capable. I simply went by what the original poster stated and to me that sounded like regardless of the extent of the mental defect the child was perfectly capable of obtaining as much candy as he desired.

I never said he was autisitc but rather had autism which some doctors classify people with ASD as having autism. I have also worked with peopl with aspergers with there being a large number in the city I live in which is also classified as a form of autism.

 

[Zoomie1980]

WTF? You're not even considering what other people have said. While it's true that total communism inevitably fails, total capitalism inevitably fails too. That's what led to the Great Depression, and creating an economic system that's a balance between capitalism and communism played a huge part in getting us out of the Great Depression. With total capitalism, the rich get richer and the middle class disappears, leading to a Monarchy. Had we not integrated socialism into our, back then, truly capitalistic system we would have made our way into a feudal system with the Rockefellers as royalty. If we went back to a true system of capitalism today, families like the Buffets would become royalty in only a short amount of time. I can see now why you used this silly analogy: to take out the factors that defeat your pro-pure-capitalism viewpoint. You may have even exaggerated your son's condition just to prove your point.

And feel free to keep ignoring everything I say. I expect that.

Warren Buffet, who I actually know, personally, has willed only $1,000,000 each to his kids. Almost all his BILLIONS are going to a foundation to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation upon his death. Likewise Bill Gates is not willing his billions to his children but almost ALL of it to his various charitable foundations. Ted Turner will be willing most of his land investments to the national parks service on his death.

The day of the financial family dynasties are mostly over. We will never see the "robber barons" of the 1890's again. Anti-trust laws pretty much prevent that, but you could say that is at least "regulatory" capitalism.

Regulation is not socialism. Regulation seeks to mostly prevent excess and the creation of Monopoly, which is actually anti-capitalistic, not to redistribute wealth and guarantee equal outcome, the main goal of socialism.

The ultimate social goal of capitalism is to create so much "stuff" that the supply of "stuff" exceeds mankind's needs to such a degree that the need to accumulate personal "stuff" disappears and mankind moves on to self betterment rather wasting time accumulating material goods.....

 

[sparky]

Regulation is not socialism.

a tune for those that think so....

Obama, wont you buy me a socialist bent ?
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
Obama wont you buy me a socalist bent ?

Obama, wont you buy me a color tv ?
Dialing for dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
Obama, wont you buy me a color tv ?

Obama, wont you buy me a night on the town ?
Im counting on you , man, please dont let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Obama, wont you buy me a night on the town ?

 

[Annie]

WTF? You're not even considering what other people have said. While it's true that total communism inevitably fails, total capitalism inevitably fails too. That's what led to the Great Depression, and creating an economic system that's a balance between capitalism and communism played a huge part in getting us out of the Great Depression. With total capitalism, the rich get richer and the middle class disappears, leading to a Monarchy. Had we not integrated socialism into our, back then, truly capitalistic system we would have made our way into a feudal system with the Rockefellers as royalty. If we went back to a true system of capitalism today, families like the Buffets would become royalty in only a short amount of time. I can see now why you used this silly analogy: to take out the factors that defeat your pro-pure-capitalism viewpoint. You may have even exaggerated your son's condition just to prove your point.

And feel free to keep ignoring everything I say. I expect that.

Leading to monarchy? Huh?

 

[Richard-H]

The original story that started this thread in no way represents the economics of capitalism. Try this:

Mom wasn't home on Halloween. So the elder son decided that he didn't want to bother trick or treating, but he wanted the candy.

So he told his younger sister that since he was in charge, if she wanted to be allowed to go trick or treating she would have to give him 90% of all the candy she got and that he would pick and choose which candies to leave her.

Then when she came home he sorted thru all her candy, took his 90%, and left her with the leftovers declaring that he deserved it because of all the work he did sorting thru it all.

When Mom comes home and finds out what happened she makes the son give back all but a few pieces of candy. She and the daughter let the son keep a few only because they love him.

So the son screams "SOCIALISTS"! and hates them both.

This is a more accurate analogy to capitalism: Some people control all the resources and finances while the others have no choice but to do all the work. The people that are in control take as much as they can possibly get away with, leaving the crumbs for the disempowered worker.

When the worker want the government to stand up for them so they get what they earned, the economically empowered scream "SOCIALISTS"!

 

[sparky]

 

[Care4all]

Next Halloween, the son will be expecting an equal amount of candy, and probably won't feel like he has to spend as much time knocking on doors as the sister.

Eventually, he probably won't even want to trick or treat at all, and will just expect his candy ration to be given to him later on in the night when sister's done walking around for 2 hours in the chilly, late October night.

Ummmmmmmm, isn't that what Mom and Dad taught him already, when they get to reap the benefits of their children's candy loot when the kids get home?

 

[Zoom-boing]

The original story that started this thread in no way represents the economics of capitalism. Try this:

Mom wasn't home on Halloween. So the elder son decided that he didn't want to bother trick or treating, but he wanted the candy.

So he told his younger sister that since he was in charge, if she wanted to be allowed to go trick or treating she would have to give him 90% of all the candy she got and that he would pick and choose which candies to leave her.

Then when she came home he sorted thru all her candy, took his 90%, and left her with the leftovers declaring that he deserved it because of all the work he did sorting thru it all.

When Mom comes home and finds out what happened she makes the son give back all but a few pieces of candy. She and the daughter let the son keep a few only because they love him.

So the son screams "SOCIALISTS"! and hates them both.

This is a more accurate analogy to capitalism: Some people control all the resources and finances while the others have no choice but to do all the work. The people that are in control take as much as they can possibly get away with, leaving the crumbs for the disempowered worker.

When the worker want the government to stand up for them so they get what they earned, the economically empowered scream "SOCIALISTS"!

The original story was questioning . . . if both kids had the same opportunity and one kid decided to go out for 1 1/2 hrs and hit many houses to collect lots of candy and the other kid chose to go out for 45 min and collect less candy so he could spend time playing . . . why should the kid who put in the time and energy to collect more candy have to share with the kid who didn't.
Answer: she shouldn't.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Ummmmmmmm, isn't that what Mom and Dad taught him already, when they get to reap the benefits of their children's candy loot when the kids get home?

Absolutely!

 

[Richard-H]

The original story was questioning . . . if both kids had the same opportunity and one kid decided to go out for 1 1/2 hrs and hit many houses to collect lots of candy and the other kid chose to go out for 45 min and collect less candy so he could spend time playing . . . why should the kid who put in the time and energy to collect more candy have to share with the kid who didn't.
Answer: she shouldn't.

You're right she shouldn't, except out of charity. But that then says that the lions share of the wealth should go to those who do the WORK, which would be the WORKING CLASS.

It is an incredible lie, perpetrated by the conservatives, to say that in a capitalist society those who work the most get the most wealth. In fact it's just the opposite. The only 'work' that most wealthy people do is in conniving on how to steal as much money as they possibly can!

 

[Annie]

You're right she shouldn't, except out of charity. But that then says that the lions share of the wealth should go to those who do the WORK, which would be the WORKING CLASS.

It is an incredible lie, perpetrated by the conservatives, to say that in a capitalist society those who work the most get the most wealth. In fact it's just the opposite. The only 'work' that most wealthy people do is in conniving on how to steal as much money as they possibly can!

I'm totally blown away, though shouldn't be. One hypothetical, trumped by another, rendered as truth. Truly you believe the followers of yourselves are fuktards, incapable of dealing with reality. Much better to give them an extreme example, deal with as if true, then slam our imaginary enemy.

Hmm, what does one call a person using false flags against a democracy?

 

[Richard-H]

I'm totally blown away, though shouldn't be. One hypothetical, trumped by another, rendered as truth. Truly you believe the followers of yourselves are fuktards, incapable of dealing with reality. Much better to give them an extreme example, deal with as if true, then slam our imaginary enemy.

Hmm, what does one call a person using false flags against a democracy?

Do ever have anything intelligent to say? You keep babbling without point.

Are ya drunk or what?

BTW, capitalism is not the same as democracy and believing that people should be paid fairly is not socialist. But those simple truths are probably a bit out of you reach.