A short story in applied socialism; a big learning experience.

[johnn1]

someone posted this interesting story at my blog. How true! Read and weep libs!

A short story in applied socialism; a big learning experience.

Last semester Texas Tech had an economics professor who said he had never failed a single student before, but had, on one occasion, failed an entire class. That class had insisted socialism could be successful wherein no one would be poor and no one would be rich, socialism was the great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade; no one would fail and no one would receive an A. 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. But, as the mid-term 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 finals rolled around the average was an F.

The scores NEVER increased and the bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and NO ONE would study for anyone else. To the students’ great surprise, ALL failed and the professor told them that socialism ultimately ALWAYS fails. It is the natural human condition for those who work harder to be the ones expecting to receive the greater reward, but when a socialist government takes that reward away; NO ONE will endeavor to succeed.

 

[Zoomie1980]

someone posted this interesting story at my blog. How true! Read and weep libs!

A short story in applied socialism; a big learning experience.

Last semester Texas Tech had an economics professor who said he had never failed a single student before, but had, on one occasion, failed an entire class. That class had insisted socialism could be successful wherein no one would be poor and no one would be rich, socialism was the great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade; no one would fail and no one would receive an A. 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. But, as the mid-term 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 finals rolled around the average was an F.

The scores NEVER increased and the bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and NO ONE would study for anyone else. To the students’ great surprise, ALL failed and the professor told them that socialism ultimately ALWAYS fails. It is the natural human condition for those who work harder to be the ones expecting to receive the greater reward, but when a socialist government takes that reward away; NO ONE will endeavor to succeed.

What I find astounding today is the leaders of SOCIALIST Western Europe, find Obama's spending and growth of government to be "potentially catastrophic". What does it say when a SOCIALIST claims your policies are "too far left"????

 

[neurosport]

this guy:

A Radical Blackfoot

explained the OPPOSITE point in this video:

A RADICAL BLACKFOOT TEACHES THE ECONOMICS OF GLOBALIZATION

he explained why he never grades on a "curve" in his class. because when a curve is given everybody starts trying to fuck each other over by not sharing notes, excluding others from study groups etc.

capitalism is like that because you profit when your competitor fails. as long as you have any means of "helping" your competitor to fail you will use them.

i am not a liberal though. i am free market.

 

[Jon]

this guy:

A Radical Blackfoot

explained the OPPOSITE point in this video:

A RADICAL BLACKFOOT TEACHES THE ECONOMICS OF GLOBALIZATION

he explained why he never grades on a "curve" in his class. because when a curve is given everybody starts trying to fuck each other over by not sharing notes, excluding others from study groups etc.

capitalism is like that because you profit when your competitor fails. as long as you have any means of "helping" your competitor to fail you will use them.

i am not a liberal though. i am free market.

At least his method promotes competition and encourages everyone to work hard for their grade, and under his method, everyone makes the grade they earn. No one gets a free ride and no one suffers because the rest of the class fails at life.

 

[Diuretic]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

 

[Zoom-boing]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

I disagree. In John's Texas Tech example, the students (social) own the grades (means of production) for the class (society). The experiment resulted in failure for all.

 

[WillowTree]

this guy:

A Radical Blackfoot

explained the OPPOSITE point in this video:

A RADICAL BLACKFOOT TEACHES THE ECONOMICS OF GLOBALIZATION

he explained why he never grades on a "curve" in his class. because when a curve is given everybody starts trying to fuck each other over by not sharing notes, excluding others from study groups etc.
capitalism is like that because you profit when your competitor fails. as long as you have any means of "helping" your competitor to fail you will use them.

i am not a liberal though. i am free market.

You have that "victim" mentality. Take your own damn notes. And study by yourself. Nobody owes you anything.

 

[xsited1]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

Why insult the OP? It has everything to do with socialism. If the public has ownership of the means of production in a society, only a few will want to work. The rest will let others do the work for them until nobody does any work. It was proven quite effectively in the OP example.

 

[neurosport]

You have that "victim" mentality. Take your own damn notes. And study by yourself. Nobody owes you anything.

i am not a student ...

 

[amrchaos]

someone posted this interesting story at my blog. How true! Read and weep libs!

A short story in applied socialism; a big learning experience.

Last semester Texas Tech had an economics professor who said he had never failed a single student before, but had, on one occasion, failed an entire class. That class had insisted socialism could be successful wherein no one would be poor and no one would be rich, socialism was the great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade; no one would fail and no one would receive an A. 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. But, as the mid-term 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 finals rolled around the average was an F.

The scores NEVER increased and the bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and NO ONE would study for anyone else. To the students’ great surprise, ALL failed and the professor told them that socialism ultimately ALWAYS fails. It is the natural human condition for those who work harder to be the ones expecting to receive the greater reward, but when a socialist government takes that reward away; NO ONE will endeavor to succeed.

You know--there are colleges that do not assign grades......Try Harvey Mudd for an example.....

 

[johnn1]

this guy:

A Radical Blackfoot

explained the OPPOSITE point in this video:

A RADICAL BLACKFOOT TEACHES THE ECONOMICS OF GLOBALIZATION

he explained why he never grades on a "curve" in his class. because when a curve is given everybody starts trying to fuck each other over by not sharing notes, excluding others from study groups etc.

capitalism is like that because you profit when your competitor fails. as long as you have any means of "helping" your competitor to fail you will use them.

i am not a liberal though. i am free market.

It's called competition. Both can grow together. Those who want to work harder will grow bigger. It's that simple. That professor is a complete idiot.

 

[Meister]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

D. this thread is spot on. Ronald Reagan had a story called the "Little Red Rooster," which basically stated the same thing in a farm story. It was to make socialism simple for everyone to understand.

 

[Diuretic]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

Why insult the OP? It has everything to do with socialism. If the public has ownership of the means of production in a society, only a few will want to work. The rest will let others do the work for them until nobody does any work. It was proven quite effectively in the OP example.

No, it's a stupid OP that's why I hammered it. And your theory that no-one will want to work is also ridiculous. If the idea of socialism is going to be critiqued, that's fine, but at make some valid points instead of indulging in flights of fancy.

 

[Diuretic]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

D. this thread is spot on. Ronald Reagan had a story called the "Little Red Rooster," which basically stated the same thing in a farm story. It was to make socialism simple for everyone to understand.

"It was to make socialism simple for everyone to understand".

It's pretty simple to understand, it doesn't need a farmyard allegory. Capitalism is simple to understand as well, but if you need a farmyard allegory I can give you one. But be warned there would be a lot of animals getting fucked in the allegory.

 

[Meister]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

D. this thread is spot on. Ronald Reagan had a story called the "Little Red Rooster," which basically stated the same thing in a farm story. It was to make socialism simple for everyone to understand.

"It was to make socialism simple for everyone to understand".

It's pretty simple to understand, it doesn't need a farmyard allegory. Capitalism is simple to understand as well, but if you need a farmyard allegory I can give you one. But be warned there would be a lot of animals getting fucked in the allegory.

Dude...just giving you some history from one of our presidents.....keep it real. Don't get your panties in a bunch. Most people don't understand socialism.

 

[bro]

D. this thread is spot on. Ronald Reagan had a story called the "Little Red Rooster," which basically stated the same thing in a farm story. It was to make socialism simple for everyone to understand.

"It was to make socialism simple for everyone to understand".

It's pretty simple to understand, it doesn't need a farmyard allegory. Capitalism is simple to understand as well, but if you need a farmyard allegory I can give you one. But be warned there would be a lot of animals getting fucked in the allegory.

Dude...just giving you some history from one of our presidents.....keep it real. Don't get your panties in a bunch. Most people don't understand socialism.

Hi everyone. New to the board here.

As for socialism, I too had fears of a system that clearly promotes a lack of "want to". Then we got 8 years of bush. With the corruption on wall street, I'm all in favor of socialism now. Besides you guys will complain loud enough it won't last that long.

Clearly outright socialistic societies can't work. I'm not going to try hard to earn money when the government is going to give it to the guy who isn't trying. But at the same time when ceo's are getting 210 million severance packages after they screw up thier company, we definetely need to put the screws to the guys at the top.

 

[Ravi]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

Why insult the OP? It has everything to do with socialism. If the public has ownership of the means of production in a society, only a few will want to work. The rest will let others do the work for them until nobody does any work. It was proven quite effectively in the OP example.

No, it's a stupid OP that's why I hammered it. And your theory that no-one will want to work is also ridiculous. If the idea of socialism is going to be critiqued, that's fine, but at make some valid points instead of indulging in flights of fancy.

I agree. The OP also assumes that college students aren't there to learn anything. In other words, college students are paying money and yet not attempting to benefit from the money spent. I think that is a pretty stupid assumption to make...and actually against the free market.

 

[Diuretic]

I can't do a Ronnie Reagan barnyard metaphor so this will have to do:

Market socialism refers to various economic systems in which the government owns the economic institutions or major industries but operates them according to the rules of supply and demand. In a traditional market socialist economy, prices would be determined by a government planning ministry, and enterprises would either be state-owned or cooperatively-owned and managed by their employees. Libertarian socialists and left-anarchists often promote a form of market socialism in which enterprises are owned and managed collectively by the workers, but compete with each other in the same way private companies compete in a capitalist market. The People's Republic of China currently has a form of market socialism referred to as the socialist market economy, in which most of the industry is state-owned, but prices are not set by the government. Within this model, the state-owned enterprises are free from excessive regulation and function more autonomously in a more decentralized fashion than in other socialist economic systems.

Market socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Meister]

I can't do a Ronnie Reagan barnyard metaphor so this will have to do:

Market socialism refers to various economic systems in which the government owns the economic institutions or major industries but operates them according to the rules of supply and demand. In a traditional market socialist economy, prices would be determined by a government planning ministry, and enterprises would either be state-owned or cooperatively-owned and managed by their employees. Libertarian socialists and left-anarchists often promote a form of market socialism in which enterprises are owned and managed collectively by the workers, but compete with each other in the same way private companies compete in a capitalist market. The People's Republic of China currently has a form of market socialism referred to as the socialist market economy, in which most of the industry is state-owned, but prices are not set by the government. Within this model, the state-owned enterprises are free from excessive regulation and function more autonomously in a more decentralized fashion than in other socialist economic systems.

Market socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks pretty good on paper huh? Just throw in the intangibles, like human nature, and such, and there goes the your perfect government. You think that China's works well? Just look at the damn government control it has over the citizens. Look at the poverty level in China. Your ignorant, or naive...only you can answer that. But redistribution of wealth is not healthy for our government...maybe yours...I don't know where you live. Perhaps you do need the barnyard version on socialism...it show more realism than your wikipedia version

 

[Bern80]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

This is a pretty weak argument Di. The word socialism is a lot like the work liberal. It's meaning has changed. Classic liberals are rolling over in their graves at the like of Pelosi, Clinton and Gore calling themselves liberal. It may not mean the same thing anymore, but we all know what it means now. The same is true of the term socialism.

What should we call it? Collectivism? Communism? Progressive? I don't really care what term is used and socialism is as good a word as any because we all understand what it means regardless of the definition you would like us to adhere to.