I didn’t know how to post the picture so you don’t get to see it. I got out the crayons and paper again for those lead-headed individuals that just can’t seem to grasp reality. It doesn’t get more simple than this.
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 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 would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so 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. 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. 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. 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 all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
The by-product from this message has to do with competition, which is healthy and necessary for a good economy and personal drive. One thing I can tell you for sure: this professor would never be allowed to teach at Harvard!
I’ve seen the simple version of this before. Never seen the full ending of this one, but I like the message, because it illustrates pretty clearly why uniform grading and uniform performance are a lock. As was illustrated, those who earn and exceed their peers will stop doing so once they are robbed of the proceeds and watch it distributed to do nothings. Rome wasn’t built in a day, but it fell pretty quickly once they got bored of the handouts.
The point this makes is good, but not completely accurate. The problem is that while the majority of the people work that way, there should have been one or two students that controlled the process, and had the power to lock up the students that did not perform. After all, the central committee never received only what the average person did … they got much more.
So while the class as a whole failed, there should have been one or two that controlled the entry of the scores (the Obama’s of the class) that didn’t do any real work, but received the reward of everyone else’s work. Those with real power wield it over those that have none, and crush the resistance of those that try to change the system.
That is what we don’t want to happen; that is what we have to work to prevent.
I think you’re over-thinking the example, Brian.
Basically, if the Americans who do work see the fruits of their sweat and backaches going to folks who haven’t done squat, but feel entitlerd to their share because they exist…
Those who provide will stop providing. There will not be any incentive for them.
And I agree. That is exactly what happens in a socialist setting.
The only thing I was pointing out is that not everyone will be brought completely down … socialism gives rise to dictatorships in which the dictator always has more.
That would be the professor, Brain. He got paid the same, and provided the leveling.
Brian, you raised some excellent points, thanks for the insight.
Brian, in the real world, I agree. Even under socialism, there always seemed to be those who kept some for themselves while expecting the rest of the population to live “a notch below” them.As I’m fond of saying, there will still be haves and have nots under any type of “ism”, with the main difference being under capitalism, one can improve their chances considerably without breaking a single law.
Pretty basic stuff. In the old Soviet Union, the members of the CPSU Politburo and Central Committee, along with their families, members of the security services, and certain favored apparatchiks, got to shop at stores reserved only for them and where the limited quantities of quality foreign imports were sold. The average Russian Joe in the cities often stood in line for bread and other basics, hoping that some would be left by the time he got to the head of the line. Sweet socialism. Reagan finally brought the system down by outspending the Soviets on military hardware, forcing Gorbachev to see the handwriting on the wall concerning Paul Samuelson’s basic economic theory of guns and butter.
Hilarity from my all-time favorite Mark Steyn:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/government-232798-obama-unsustainable.html
Wolve – You will love this!
Cmac
I read it … it wasn’t funny, it was pure scary.
How can anyone think that Obama and his crew are intelligent?