Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Mo-

Illustration of why socialism doesn't work

Recommended Posts

Small illustration of why socialism doesn't work.

 

 

 

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. (Please pass this on) 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.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This experiment performed by the proffessor is not a correct representation of socialism. Rather it seems to be one of those oversimplified anti-socialism propaganda views.

And besides, is this based on a true event? Sounds like one of those urban legends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it sounds more like communism. communism is a nice idea but goes against human nature i guess, why work more when you end up with the same amount?

 

irrelevant but every couple of years there is some kind of recession, sounds fun, i want to know your solution to this problem mo. this question isn't anything to do with socialism, more just the whole idea of this system we got going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This experiment performed by the proffessor is not a correct representation of socialism. Rather it seems to be one of those oversimplified anti-socialism propaganda views.

And besides, is this based on a true event? Sounds like one of those urban legends.

 

 

It is a correct representation of socialism. Socialist governments always have raised taxes (in particular on an increasing scale), they have more than frequently forcefully acquired large firms (or groups of firms in a single industry) and nationalised them (either by force or by changing laws into laws that are in favour of acquisition), they have redistributed the gains from taxes to the people who pay less tax (both nominally and proportionally) and have also set price ceilings on a multitude of goods and services which people CHOOSE to purchase.

 

I never said it was a true event, rather it is an illustration.

 

 

it sounds more like communism. communism is a nice idea but goes against human nature i guess, why work more when you end up with the same amount?

 

irrelevant but every couple of years there is some kind of recession, sounds fun, i want to know your solution to this problem mo. this question isn't anything to do with socialism, more just the whole idea of this system we got going.

 

Recessions have many different causes, sometimes which occur in a domino effect. They are a natural result of changing human perceptions of what something is worth. They always have occurred and always will. It's just society realising that it over estimates what it already has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the second sentence mentions "Obama's socialism" immediately proves that this is fake. Also "What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."- it says this is one of the reasons why socialism doesn't work, but hilariously, it's also how most rich people are rich. Most of the rich haven't worked for it, they've inherited their wealth, like you have, Mo! Their great-great-great-great-grandfather worked hard, or maybe just exploited a bunch of people who had less power, and thus struck it rich, off the backs of the poor.

 

I've worked damn hard my whole life, and I have jack ♥♥♥♥ to show for it. Why? Because my parents were poor, and upward mobility is next to impossible, even with an education. Especially when a massive recession happens right before you graduate. Why hasn't capitalism saved me from the fate of my parents? Are you going to tell me that I haven't worked hard enough, when every single day of my life has been a struggle?

 

I'm not even a socialist, I'm a Muslim who's not completely naive about how the world works. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. C'est la vie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a correct representation of socialism. Socialist governments always have raised taxes (in particular on an increasing scale), they have more than frequently forcefully acquired large firms (or groups of firms in a single industry) and nationalised them (either by force or by changing laws into laws that are in favour of acquisition), they have redistributed the gains from taxes to the people who pay less tax (both nominally and proportionally) and have also set price ceilings on a multitude of goods and services which people CHOOSE to purchase.

 

If you apply this description to the class room, you would have to tax the marks earned by the students. Not grabbing all the marks and distributing average. If students gather in to groups where brightest one form their own study group while bad students just go to bar, according to your system, the groups will be broken and redistributed so the average skill of each group is more or less the same. The brightest ones will be forced to teach the rest of their group while no more bar for the bad students. The end result will be every one getting work done.

 

top students won't get to keep all their marks, but they will still be in the top. worst students will get welfare marks and they will pass too.

 

So again, the illustration is biased and did not represent socialism correctly. And as far as illustrations go, one could as easily make up a bogus story where giving free market freedom to students resulted in top students firing the proffessor, and designing the exam paper themselves to pass with 100% score while leaving the other students failed. Point being, one needs to be fair when criticizing the "other". If you want to attack, attack the man, not the strawman which you made up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the moral implications between giving poor families benefits and a lazy student more marks is different.

 

and yea there might be lazy people who claim benefits too but there are also genuinely poor people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The fact that the second sentence mentions "Obama's socialism" immediately proves that this is fake. Also "What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."- it says this is one of the reasons why socialism doesn't work, but hilariously, it's also how most rich people are rich. Most of the rich haven't worked for it, they've inherited their wealth, like you have, Mo! Their great-great-great-great-grandfather worked hard, or maybe just exploited a bunch of people who had less power, and thus struck it rich, off the backs of the poor.

 

I've worked damn hard my whole life, and I have jack ♥♥♥♥ to show for it. Why? Because my parents were poor, and upward mobility is next to impossible, even with an education. Especially when a massive recession happens right before you graduate. Why hasn't capitalism saved me from the fate of my parents? Are you going to tell me that I haven't worked hard enough, when every single day of my life has been a struggle?

 

I'm not even a socialist, I'm a Muslim who's not completely naive about how the world works. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. C'est la vie.

 

Sigh. I said it was an illustration did I not?

The point you quoted still holds true, the beneficiary indeed worked for the money and did not get all of it, as they died. Thus, the inheritor took what the beneficiary left behind without working for it. Makes sense, no? I.e., the beneficiary worked, inheritor did not, inheritor received and uses what beneficiary didn't.

 

I'd like statistics please sis, because, last I remember, most people on Forbes list are businessmen. So no, most did not inherit wealth. And where did you get the idea that I am rich from? My family has been blessed with enough, alhamdulilah, we do however live month by month and alhamdulilah each month has gotten better than the month before for quite some time now. My family in the early 1900s may have had some wealth from inheritance (which was gobbled up by socialist regimes in Iraq), but my grandfather, his father and uncles, my father, etc. all have a continuous work ethic no matter their conditions.

 

I would also like to ask you, what is wrong with someone inheriting something? In fact, Allah only permits us to give away 1/3 of our wealth in death, whilst the rest goes to our inheritors (source: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/10447).

 

You also make assumptions out of people who inherit and claim their ancestors exploited the poor. Just because an individual realises their own potential and uses an advantage they have over someone else to profit from, it simply means they are opportunistic. For example, I know a carpenter, and I know a man who needs a wooden chair. These men however do not know each other, and it is likely they will never meet. Also, the carpenter will make me a chair for $10, whilst the man is willing to pay $15 for a chair. Being aware of these two pieces of knowledge, should I a) Inform the carpenter somebody is willing to pay $15 for a chair? b_) inform the man that a carpenter is willing to make a chair for $10? or c) as both the carpenter and the man were satisfied paying the previous prices, take the $5 for myself and hook them up?

 

You have a standard of life where you have a roof on your head, food and a computer with internet connection, you have maintained this standard of life, that is what you have to show for your hard work. Perhaps it is inefficient use of your efforts which have led to your situation. And these statistics regarding 'upward mobility' and education otherwise disprove your point: http://web.archive.org/web/20060907174557/http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p16.html

 

If you apply this description to the class room, you would have to tax the marks earned by the students. Not grabbing all the marks and distributing average. If students gather in to groups where brightest one form their own study group while bad students just go to bar, according to your system, the groups will be broken and redistributed so the average skill of each group is more or less the same. The brightest ones will be forced to teach the rest of their group while no more bar for the bad students. The end result will be every one getting work done.

 

top students won't get to keep all their marks, but they will still be in the top. worst students will get welfare marks and they will pass too.

 

So again, the illustration is biased and did not represent socialism correctly. And as far as illustrations go, one could as easily make up a bogus story where giving free market freedom to students resulted in top students firing the proffessor, and designing the exam paper themselves to pass with 100% score while leaving the other students failed. Point being, one needs to be fair when criticizing the "other". If you want to attack, attack the man, not the strawman which you made up.

 

Where did you bring the idea of study groups in? And the idea of taxing marks, as the tax system indicates would be higher the higher someones marks are (top marks would have a 50% tax on them if we used UK taxation system). Where did the harder working students become teachers? The points you are bringing up have absolutely no relevance.

 

How would the top students fire professor? To what real life scenario is this relatable to, impeachment of a President? Your example sounds more like a workers revolution to me.

 

 

 

the moral implications between giving poor families benefits and a lazy student more marks is different.

 

and yea there might be lazy people who claim benefits too but there are also genuinely poor people

 

Not having forced redistribution does not mean charity does not exist.

 

EDIT: The b turned into B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for those of you who did not understand the basic point:

Why work hard, when others will work hard and you'll get a piece of the pie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where did you bring the idea of study groups in?

It's an analogy for firms. Study group would be the equivalent organization which tries to increase wealth. If you want to apply socialism to class, you have to apply the details properly. You can't randomly decide professor grabs all the marks.

 

And the idea of taxing marks, as the tax system indicates would be higher the higher someones marks are (top marks would have a 50% tax on them if we used UK taxation system). Where did the harder working students become teachers? The points you are bringing up have absolutely no relevance.

study groups. that's one way a study group works. students coming for help from brighter students.

 

 

 

How would the top students fire professor? To what real life scenario is this relatable to, impeachment of a President? Your example sounds more like a workers revolution to me.

This is another random (and inaccurate) example how a "illustration" would go. You want us to unquestioningly accept your version of socialism illustration, but demand absolute accuracy when it comes to capitalism illustration? As I said before, the point is, you have to be fair.

 

Not having forced redistribution does not mean charity does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for those of you who did not understand the basic point:

 

Why work hard, when others will work hard and you'll get a piece of the pie?

basic point or basic propaganda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an analogy for firms. Study group would be the equivalent organization which tries to increase wealth. If you want to apply socialism to class, you have to apply the details properly. You can't randomly decide professor grabs all the marks.

 

study groups. that's one way a study group works. students coming for help from brighter students.

 

This is another random (and inaccurate) example how a "illustration" would go. You want us to unquestioningly accept your version of socialism illustration, but demand absolute accuracy when it comes to capitalism illustration? As I said before, the point is, you have to be fair.

 

Professor isn't randomly grabbing marks. In socialism, the state assumes the role of the firm. It is what governs jobs and distributes income. The state is what enforces (or does not enforce) taxation. The whole point is, person earns, government taxes, government then spends tax revenues, many of which will not be seen by the person who earns the most.

 

I am relating income and hard work, to grades and studying. That is a basic analogy.

 

Here is a breakdown of how socialism uses taxes:

 

Person A works, and earns $100 dollars.

Person B does not work.

The state taxes Person A at a rate of 50%.

Person A is left with $50 dollars.

The state gives $50 dollars to person B.

Person A and person B both have $50 dollars.

 

The point is, person A EARNED those $100 dollars. They earned and worked for it. Person B was not even remotely involved in the work process of person A, yet socialism dictates that person B deserves some of that $100 dollars, and if person A does not give that $100 dollars, they are forcefully put into prison. In what world is that fair? You could say the government use it to build roads, but there are road taxes. You could say the government use it to employ garbagemen and other public services, but there are council and city taxes.

 

 

 

basic point or basic propaganda?

 

How hard is it for you to understand the underlying failure of socialism? Are you seriously telling me, that if wealth was redistributed, that people would work? What compensation would they receive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small illustration of why socialism doesn't work.

 

 

 

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. (Please pass this on) 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.

 

 

Not a completely fair experiment because the professor didn't factor in sanctions for lazy workers. People that didn't work hard should face some retribution(while getting the same grade). But maybe that simply highlights another flaw.

 

Also the class should have had to do different tests, some easier, some harder, some more boring, some more exciting.

 

But as a basic illustration it is an interesting insight into human nature, or at least the current state of affairs. What would have happened if a charismatic leader arose in that group and led the group onto an A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in an ideal world, maybe in a commune setting, socialism could work. But at the end of the day, there will always be lazy people, disgruntled people, and self-entitled people. Sometimes it would be a mix of all three. But we don't live in an ideal world. Fact of the matter is, I look around me and I see so many people that their only career is living off of the welfare state. They have all of their expenses paid for, and they stay home all day in their pajamas. I could do that too, if I wanted. I have kids. The government would throw money at me like Oprah throwing cars at a viewer audience. Put me up in a house and my rent would be $0.00/month. Give me $800 cash/month for whatever. Give me $800 for food. But I don't like that lifestyle. I can't feel like I didn't earn something. So my family would be one of the ones working hard to get by, and the people I mentioned before would be the ones taking our earnings as if they deserve them.

 

Being a human alone doesn't give you a right to dip into the pockets of the hard working without their consent, imo. Charity is great. A welfare state for those truly in need (elderly, disabled (physically or mentally) etc.) is wonderful. But if someone is able-bodied, there is nothing stopping them from busting their ass. Otherwise, they'll just end up taking and taking and taking and never contributing, while the hard-workers get tired out from not capitalizing on their hard work and seeing others sit in their pajamas getting a portion of their hard work.

 

We make our own opportunities, man. If you have a sound mind, use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professor isn't randomly grabbing marks. In socialism, the state assumes the role of the firm. It is what governs jobs and distributes income. The state is what enforces (or does not enforce) taxation. The whole point is, person earns, government taxes, government then spends tax revenues, many of which will not be seen by the person who earns the most.

 

I am relating income and hard work, to grades and studying. That is a basic analogy.

 

Here is a breakdown of how socialism uses taxes:

 

Person A works, and earns $100 dollars.

Person B does not work.

The state taxes Person A at a rate of 50%.

Person A is left with $50 dollars.

The state gives $50 dollars to person B.

Person A and person B both have $50 dollars.

 

The point is, person A EARNED those $100 dollars. They earned and worked for it. Person B was not even remotely involved in the work process of person A, yet socialism dictates that person B deserves some of that $100 dollars, and if person A does not give that $100 dollars, they are forcefully put into prison. In what world is that fair? You could say the government use it to build roads, but there are road taxes. You could say the government use it to employ garbagemen and other public services, but there are council and city taxes

 

Socialism =\= Communism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×