Socialism: Good On Paper, Not In Reality

**xlxBigSexyxlx** · 04-03-2009, 04:12 PM

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had failed very few students but had, once, 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 professor then said, "Ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."
"All grades will be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade meaning, obviously, no one will receive an A." They all agreed to this.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a C. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
But, 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. To their great dismay the professor failed them all. Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government 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."

***D7M*** · 04-03-2009, 04:18 PM

"yes we can"

**xlxBigSexyxlx** · 04-03-2009, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by derek7m

"yes we can"

**BgMc31** · 04-03-2009, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by xlxBigSexyxlx

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had failed very few students but had, once, 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 professor then said, "Ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."
"All grades will be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade meaning, obviously, no one will receive an A." They all agreed to this.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a C. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
But, 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. To their great dismay the professor failed them all. Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government 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."

While I understand the point you are trying to make bigsexxy, aren't you oversymplifying the point a bit. We aren't headed toward a total socialist society and there is no evidence of that. Australia's government has been relatively successful, granted not as successful as our government, but still successful nonetheless, they have a decent combination of socialist policies and capitalism. The same hold true for Sweden and other European countries. To think we are headed towards a Chinese or older USSR form of government is a bit of the 'Chicken Little Syndrome" don't you think? Obviously a complete capitalistic society has its ills as well. There is no perfect system, we are always looking for the a happy medium, don't you agree?

**Matt** · 04-03-2009, 04:32 PM

This will be another 6 pager..

Socialism rocks imo...

**jfalco** · 04-03-2009, 04:38 PM

Results of experiment are clearly skewed. Only a group dominated by lazy below average students would agree to participate in the experiment. Anyone who was an above average student would realize that there is no benifit to participating and several detriments. Personally I think you economics professor made up the story to prove a point. Good story though.

Any science student in the class would have pointed out that it was BS.

**jamyjamjr** · 04-03-2009, 06:15 PM

let me explain something...

socialism, by its self, will not work in american because we have a greedy "captialistic" additude about the matter...

marx said that we would evolve from capitalism to socialism in time.. guess what, we're slowly creeping that way

think about it.. welfair, medical, medicare, unemployment, disability..

and now the very obvious involvment of the government, due to our economic downfall, in our economy (ie insurance, loan companies, banks)...

this is looking more and more like socialism every day...

**BgMc31** · 04-03-2009, 07:06 PM

^^^welfare (1860's), medicaid(1960's), disability(1930's), and unemployment(1930s and partially paid for by employers) have been around for a very long time and funded by taxpayers (both public and private).

**JiGGaMaN** · 04-03-2009, 07:16 PM

my economics classes this semester both had D averages... this story is made up though, there will never be a class where everyone fails, the teacher would be fired. nice propaganda though.

**higherdesire** · 04-03-2009, 07:16 PM

Here we go again with the unititiated proclaiming wisdom beyond their obviuos intellectual capacities.

**jamyjamjr** · 04-03-2009, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

^^^welfare (1860's), medicaid(1960's), disability(1930's), and unemployment(1930s and partially paid for by employers) have been around for a very long time and funded by taxpayers (both public and private).

that's besides the point... we live in a nation that is supposed to be capitalistic without government involvment, but the gov involvment has grown dramatically recently.... when does a country become socialist?? when the government gets involved.. simple

**JiGGaMaN** · 04-03-2009, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by jamyjamjr

that's besides the point... we live in a nation that is supposed to be capitalistic without government involvment, but the gov involvment has grown dramatically recently.... when does a country become socialist?? when the government gets involved.. simple

who builds roads? where do you go to get a drivers license? what is social security? by your definition, any non-anarchic economy is socialist.

**Reed** · 04-03-2009, 07:25 PM

bigsexy.....

good on paper

but not in reality

**jamyjamjr** · 04-03-2009, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by JiGGaMaN

who builds roads? where do you go to get a drivers license? what is social security? by your definition, any non-anarchic economy is socialist.

let me clarify, when gov gets involved in the economy, you have a socialist nation...

road and such are always things done by the gov, whether socialist or not..

that's an ambiguous statement...

better yet, i consider it a red hairing, associative fallacy...

people can rationalize alot..

im a philosophy major, this is what we do all day, discuss shit like this..

there has to be some form of socialism in our government.. you can call us the "capitalistic-socialist" nation... like we were bi and confused about it..

**JiGGaMaN** · 04-03-2009, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by jamyjamjr

let me clarify, when gov gets involved in the economy, you have a socialist nation...

road and such are always things done by the gov, whether socialist or not..

that's an ambiguous statement...

better yet, i consider it a red hairing, associative fallacy...

people can rationalize alot..

im a philosophy major, this is what we do all day, discuss shit like this..

there has to be some form of socialism in our government.. you can call us the "capitalistic-socialist" nation... like we were bi and confused about it..

thats funny you suggest my statement is ambiguous when in fact your is the ambiguous one. also, you spelled herring terribly wrong...

what you are trying to say: when the government takes ownership of publicly/privately owned companies, that is socialism. was that so hard?

**jamyjamjr** · 04-03-2009, 07:52 PM

haha.. spell check has made me a lazy writer..

cant see how my statement is ambiguous.. but i guess that's realtive...

glad i have a professor like you to keep my spelling in check.. thx teach!!!

btw, when your done flaming me, there are some n00bs in the q and a section that need your attention....

haha.. jigga u take things way too seriously.. that and u seem a bit bitter, take it easy tough guy!!!!

either way.. im glad you got my point that seemed so "hard"...lmao

well then, what say you jigga, do you disagree with what i was saying??

**NewMuscle83** · 04-03-2009, 08:09 PM

Yeah, that story is obviously fake. If Socialism was really that simple, no one would even know who Marx was.

On another note, being a Marxist myself, and a poly sci major, I can argue the validity of the system all day long, but it won't do anything here on an internet forum. And by the way, in a socialist economy people won't all make the same money.

**xlxBigSexyxlx** · 04-03-2009, 08:31 PM

Of course its fake!

It was meant to be a joke...lol

**IM708** · 04-03-2009, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by jamyjamjr

haha.. spell check has made me a lazy writer..

cant see how my statement is ambiguous.. but i guess that's realtive...

glad i have a professor like you to keep my spelling in check.. thx teach!!!

btw, when your done flaming me, there are some n00bs in the q and a section that need your attention....

haha.. jigga u take things way too seriously.. that and u seem a bit bitter, take it easy tough guy!!!!

either way.. im glad you got my point that seemed so "hard"...lmao

well then, what say you jigga, do you disagree with what i was saying??

Are you intentionally being a hypocrite...?

**jamyjamjr** · 04-03-2009, 08:34 PM

how am i being a hypocrite again???

**Prada** · 04-03-2009, 09:35 PM

Every nation is socialist to some degree.

**JiGGaMaN** · 04-03-2009, 09:54 PM

the only thing i disagree with is your definition of socialism: your clarified version was "let me clarify, when gov gets involved in the economy, you have a socialist nation".

then you go on to admit the government builds roads, provides welfare, postal service are public initiatives performed by the government. that means according to your statement, the U.S. government has been socialist since the beginning. Then you disagree with that definition, even though you are the one who provided it. What im trying to say is you need to define what you consider socialist more accurately.

**jamyjamjr** · 04-03-2009, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by JiGGaMaN

the only thing i disagree with is your definition of socialism: your clarified version was "let me clarify, when gov gets involved in the economy, you have a socialist nation".

then you go on to admit the government builds roads, provides welfare, postal service are public initiatives performed by the government. that means according to your statement that the U.S. government has been socialist since the beginning. But then you disagree with that definition, even though you are the one who provided it. What im trying to say is you need to define what you consider socialist more accurately.

what does gov funded roads and postal service have to do with socialism?? i never said a such thing..

capitalism can be capitalism because the government doesn't get involved with business... i never said anything about roads..

im leaning more towards the government buying out/financialy supporting our bank system..

there must have been a misunderstanding..

when it comes down to welfare and medicare, that is a SOCIALIST philosophy....

im sure u misunderstood what i was saying jigga...

**JiGGaMaN** · 04-04-2009, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by jamyjamjr

what does gov funded roads and postal service have to do with socialism?? i never said a such thing..

capitalism can be capitalism because the government doesn't get involved with business...

you realize you did not say government being involved in business, you just said government being involved with the economy, which all governments are. Do you see why it was an ambiguous statement now?

**jamyjamjr** · 04-04-2009, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by JiGGaMaN

you realize you did not say government being involved in business, you just said government being involved with the economy, which all governments are. Do you see why it was an ambiguous statement now?

by economy i felt you would understand the business aspect being effected.. (i can see why you would take it like that).. so be it..

**JiGGaMaN** · 04-04-2009, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by jamyjamjr

by economy i felt you would understand the business aspect being effected.. (i can see why you would take it like that).. so be it..

heres the most basic of economic models

GDP=Y=C+I+G (consumption + investment + government spending

i dont see why i wouldnt.

**Prada** · 04-04-2009, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by JiGGaMaN

heres the most basic of economic models

GDP=Y=C+I+G (consumption + investment + government spending

i dont see why i wouldnt.

lol, good 'ol macroeconomics.

Dont forget GNP

**JiGGaMaN** · 04-04-2009, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Prada

lol, good 'ol macroeconomics.

Dont forget GNP

i will never foget GNP.

**tyward** · 04-04-2009, 02:38 PM

I love how the far right (Notice how I qualified my response to limit argument) has latched onto socialism as the latest phrase to demonise the people who don't agree with them. Just a few years ago it was the term "liberal". If the points on your side of the debate are strong you don't need to limit the other side by name calling, you would welcome all disagreements as helping to hone your own intellect. Socialism and c

apitalism are theoretical constructs and there will always be some sort of balance struck between them (and others) in any society. Besides, if America were a purely capitalist country I would own all the houses and all the hotels, it's what I do...

**Prada** · 04-04-2009, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by JiGGaMaN

the only thing i disagree with is your definition of socialism: your clarified version was "let me clarify, when gov gets involved in the economy, you have a socialist nation".

then you go on to admit the government builds roads, provides welfare, postal service are public initiatives performed by the government. that means according to your statement, the U.S. government has been socialist since the beginning. Then you disagree with that definition, even though you are the one who provided it. What im trying to say is you need to define what you consider socialist more accurately.

In "pure capitalism" like Adam Smiths invisible hand, roads, water, sewage, et cetra, would be paid for based on usage or to have access. In the US that is already somewhat the case. However there are common things like defense that are paid by all citizens in the best interest of citizens but technically that too could be privatized totally.

**JiGGaMaN** · 04-04-2009, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Prada

In "pure capitalism" like Adam Smiths invisible hand, roads, water, sewage, et cetra, would be paid for based on usage or to have access. In the US that is already somewhat the case. However there are common things like defense that are paid by all citizens in the best interest of citizens but technically that too could be privatized totally.

oh i know. with 4 university economics credits i am the most qualified economist on this board, lol. my point was government spending makes up a significant portion of any economy, and that the term 'socialist' is used too broadly.

**quarry206** · 04-05-2009, 03:30 PM

I like pizza...

sorry i felt like that comment would do about as much as everybody elses to change somebody else opinion..

**BuffedGuy** · 04-05-2009, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by quarry206

I like pizza...

I don't think you should make such sweeping generalizations. Not all pizzas are the same. It really depends on the individual pizza. For example, Pizza Hut is good, but Dominoes is just ok.

**tyward** · 04-05-2009, 10:00 PM

But pizza is only great if made by a person who is thinking only positive, capitalist thoughts. I hate pizza that is made by people who like socialism!

**JiGGaMaN** · 04-05-2009, 10:03 PM

i won the argument, yay for me.

**NewMuscle83** · 04-05-2009, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by tyward

But pizza is only great if made by a person who is thinking only positive, capitalist thoughts. I hate pizza that is made by people who like socialism!

On the contrary, pizza made for profit will be just that, made for profit. The pizza maker will try to cut corners in quality in order to maximize profit. pizza made by a socialist will not carry within it the pressure to maximize profit in order to afford basic life necessities, and therefore will be made with care and out of love for the pizza not the dollar, which will result in a much higher quality product.