"An economics professor at a local college made the statement that he had never failed a single student… but he had once failed an entire class thanks to gangster socialism"
A huge "majority" of the class had insisted that Obama's democratic socialism worked and that no one in the “Changed America” would be poor and no one would be rich. The sophomore students were 99% convinced that they knew Obamunism worked. They had all read about "national, democratic socialism" as freshmen and they had watched Obama on TV.
The class was sold on socialism.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class using Obama's democratic socialism." For the rest of the year, all grades would be averaged. Everyone would receive the same grade so no one would be "unjustly" at the "bottom" of the class and no one would be "unjustly" at the "top" of the class.
There would be "economic justice" and "grade equality" in the class.
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.
Within weeks, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little, studied even less. The students who studied hard for the first test decided they wanted a "freer ride" too, so they studied a lot less. It was a “utopian paradise” for slackers.
The second test average was a 'D'! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test was administered less than two months after plunging the entire class into Obama’s progressive, "democratic" socialism, the average was an 'F'.
The grades never increased above an 'F' as the envy and blame created rage. More tests, more F’s. Even the slackers had hard feelings. No one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed.
On the last day of class, the professor told the sullen students that Obama’s gangster socialism would ultimately FAIL because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great. But when "democratic" socialism takes away the reward, no one will endeavor. Most people will work to 'get through their workday' but few, if any, will strive to their full potential or excel or innovate.
Most shocking to all of the students, the professor made it clear that all the F’s were final, everyone failed.
Bottom-line:
In the future, thanks to gangster socialism, everyone in the class would have a hard time finding any job.
National democratic socialists are oblivious to the power of personal productivity, making all people much better off. National democratic socialism makes everyone poorer. However, getting an ‘F’ and having a hard time finding any job are not the greatest dangers. The greatest risk is that these students will forsake the pursuit of happiness and the love of liberty for the rest of their lives.
These students will never be fully human.
Free market capitalism brings happiness; redistribution does not. The reason is that only free market capitalism brings earned success, imbued with nature's true liberty. Earned success involves the ability to create value honestly -- not by inheriting a fortune, not by picking up a welfare check. National socialists are focused on economic justice and grade equality. Economic justice by itself is not what makes people happy. Progressives believe they can build a better society through economic justice and income equality. Free market capitalism makes earned success possible for the most people because how much I work depends on how much I get to keep. Earned success is what makes people happy. All people on this planet understand when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great.
99.999% of people [excluding the far-Left; who are always angry] want to be free to pursue happiness and their full, individual potential.
For all our "progressive" readers, this powerful story is a PARABLE
--------------------------------
First posting on the comment board:
"So, if a person makes 1,000,000 dollars in a year and his tax is 39% which means $390,000 (keeping it simple here without discussion of deductions) he has $610,000 left to spend. Perhaps less if you subtract state taxes. Oh dear. This poor fellow is the victim of socialism... only $600,000 to live on. Maybe we should take 50%? Or maybe we should take 90% of the millionaire's income. I think $100,000 is more than enough to live on; no matter how much rich people make. In fact, no one should be allowed to keep more than $25,000, at most $50,000."
Third posting on the comment board:
Fourth posting on the comment board:
Fifth posting on the comment board:
We at the Observer Journal really love the irony in this quote, "When applied responsibly, Democratic Socialism is..."
Democratic Socialism has been tried over and over. Democratic Socialism has failed over and over and over and over. Per the far-left, democratic socialism failed not because socialism is a moronic economic system, but because the wrong people were running national, democratic socialism.
The Observer says in counterpoise, "It must have been the same 'corporate types' who screwed up the 'evil' corporations, running democratic socialism into the ground, over and over and over, again, in Africa, South America and Europe for the last 100 years!"
"When applied responsibly..." cracks the Observer up!
Sixth posting on the comment board:
"America is stupid, stupid, stupid. We are giving our money away to the insurance companies to restrict our care and deny us coverage. They are of no help to us. We need health care, people, not health insurance. We, as a nation, could become "self-insured" and cut out these blood sucking middlemen. This would save us collectively so much it is staggering. Yes, the bills in Congress would be expensive... but the costs to America as a whole? Still lower than what we pay now. Just consider your insurance premiums to be "taxes" and then you can see that our taxes have been skyrocketing! Worried about government waste? Just because the waste is in the private sector doesn't make it any less obnoxious than when the government wastes. We could spend the money that goes to administration and put it into actual health care. Why anyone would oppose this is beyond me...unless, of course, they just don't get it."
Seventh posting on the comment board:
"I have always felt that being balanced (not too far to the left or right) is a good thing and in economics especially and I would submit that this country has, since Reagan, gone way to far to the right in the economics department in taxes, deregulation etc... which has directly led to our current situation. It seems that many people are starting to feel the same way."
Eighth posting on the comment board:
We're talking about the relative merits of socialism here, not "the Nancy Pelosi's of the government"!!!!! Leave the politicians and bureaucrats out of this discussion. Even if we cleave off those whom you clearly consider unworthy of any social safety net support -- let's just say, for example, that would include undocumented workers, those who collect their wages "under the table," those who dropped out of high school, got involved in drugs and crime and never held a job (and their children) -- from the totality of those who are living under the official poverty line or are considered to be living in "relative poverty" in these United States that still leaves tens of millions of Americans, most of whom are children, wanting."
"Leave the politicians and bureaucrats out of this discussion..."
The Observer REPEATS in counterpoise, "It must have been the same 'corporate types' who screwed up the 'evil' corporations, running democratic socialism into the ground, over and over and over, again, in Africa, South America and Europe for the last 100 years!"
Nineth posting on the comment board:
One of these days, Reagan's "Trickle Down" Conjecture will be shown to be pathetic foolishness. The more we automate the world (the "Industrial Revolution a few centuries past, the computer and networking revolution we are living through, and soon the robotics and biotechnology revolution), the less we need armies of people. And the ones we need will be available mostly at slave wages. Labor is trending to a commodity, as we optimize globally.
We will soon see that corporate global efficiency, and growth in revenue/profits is AT ODDS WITH fair distribution of wealth and full employment. We are facing a critical choice between ideologies: (1 -ME) everyman for himself and may the devil take the hindmost vs (2 -WE) I am my brother's keeper (and vs versa) ... we're all in this boat together.
This "recession" is not a dip. It is early indication of a "perfect storm" of fundamental strategic threats to humanity, which are not only unaddressed, but also unrecognized.."
The Observer mentions in counterpoise, "If 'trickle down' is conjecture then 'spread the wealth' is conjecture and a gulag."
It’s Obamunism, stupid.
Categories: Economics
Tags: obama obamunism gangster socialism national socialism buffoonery
I like your style, the fact that your site is a little bit different makes it so interesting, I get fed up of seeing same-old-same-old all of the time. I've just stumbled this page for you :-D
Reply to this
Hey very nice blog!! Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds also..
Reply to this
This is a very interesting case that can be used to shed light on our current social and economic system.
Socialism is described here as a concept that when pulled over the current social structure – fails colossally. This is used to prove that socialism is utterly wrong.
But this may also help us see several other things that are less obvious at first glance:
1) That the social structure may be wrong, meaning: it may have some basic axioms that should be questioned
2) That socialism and the social structure have conflicting axioms and therefore icompatible
Let’s try to find out the basic assumptions behind the social structure and socialism.
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.
Socialism is defined by using the poor and rich concepts, which are fundamental economic concepts. Behind these, a deeper concept hides, according to which there is a certain (limited) amount of X that can be distributed among the people, in a way that if someone gets more he is considered rich.
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.
The professor is making an experiment that should repeat the same social\economic concepts in the closed faculty environment. If we continue the analogy, there is a certain (limited) amount of points (grades) to be distributed among the students, so that a student which gets a higher grade is considered successful (“rich”).
Success and failure are given as basic concepts which are not questioned. It is taken for granted that every student should inspire for the same A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B
In this economy: some students produced A, others produced B and C – the sum of all contributions was divided equally among the students, each getting a B.
The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy
Here we get to see the student’s emotions: each student had in his\her mind a clear concept of return on investment (profit). In light of this concept, one could estimate the actual oucome. If the oucome was higher than expectation – the reaction was happiness; if the oucome was lower than expectation – the reaction was upset.
Question: was the upset feeling is only derived from the difference between one’s own expectations to his oucome? Is it also related to the fact that others that invested less ended up with the same results?
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.
[to be continued...]
Reply to this
[cont.]
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.
This clarifies the question: it is very upsetting that other people get the same result while investing less effort.
The average then goes further down until the entire economy fails.
Let’s summarize the basics of this social\economic structure:
1. There is a common x by which success and failure is measured.
2. There is a defined minimum amount of x, in respect to which a person is considered successful.
3. x is found in a limited amount – there is scarcity of x.
4. All humans compete over x: because of [3] one gain of x is always on the expense of another human.
5. There is a notion of profit that defines an appropriate return of x for a human effort.
6. Something-ism is the theory that deals with ways of distributing x among humans.
7. Socialism is a special case of [5], which advocates the equal distribution of x, gained by the society.
Well, whatever this x may be, be it money or grades, it is very important because it transforms a very complex human diversity into one common physical object. No matter what you, as a human do: writing music, building bridges, teaching students; every human activity can be converted into this one scale of x and therefore materialize into the world in the form of x.
It is important to notice that the real fundamental questions are not at all related to socialism. Socialism is just a special case of something-ism that deals with x as a hard fact of nature.
It is the definition of x that should be questioned.
In my opinion, the fundamental attribute of x, from which all others derive, is its scarcity. Scarcity leads to conflicts. Back to the economic system: monetary system is based on scarcity.
Money is scarce because:
1. The materials that are used to back it up are scarce – gold, silver, diamonds
2. The things it can purchase are scarce – the more you have of something, the less it costs.
But what if we have a different social structure not based on scarcity but on abundance? What if we could produce food, houses transportation,computers clothing etc, for all?
The question is not “do we have the money” but rather “do we have the resources”.
Let’s say for the sake of discussion that we do have the resources – theoretically we would end up with an entirely different social\economic system which is not based on money. In that system, money is only limiting the system’s potential of reaching its fullest potential, as it imposes artificial limitation by the way it converts everything into a common physical factor in a limited amount. If money is used to measure our ability to produce something, the question of resources becomes secondary.
All the bad feelings of those who got less, as others got more by less effort – these are all based on the notion of scarcity.
wwwthevenusprojectcom
Reply to this
Socialism has ALWAYS meant lowering standards for everyone evrywhere it's been done. Socialism has NEVER resulted in it's promised utopia where everyone is brought out of poverty.
Reply to this
Well, since you'recommenting on a parable as if it were real and relevant, the dailykos offers variations of the same parable that are equally relevant:
http://wwwdailykoscom/story/2010/2/24/13513/4623
Reply to this
It was really inspiring I loved it, thanks a ton to bring me back and more closer to my real self and my family.
Reply to this
This is amazing, I don’t know what else to say.
Reply to this
Pretty insightful post. Never thought that it was this simple after all. I had spent a good deal of my time looking for someone to explain this subject clearly and you’re the only one that ever did that. Kudos to you! Keep it up
Reply to this
That was a awesome read,You discover something new every day.
Reply to this
Many thanks for the article. I will have a link back to this information from our fresh blog. Thanks again.
Reply to this
I read your articles everyday, you have talent in writing, waiting for more updates
Reply to this
Want to thank you for interesting content dude. Keep your blog up to date
Reply to this
Many cool posts here, i see
Reply to this
This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free.
Reply to this
You certainly have some agreeable opinions and views. Your blog provides a fresh look at the subject.
Reply to this
While I agree with the concept, too bad it never happened and so few people decide to check these things before repeating them: http://attackmachinecom/blog/2009/07/16/an-urban-legend-but-illustrative-nonetheless/
Reply to this
The experiment should have been redesigned as follows to more accurately match reality.
Out of his 100 students, he should put one student, his A+++++ student, in a very comfy air-conditioned room filled with plenty of nutritious food /drinks and room services. He also provided this student with the best tutor available.
On the contrary, he put the other 99 students (those with a grade of Z----- to A++++) outside to study in the heat and cold, with insufficient sleep and with terrible food, and subject them to a lot of interruptions and abuse.
Then he gave them the exam to see who will do better on the test. By making sure no student can bring anything into the test room or to get any outside help, the professor was very satisfied that he had conducted the exam in a fair manner.
Oh, by the way, the A+++++ student had not actually earned his A+++++ grade as a result of his own efforts. He was no smarter or studied harder than the other students but he was automatically given A+++++ even before taking any exam because he was the son of Albert Einstein!
Of course, LIFE IS NOT FAIR!
Exactly, because life is not fair that the 99% of the students in the class ganged up to unfairly take away the grades that the 1% has worked hard to earn and then they told the 1% that's the way it is, that life is not fair!
Can Bill Gates still be a billionaire if he had lived alone on an island? Of course not. He was able to get rich only with the contributions of other people. So, without other people, there is no billionaire as nobody can get rich or build a factory on his own. Although Bill Gates had paid others for their contributions to his wealth (or the richest 1% had paid the other 99% percent of the population their "fair" shares), the wealth gap between the 1% and the 99% just keeps widened. Why? If 100 people play a game, say, blackjack, in which just 1 person (or the house) keeps winning and winning and pulling in more and more money as the game went on, wouldn't any analytical-minded person question the integrity and fairness of the game? Or they just blindly and meekly accept whatever they are stuck with and said there is no room for improvement and just let the other guy (or the casino) taking in more money.
This story is based on an unstated assumption which is very ignorant and insulting that poor people (who do not get an A grade) are lazy. Obviously, the author chose to ignore all those poor workers (for example, janitors, gardeners, food workers etc) who work very very hard and sometimes even 2 jobs.
Let's turn the table on those who believe the poor are lazy by asking them this question: "Why aren't you as rich as Bill Gates? Because you are poorer than Bill Gates, it shows that you are lazy, unmotivated and not working hard enough!". I hope they grasp the insight that there are always people, including them, who are poorer than others.
Reply to this
Continuation of the story. The professor was very pleased with the experiment with students. He decided to apply this principle into practice in his family. He came home and told his wife and his children the following:
- From today everyone will eat as much as their contribution of money paid to the family. Everyone will buy their clothes, everyone will pay their school lessons but with their own money. The house is mine and you all must pay my rent.
After one month his wife left him, the children fled from home and become bullies.
The professor thought and said to himself:
- The world is like one big family. Obama's theory does not work, but my theory is not good either. There must be some other theory that is correct.
The professor is still searching for the third theory. To save his family, he decided at least for now to work with the theory of Obama ..
Reply to this
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before and had recently passed yet another entire class. That class had agreed that FDR’s social security worked and that they could help each other all to be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have another experiment in this class on Obama’s (and every president since FDR’s) plan.” All grades would be calculated the same way but higher scoring students would receive less direct attention and would be required to help tutor those who scored poorly (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were passed out and the class average was a C. The students who got A’s were happy with their grades and the students who scored poorly were upset. As the second test rolled around, the students who scored best were asked to do more self-study as the professor spent an extra lesson reviewing material for the students who had scored poorly.
The second test average was a B! Everyone was happy. As the third test rolled around, the top performers were asked to help tutor their peers who were scoring poorly. The third test average was an A!
As the tests proceeded, the scores continued to increase as the students who had learned more quickly and had better previous professors were asked to help tutor those who learned more slowly and had been unlucky with their previous professors. As the top performers tutored their peers, they too benefited! The professor was able to proceed in his material as planned, for the preventative measures of the class kept the poor performers from holding the entire class back!
To their great delight, ALL PASSED and the professor told them that Social Security also succeeds as the government helps buoy a tide that lifts all ships. He explained that neglecting those who need assistance the most is detrimental and eventually hinders even the best performers. He was surprised that there might be some students selfish enough to neglect their peers when they had plenty of resources to help.
These are possibly the best 5 sentences you’ll ever read and all are applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot neglect the poor into prosperity by pandering to the rich
2. What one person receives without working for may have a ripple effect (and at the least, is humane)
3. The government cannot aid people without proper resources
4. You cannot multiply wealth by hording it
5. When over half of the wealth is concentrated in the top 5% and that top 5% rejects unemployment benefits that create more economic value than tax cuts, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Please check out our blog at visceralpolitics@wordpresscom!
Reply to this