An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed asingle student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and noone would be rich, a 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 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. 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, 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.
Could not be any simpler than that…
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher
"A government which robs Republicans to pay Democrats can always depend on the support of Democrats." -- Maynard
8 comments:
The problem with this story is that the premise is selfishness and ulterior motives. Take the same story and do this with a group of Asian people for example, who are more focused on their contribution to the community/society as a whole rather than their own advancement and you might get a completely different result. Or apply this to a group of people who are not motivated by grades, but the benefit and joy of learning, and you may also have a different result. Or simply apply this to a group of people who are not concerned with rewards, and will work for the benefit of all regardless of their personal gain, and you most likely will have a totally different story. Almost any government system could work if people have integrity and act responsible. To add to that, I find it ironic that research showed that economists belong to the group of people who donate the least annually. If they feel so strongly about the government staying away from taking care of the poor and needy, shouldn't they lead the way and set an example by doing all they can to help? Maybe the economists are the lazy students in the story, the ones who didn't do much to begin with and now beg for a different grading system so they are forced to act responsibly. Well, I think you should act right, no matter what the circumstances are. The fact that the students failed was not a fault of the system, but a fault of each student not doing their best...
Socialism has many flaws. But Capitalism has just as many.
And now I will shut up.
P.S. This is Fran. I saw a link on Henry's gmail chat for your blog and was curious. Funny that you had this as your topic.
To tell you the truth, I didn't mean to make a political stand. A friend of mine sent me this story and I found it pretty amusing. I realize of course that the same experiment could bring different results: for example, in some cases, the students would all try their best to ensure the success of the group.
On another note, I have my doubts regarding the efficiency of socialism from my own experiences in France, where all are welcome to receive free higher education but few are able to secure employment (one of the reasons I pursued my education in the US).
There is no doubt, however, that both socialism and capitalism are flawed and need serious revisions, but as far as efficiency goes, there is a net difference...
Cool story.
Thanks for that bit on socialism. I totally agree with this professor and the principle that it teaches. I think we should all have equal oppurtunity, which includes the chance to succeed, fail, or be average. And that our reward should only be equal to our effort....I suggest to anyone that doesn't agree with this statement to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, a fantastic novel on the pitfalls of socialism and the importance of capitalism.
Hey! Great post, guys:) I don't know enough about socialism to make an informed comment or opinion about either, but it's nice to have aspects of it in "layman's" terms:) Not that we're ever going to get the full story about anything from anyone but God, basically... I also appreciate the fact that you have experienced both and with your information, prefer what we have in the U.S. Helps to lend perspective!
In response to Henry - surely, if socialism were applied to a small group of people undeviating from their pursuit of unselfish progress, then sure, it might work - but no country is full of people like that.
Socialism does not work. In all honesty, I get frustrated when I state this, having been raised in a country with several socialised systems, and Americans refute my experiences, wave them off. As if a system that is failing 60 million people will benefit a country of 300 million.
Obama's taking it a little further tham socialism though. Socialism sounds like a dream compares to this fascist regime Obama started up. You heard what he said to DeFazio during the caucus last week, because DeFazio opposed yet another one of Obama's magnificent stimulus plans? Eugh. I posted about it a couple of days ago and you can read about that in the Wall Street Journal.
This story is likely guilty of the "faulty analogy" fallacy. If applied to strict communist regimes, e.g. the Soviet Union, perhaps it has some validity. But if applied to the popular use of the term socialism, especially the one that cropped up in the last US election campaign, it is faulty. If applied to the latter, the major problem with this story is that University is strictly about assigning a grade based on ability. The basic human rights of subsistence and a right to social opportunities (health and education) is not based on ability. Everyone is entitled to equal access to them. Governments need money in order to provide these goods. You have to redistribute from the rich through taxation in order to be able to provide these rights to everybody equally. It is therefore guilty of the "false analogy" fallacy. Some people call redistribution socialism (above comments??). This story is worrisome because many Americans conflate socialism with a social welfare state - as it is often used in American terminology, especially in the last elections. Increasing government spending is not socialism. Stimulus spending is not socialist. Obama is not a socialist. But one commentor above goes as far to say that Obama is more than socialist, he is fascist??!!! FYI: Fascism is defined as a "modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity." Please do not conflate terms. If you have really lived in a socialist country (former Soviet bloc for example) you will know how different it is from the social democratic systems of Western Europe, which have the world's highest standards of living. And if you have really lived under such a regime, you should be able to differentiate between systematically murdering any political opposition, especially those of different "races", from simply defending one's own policies. The same criticism applies to those who accused Bush of fascism because he stood up for his national security policies, unless you can make a good case that Bush was forwarding a certain American national identity that excluded Muslims and their "sympathizers", which would be a hard case to make, but I have seen it tried. The bottom line is: please do not form political opinions based on popular media outlets, which tend to be partisan-biased. If you really don't like Obama, then please make a logical argument to begin with and also back it up with evidence.
Hey guys! I just found out about your blog. I have some comments on what was said.
"the major problem with this story is that University is strictly about assigning a grade based on ability"
Karl Marx is famous for the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Food for thought.
According to the Selway family "The basic human rights of subsistence and a right to social opportunities (health and education) is not based on ability. Everyone is entitled to equal access to them."
How was there a fallacy in the analogy when everyone in the economics class had equal access to the professor, material, and instruction? The money had already been redistributed for those in the course in such a way to allow them to be there. Where is the line that we can say "Enough, everyone's access is equal."? It seems to me that while I agree access and subsistence are rights, people use them in the "If you give a mouse a cookie" way. Rights are protected, not provided.
Finally, the premise of our democratic, capitalistic society were expressed by Alexander Hamilton's in the Federalist Papers,"It is the lot of all human institutions, even those of the most perfect kind, to have defects as well as excellencies- ill as well as good propensities. This results from the imperfection of the Institutor, Man."
What are some of those imperfections? Greed is the one that socialists like to refer to. Let me ask this. How is a man who wants more and more money but is willing to work 14 hours a day to get it in an honest way any more greedy than the man who wants health care, housing, food, education, electricity, ... (never ending list just like the mouse with the cookie) but wants someone else to pay for it? I must be mistaken, I thought only capitalists were greedy. Henry is right though, Capitalism is flawed, but at least it allows people the choice of success or failure. Socialists look at failure as a bad thing. Capitalists look at it as part of the road to success. Thomas Edison's took 500+ attempts to make the incandescent light bulb. When asked why he didn't give up he replied that each time he failed he was learning how to not make the light bulb. Socialism might provide but it will never acheive in the way capitalism does.
For those LDS reading this blog, we will be discussing the Law of Consecration this Sunday in Gospel Doctrine class. I have heard many say that this law is just like Communism. This is not true. I will show you this Sunday how it is the perfect balance between Capitalism and Socialism. Be prepared to be amazed by the Lord's wisdom.
I know I said I was done, but that Obama fascism comment got me thinking. He's not Hitler, but after the latest Homeland Security comments, one must wonder why the current administration is investigating "Right Wing extremist groups" who focus on abortion or immigration while ignoring "Left-wing extremist groups" like Acorn who terrorized the families of several bankers and former Senator Phil Gramm and the Animal Liberation Front who will make death threats and harass the children of scientists who do research on animals. This focus seems to give off a fascist odor at least.
Post a Comment