Ok, I Know This Is Anti-obama

stebo · April 25, 2009

Let me preface this copy and paste job by saying that I do not believe Obama is moving the United States to be a socialist country at all... but a friend of mine does and he sent me this forward and I couldn't agree more with the forward... just not his intent behind it

A simple analogy

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 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 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.

Could not be any simpler than that.

UNTflyer · April 25, 2009

Amen, brother.

meangreendork · April 25, 2009

No, I'm with you here - Socialism as the sole means of running a country is impossible. The idea is alright, but it fails when it's applied to people. Hell, there are plenty of great ideas, but they fail when people try to execute them.

That said, contrary to some opinions, the current administration won't be turning the US into a socialist state. There will be more government intervention, but Capitalism will still reign supreme.

eulessismore · April 25, 2009

Why does this have to be seen as anti-Obama? Yes socialism is bad, although American leaders of all parties and philosophies have engaged in in at various times. Even the classroom Stebo mentioned was more likely a public school than a private one. I just see public schools as a public expense than serves the greater good, including strengthening of free enterprise. When I was in the Army, I considered it a socialist organization created to defend capitalism.

Even though I'm a democrat, I admire former President Bush in many ways, although I had policy differerences with him that led me not to vote for him. He was certainly nice to me in a brief conversation I had with him, although I mentioned that I was a Democrat. However, I guess I was as surprised as anyone when he took the approach he did to the financial problems last year. As the Democrat I am now, or the conservative Republican I once was, I'd find it hard to see the measures taken after passage of the $700 billion dollar bailout as other than socialism. I'm sure many of us can remember this statement:

Bush on free markets, government intervention

Edited April 25, 2009 by eulessismore

EagleD · April 25, 2009

So his experiment consisted of 3 tests? Wow. How in depth! And not at all a true representation of socialism.

This fails as a legitimate scientific experiment.

I make the hypothesis that those students originally making good grades would grow tired of the failing grades and would help the struggling students.

UNTflyer · April 25, 2009

So his experiment consisted of 3 tests? Wow. How in depth! And not at all a true representation of socialism.
This fails as a legitimate scientific experiment.
I make the hypothesis that those students originally making good grades would grow tired of the failing grades and would help the struggling students.

Nope, I would drop the class (immigrate out of socialism).

Rather than get mad about it, why not give us an example of "a true representation of socialism"?

eulesseagle · April 25, 2009

Nope, I would drop the class (immigrate out of socialism).
Rather than get mad about it, why not give us an example of "a true representation of socialism"?

emigrate is to leave

immigrate is why we are building a fence.

oldguystudent · April 25, 2009

9dbLfD5Vjq4

EagleD · April 25, 2009

Nope, I would drop the class (immigrate out of socialism).
Rather than get mad about it, why not give us an example of "a true representation of socialism"?

Who said I'm mad about it?

True representation of socialism? comedic, but accurate.

EagleD · April 25, 2009

emigrate is to leave
immigrate is why we are building a fence.

And of course he identified himself as one of the higher rated students. Oh the irony.

UNTflyer · April 26, 2009

And of course he identified himself as one of the higher rated students. Oh the irony.

I did? I don't recall ever doing that. But my mistake in the use of immigration as opposed to emigration pales in comparison to your mistake in believing that socialism works.

Funny video, yes, but they left out a few things:

1. Sweden had a eugenics program for 40 years, from the 30s until the 70s, where they sterilized over 40,000 people because they were undesirable.

2. Sweden has one of the highest unemployment rates in the western world, almost 20%. They report 5.6%, masking the true rate with their social programs where they classify students as employed and laid off workers on "paid leave".

3. Sweden levies a 1% church tax - every citizen is required to give to the Church of Sweden.

4. Personal taxes in Sweden can reach as high as 85%, hence there is no incentive to work harder. As a result, the Swedish economy nearly collapsed in the 1980s.

5. The Swedish people have had enough of socialism. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/j...6-080932-5740r/

So, your "true representation of socialism" forces citizens to give to religion, denied the right of procreation for thousands of families, and reduces workers to nothing more than slaves of the state.

No thanks.

Edited April 26, 2009 by UNTflyer

oldguystudent · April 26, 2009

I've been trying to understand Sweden for quite some time. They have the most socialist country I know of with some of the highest taxes I know of, but I've read in some publication like the Economist that they have the highest per capita standard of living in the world.* I've never been able to understand how all those variables fit together.

*I honestly don't remember where I read this, but it was a non-partisan source as far as I can remember.

oldguystudent · April 26, 2009

I have another question on economics and taxes. The argument is that if you place too high a burden on the upper classes, it deincentivizes working harder. So looking back to the 50s, the top tax bracket was a walloping 90%. As far as I can tell, the relative per capita standard of living was about as high as it's ever been in that decade. As for the wealthy, country clubs, yachts, expensive jaunts to Paris and fancy hotels still existed. The 90% tax I would imagine effectively put a cap on earnings, so how is it that everything ran as it did? I'm really fascinated by this stuff because I believe the answer lies in the data somewhere, but somebody's got to be willing to cast aside the dogma and go searching through it without bias.

EagleD · April 26, 2009

I did? I don't recall ever doing that.

Nope, I would drop the class (immigrate out of socialism).

Then what part of the class would you be in?

If you are going to quote a publication, please use a source other than the Washington Times.

eulesseagle · April 26, 2009

100 days....100 mistakes: ny post:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04252009/posto...6177.htm?page=0

UNTflyer · April 26, 2009

I've been trying to understand Sweden for quite some time. They have the most socialist country I know of with some of the highest taxes I know of, but I've read in some publication like the Economist that they have the highest per capita standard of living in the world.* I've never been able to understand how all those variables fit together.
*I honestly don't remember where I read this, but it was a non-partisan source as far as I can remember.

Because they don't. If Sweden became the 51st state, they would rank lower than Mississippi in terms of per capita earnings. they would be #1 in suicides, and they would be ranked dead last in education.

UNTflyer · April 26, 2009

I have another question on economics and taxes. The argument is that if you place too high a burden on the upper classes, it deincentivizes working harder. So looking back to the 50s, the top tax bracket was a walloping 90%. As far as I can tell, the relative per capita standard of living was about as high as it's ever been in that decade. As for the wealthy, country clubs, yachts, expensive jaunts to Paris and fancy hotels still existed. The 90% tax I would imagine effectively put a cap on earnings, so how is it that everything ran as it did? I'm really fascinated by this stuff because I believe the answer lies in the data somewhere, but somebody's got to be willing to cast aside the dogma and go searching through it without bias.

Post-WWII economics. We were pretty much the only western nation able to produce goods.

UNTflyer · April 26, 2009

Then what part of the class would you be in?
If you are going to quote a publication, please use a source other than the Washington Times.

Oh yeah, because the Washington Times is such a disreputable publication?? Would the Daily Worker be more to your liking? This coming from the guy who posted a Daily Show clip to back up his claim?

What a joke.

oldguystudent · April 26, 2009

Post-WWII economics. We were pretty much the only western nation able to produce goods.

Touche.

oldguystudent · April 26, 2009

Because they don't. If Sweden became the 51st state, they would rank lower than Mississippi in terms of per capita earnings. they would be #1 in suicides, and they would be ranked dead last in education.

And that's why I wonder. A company I worked for in the 90s was Swedish, and the Stockholm crowd was a bunch of humorless, angry people who complained about everything. I attributed it to living in brutal cold and dealing with $9 bottles of beer. That would make me humorless and angry too.

UNT90 · April 27, 2009

Who said I'm mad about it?
True representation of socialism? comedic, but accurate.

Someone who uses anything from the Daily Show in a legitimate argument instantly losses credibility. But such it is with youth these days :rolleyes:

UNTflyer · April 27, 2009

Who said I'm mad about it?
True representation of socialism? comedic, but accurate.

By citing Sweden, and its income equality (and, logically following this, the misery equality), you inadvertently presented a real-life case that proves this classroom experiment. Rewards were equally distributed in this classroom as income is equally distributed in Sweden... except, of course, among King Gustaf and the royal class.

Edited April 27, 2009 by UNTflyer