I quite liked this


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.

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.

 

That's good.

 

Love that!

 

Indeed:

"Nothing corrupts society more than to disconnect effort and reward"

John Maynard Keynes

 

I'm just going outside to kick a tramp

 

That's a very good read.

 

All a bit sixth form, but given we've found our level:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

Is it wrong that I find this slightly erotic?

 

YES!

Remember this - run it from 22 seconds in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyU8qmzGsEg

 

Classic!

 

The HoC is such a boring place now...!

 

Interesting but complete bollocks at the same time, it goes back to the idea that the working class are lazy non working people and assumes that wealthy people are by definition harder working, reality proves very different. Socialism is about the people who work hard getting some reward for their efforts rather than a load of people working for subsistence while fat cats get rich off the hard work of the poor.

 

No, it takes into account the real world and real people, some of who are just lazy by design or because they are given enough to get by on and no real incentive(s) to work harder if at all.

 

I thought it was about getting a council house for life and living off the "state" - I wonder how many other people in this country live (off) under this misapprehension?

 

In a Socialist society, there would be no Scoobies either!!

 

Because Milipede's a shît Parliamentarian who's surrounded by flaccid dullards. Whatever one thinks of Cameron, he's sharp as a tack. If I take a day off on a Wednesday, I'll often have PMQs on in the background and I've yet to see or hear a winning and witty rebuttal from the shadow front bench; roll-on the end of the caretaker opposition.

 

Plenty of social co operatives around and functioning, socialism gives workers some access and controll over the means of production, the welfare state is something different.

 

Aye, work ethic is a important thing.

However work culture is another. UK mandates a work 'til you drop strategy: Live to work, not work to live. Well, it does for the working population, at least.

Now if there is good reward, fine. If there isn't.....f**k it.

Its why I turned into a little (trade) unionist and worked to rule when an old employer took the urine with overtime and bonuses (with a basic salary less than a bin man ), yeah I had less beer money, but I wasn't going to work any harder or longer for no real beneficial reward. Bearing in mind work is what keeps me away from friends and family and doing what I want to do.

I, like many people, need my metaphorical carrot on a stick. (or is that an idiom )

 

The thing is, all the socialists want can be had where there's a system of individual freedom. What's to stop all workers insisting on a minimum wage of their choosing? That's the best thing about the market.

I'll tell you what stops them: their greed. It's their singular goal in life to stop the rat race by preventing it from happening in the first place. But that in itself is a bit of a rat race, don't you think? Greedy, greedy, greedy.

Also, there's nothing to stop companies being set up by individuals who come together to create an equal or 'fairer' (their definition of the word) environment. It's all possible if that's the kind of utopia they're after.

 

He is. I still find the instance when he called Liam Byrne Baldermort hilarious.

 

Without socialism there would be no state education, no NHS I wonder how much of the sneering middle class could actually afford a private education and healthcare.

 

I must admit I held out some hope for the Third Way economic project as a solution to the seemingly endless capitalism/socialism seesaw. Sadly it left us neck high in shît. Back to it, then. Capitalism needs socialism otherwise we're left with rampant objectivism. Socialism needs capitalism less we end up in an Animal Farm or late 20th century Russia scenario. From a state perspective, China seem to have played a good game, but be prepared to give up democracy. In essence, the memes are still evolving and it'll be survival of the most successful - what I'd give to be able to pop back in a millennium or so hence and see how things have progressed.

 

Yep. We can't actually afford, of course, but it's been nice.

 

For now. A lot is hidden behind the surface. In my opinion, from what I've read (and you might remember I've been overwhelmingly positive about China on here before I started looking into it in more detail, so I have no bias), they may get to a point where what is hidden is too much of a challenge to cover up. The mix they have is not good, despite first appearances. This might be of interest (it's well-written and insightful) - http://www.amazon.co.uk/China-Shakes...2591125&sr=8-1

In the practical sense, for our countries, perhaps you're right and we do need this mix. There does seem to be a drift occurring though - in the wrong direction, in my opinion.

I disagree about the development of rampant objectivism (by that I assume you mean the taking hold of an Ayn Rand style ruthless society): was the United States overwhelmed by objectivism in a low regulation, low tax, capitalist environment? Sure, they had trade tariffs, but the market within was a haven. They really were prosperous and happy for the most part while enjoying a life of self-determination. Maybe the UK is just too crowded a place in modern times by comparison.

 

With no NHS and no state education system, the sneering middle classes would have plenty of money (you know- less tax), which they could choose to spend how they like on healthcare and education. I think this is called choice.
Obviously sneering middle class types on the dole would take a differing view.
Having said that, without the NHS and the state education system, a lot more sneering middle class types would be working in the private sector - maybe no bad thing.

 

I need to go out, GK, but this is good stuff. I'll reply later, if not tomorrow. That book looks good, btw.

 

History shows that before socialist protections were around, there was no middle class.

 

You get A** for that.

Brilliant.

 

You been smoking something funny?

 

How so?

I'm thinking back to the Victorians here: You had the rich. The working class and........the dossers.

Basically what happened is everyone has been promoted (sort of)

Rich = Mega rich
Working class = Middle class
Dossers = Leachers and benefit scum.

Obviously we can split Middle/Working Class into different teirs but, they all still work, just some for money than others. Their wealth is dictated by a mix of ability, location, luck and spending habits. The latter being what has bit alot of people in the **** in recent years; More the fool for them in believing in Blair/Brown's Britain.