(This was typed in mid May but was delayed at being finalized until now.) Following is a modern parable. My comments will make more sense after you read this.
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. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there is a real test coming up: the elections. Here are five critical applications from this experiment:
A friend responded after reading this that socialism is in between Capitalism and Communism, but that's incorrect. Capitalism and socialism are on opposite ends of an economic policy spectrum. Communism is a form of government that employs socialistic policies. Democracy and monarchy are two alternatives to communism, capitalism is not. As I was thinking about writing this, a thought popped into my head about the specific socialistic classroom idea presented in the parable above.
Schools around the world are either capitalist or extreme capitalist, but I've never heard of a socialist school. What I mean is, even in China (one of the first countries I would think of if you asked what countries in the world are communist, after Russia gave up on it, even though China has actually flushed Communism down the toilet in favor of Capitalism anyway) the students are graded individually. Each student gets a grade for their own work. (However "own" is different in China than in the USA, in China it's expected due to their interdependent culture that students will cooperate to get assignments done, whereas that would be called cheating in the USA. But the point is each student gets their own grade.) This is capitalist, because you get what you deserve based on your performance & results. Then there's extreme capitalism, and that's also called a bell curve. With the bell curve, not only do you get what you deserve (the opposite of everyone getting the same) you only get the best grade if you're better than your immediate peers, not just better than the objective test. If socialism were so great then why would it not have a manifestation in school grading?
So let's be clear on the rub. Socialism makes everyone equally poor and capitalism makes everyone unequally rich. If your priority is equality then you're automatically going to side with socialism and put all effort into raising the bar for everyone from poverty to wealth. If your priority is accountability and meritocracy then you're going to side with capitalism and spend your philanthropic efforts on helping people understand what it takes to succeed in a capitalist society and then providing the opportunities for people to make themselves rich. A key point there is the last three words: "make themselves rich," which carry an implication of hard work. I know some of you reading this are going to hate me for saying that, but if we're honest (and pessimistic) then socialism could be interpretted as a philosophy of the lazy and capitalism could be interpretted as a philosophy of the arrogant.
Am I really trying to promote either one? Not really, I just want us to be honest and consistent. If you want to be rich, you either have to be capitalist or be the one in charge of a socialist society. If you don't care if you're rich and you just want to survive, then either philosophy will suit your needs, though socialism will be a lot easier. If you're a career politician, odds are you want to be rich. So if you're a politician and you're touting socialism then you're probably a liar who thinks socialism is great for the masses because it allows central control of all resources which thereby allows you (the people in charge) to control and distribute the money. If you're not a polititician and you desperately want to convert your capitalist society into a socialist society, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're serious, well intentioned, and would honestly follow through if given the opportutnity. But there's this problem that rich people don't feel comfortable in socialist societies because there's always the threat (if not the explicity mandate) that their wealth will be taken from them. So that means in a truely socialist society anyone who actually develops a good work ethic (even though there's no incentive to do so) will abandon ship at first opportunity and move to a capitalist society where there will be legal protection of their wealth. This trend will severely hamper your efforts to raise the bar for the general population and perhaps even make it impossible. Which then begs the question, is it better to dedicate your life trying to change human nature and get socialism to work, or is it better to figure out how to work within the bounds of Capitalism and spend your life dedicated to making sure we all treat each other as humans (are accountable for our actions)?
[Begin parable]
An economics professor made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently 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”. 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. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there is a real test coming up: the elections. Here are five critical applications from this experiment:
- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
- What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
- The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
- You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
- 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 all the people.
[End parable]
So the first question is, do you agree or disagree? Disagreement would involve having contradictory or conflicting facts or interpretations, which might make the above wrong. If you do not have this then you simply dislike my conclusions and it's important to consider that the above is true.
A friend responded after reading this that socialism is in between Capitalism and Communism, but that's incorrect. Capitalism and socialism are on opposite ends of an economic policy spectrum. Communism is a form of government that employs socialistic policies. Democracy and monarchy are two alternatives to communism, capitalism is not. As I was thinking about writing this, a thought popped into my head about the specific socialistic classroom idea presented in the parable above.
Schools around the world are either capitalist or extreme capitalist, but I've never heard of a socialist school. What I mean is, even in China (one of the first countries I would think of if you asked what countries in the world are communist, after Russia gave up on it, even though China has actually flushed Communism down the toilet in favor of Capitalism anyway) the students are graded individually. Each student gets a grade for their own work. (However "own" is different in China than in the USA, in China it's expected due to their interdependent culture that students will cooperate to get assignments done, whereas that would be called cheating in the USA. But the point is each student gets their own grade.) This is capitalist, because you get what you deserve based on your performance & results. Then there's extreme capitalism, and that's also called a bell curve. With the bell curve, not only do you get what you deserve (the opposite of everyone getting the same) you only get the best grade if you're better than your immediate peers, not just better than the objective test. If socialism were so great then why would it not have a manifestation in school grading?
So let's be clear on the rub. Socialism makes everyone equally poor and capitalism makes everyone unequally rich. If your priority is equality then you're automatically going to side with socialism and put all effort into raising the bar for everyone from poverty to wealth. If your priority is accountability and meritocracy then you're going to side with capitalism and spend your philanthropic efforts on helping people understand what it takes to succeed in a capitalist society and then providing the opportunities for people to make themselves rich. A key point there is the last three words: "make themselves rich," which carry an implication of hard work. I know some of you reading this are going to hate me for saying that, but if we're honest (and pessimistic) then socialism could be interpretted as a philosophy of the lazy and capitalism could be interpretted as a philosophy of the arrogant.
Am I really trying to promote either one? Not really, I just want us to be honest and consistent. If you want to be rich, you either have to be capitalist or be the one in charge of a socialist society. If you don't care if you're rich and you just want to survive, then either philosophy will suit your needs, though socialism will be a lot easier. If you're a career politician, odds are you want to be rich. So if you're a politician and you're touting socialism then you're probably a liar who thinks socialism is great for the masses because it allows central control of all resources which thereby allows you (the people in charge) to control and distribute the money. If you're not a polititician and you desperately want to convert your capitalist society into a socialist society, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're serious, well intentioned, and would honestly follow through if given the opportutnity. But there's this problem that rich people don't feel comfortable in socialist societies because there's always the threat (if not the explicity mandate) that their wealth will be taken from them. So that means in a truely socialist society anyone who actually develops a good work ethic (even though there's no incentive to do so) will abandon ship at first opportunity and move to a capitalist society where there will be legal protection of their wealth. This trend will severely hamper your efforts to raise the bar for the general population and perhaps even make it impossible. Which then begs the question, is it better to dedicate your life trying to change human nature and get socialism to work, or is it better to figure out how to work within the bounds of Capitalism and spend your life dedicated to making sure we all treat each other as humans (are accountable for our actions)?