The left going more left, and the right going more right.

[Centerpiece]

Whether this ever happened or not - it's a good demonstration of Socialism in action:

Quote

 

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 third 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.

There are five morals to this story:

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.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

Obama's socialism ?  Seriously ?  You can't have a serious discussion on the issue if you call Obama's America 'socialist'.  It's tea-party propaganda and blocks discussion by redefining words.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Michael Hardner

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

Whether this ever happened or not - it's a good demonstration of Socialism in action:

 

How about the current system explained:

Because the Professor is buds with their parents, one or two kids get straight A's regardless of the effort they put in, or even if they show up.

Another 2 or 3 kids have parents who the professor only knows slightly, so he gives them B's, unless they really screw up badly, in which case they may get a single C.

There are another 5 or 6 kids who the professor really actively dislikes; they all get F's no matter what.  Most of them are minorities.

The rest of the kids get C's or D's depending on how the professor assesses their social standing.  Occassionally a particularly hardworking student will get a B and even more occassionally an extremely hardworking student may even a manage an A.  These rarities are held up as "proof" that the professor is fair.  The "C", "D" and "F" students are told they just have to work hard to achieve B's and A's, even though working hard is the least important factor in their earned grade.

How long can this go on before the C, D and F students start simply disrupting the class and destroying the classroom?

Edited June 9, 2018 by dialamah

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

Whether this ever happened or not - it's a good demonstration of Socialism in action:

There are five morals to this story:
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.

 

Its a better example of how a powerful person screws over the powerless.

The real demonstration of the story is that its far too easy for powerful people (like the abovementioned professor) to use their power as they see fit, in this case to jerk powerless people around (his students).   The right wing by definition supports this traditional arrangement of power of one over the many.

Right and left wing politics have far more to do with the distribution of power in a political system not money.       

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Right and left wing politics have far more to do with the distribution of power in a political system not money.       

Also framing of culture.  How else can you get a poor person to be so concerned about paying back debt to wealthy bondholders that they will vote against their own interests ?

It's all changing back again though.  We're electing the clowns that come out before the curtain falls !

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How else can you get a poor person to be so concerned about paying back debt to wealthy bondholders that they will vote against their own interests ?

By frightening them apparently - with scary stories about commies and brown people.

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

How about the current system explained:

Because the Professor is buds with their parents, one or two kids get straight A's regardless of the effort they put in, or even if they show up.

...............

Nothing to do with anything other than you've described an incompetent, corrupt professor........and let's not disrupt this thread to describe the state of some of our Universities.

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Nothing to do with anything other than you've described an incompetent, corrupt professor........and let's not disrupt this thread to describe the state of some of our Universities.

Funny funny; you are the one who started with the 'university' analogy.   The analogy describes the current state of Western society, more apparent in the States than in Canada, but certainly Canada has a habit of following in US footsteps.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, cannuck said:

   I saved the BIG ONE for last in this situation:  China.  While still a communist country, run by the communist party with virtually NO input from the proletariat, it is by far the most successful economy on the planet.  

Define 'success'. It is larger, certainly, but then it has an enormous population. For comparison purposes, China's population is more than four times bigger than the US, but the US has a much larger economy than China. It is also far, far, far richer, for its economy produces vast sums of wealth for its people. Genuine poverty in China is widespread compared to any western nation.

[cannuck]

10 hours ago, Argus said:

Define 'success'. It is larger, certainly, but then it has an enormous population. For comparison purposes, China's population is more than four times bigger than the US, but the US has a much larger economy than China. It is also far, far, far richer, for its economy produces vast sums of wealth for its people. Genuine poverty in China is widespread compared to any western nation.

China's population greater than 5x USA, but 30 years ago, it was an empty shell.  Around 1960, Mao's "great leap forward" starved maybe 100 million people to their death.  In 3 short decades, China has gone from nothing to the second largest economy in the world (largest by some measures - as the US measures speculative values as if they were real).  Nobody has ever done that before, ever.  Successful in that it met the goals of the leadership and continues to grow at a staggering pace.  You have to have been there to fully appreciate some of the hidden facts:  NOBODY in China reports their earnings or wealth with anything vaguely considered accurate.  It is a hell of a lot more wealthy than Westerners think.

[bush_cheney2004]

43 minutes ago, cannuck said:

China's population greater than 5x USA, but 30 years ago, it was an empty shell.  Around 1960, Mao's "great leap forward" starved maybe 100 million people to their death.  In 3 short decades, China has gone from nothing to the second largest economy in the world (largest by some measures - as the US measures speculative values as if they were real).  Nobody has ever done that before, ever. 

 

Yes they did, but in the opposite direction.  China's economy collapsed far more from about 1850 thru 1960.

Nobody in a Canadian province would want to live on China's GDP per capita...then or now.

[Bonam]

23 hours ago, dialamah said:

How about the current system explained:

Because the Professor is buds with their parents, one or two kids get straight A's regardless of the effort they put in, or even if they show up.

Another 2 or 3 kids have parents who the professor only knows slightly, so he gives them B's, unless they really screw up badly, in which case they may get a single C.

There are another 5 or 6 kids who the professor really actively dislikes; they all get F's no matter what.  Most of them are minorities.

The rest of the kids get C's or D's depending on how the professor assesses their social standing.  Occassionally a particularly hardworking student will get a B and even more occassionally an extremely hardworking student may even a manage an A.  These rarities are held up as "proof" that the professor is fair.  The "C", "D" and "F" students are told they just have to work hard to achieve B's and A's, even though working hard is the least important factor in their earned grade.

How long can this go on before the C, D and F students start simply disrupting the class and destroying the classroom?

Fortunately not the case if you take a real subject rather than liberal fluff. Good thing in math and science is there really are right and wrong answers, and you can always look at your tests and assignments and see how they were graded. 

[Argus]

11 hours ago, cannuck said:

China's population greater than 5x USA, but 30 years ago, it was an empty shell.  Around 1960, Mao's "great leap forward" starved maybe 100 million people to their death.  In 3 short decades, China has gone from nothing to the second largest economy in the world (largest by some measures - as the US measures speculative values as if they were real).  Nobody has ever done that before, ever.  Successful in that it met the goals of the leadership and continues to grow at a staggering pace.  You have to have been there to fully appreciate some of the hidden facts:  NOBODY in China reports their earnings or wealth with anything vaguely considered accurate.  It is a hell of a lot more wealthy than Westerners think.

When much of your population gets by on a dollar or so a day, it doesn't take a hell of a lot of improvement to send your GDP rocketing upward. But the more prosperous you become the more difficult it is to achieve those kinds of breakneck rises. The West is incredibly wealthy, so it would take some kind of incredible breakthrough or event to see us doubling our GDP. Not so poor countries.

[cannuck]

True that China is coming back from WAY behind, but don't believe this dollar a day crap.   As I said, NOBODY in China reports their income and wealth - NOBODY.  Yes, poor people can still be poor, but when you are manufacturing and exporting to the entire world,  there is a hell of a lot of money floating around.  The Chinese car market became the largest in the world 10 years ago, far surpassing the US market today.   If you use car sales as some kind of measure (and it happens to be an accurate one), a market that size with that population would suggest the average REAL disposable income is something at least 1/4 of what the average US income is - hardly a dollar a day.

As I said, you have to BE there to really understand.   I have watched buyers come into the showroom and plunk down wads of cold hard cash (as in can't be traced) to pay a half mil for a car we would only pay $200k to buy - and this is as common as dirt.  We see this constantly when Chinese entrepreneurs try to immigrate here - since their considerable fortune is 100% OFF record, there is no way for our gov't to verify their bux are legit.

Edited June 11, 2018 by cannuck