Socialist Experiment

[RI]

Why is it so hard for anybody on here to actually admit what socialism stands for?

Umm...because the word 'socialism', without proper context, is completely meaningless as a conveyor of meaning (kinda like 'liberalism'). To attack 'socialism' in the abstract is to beat up your own personal rorschach test, and to attempt to pass that off as a political insight among anyone who has studied politics is a surefire way to have yourself dismissed forthrightly, while looking like an idiot in the process.

What, in particular, are you attempting to excoriate? Applied Soviet Communism? Modern European social democracy? Theoretical Marxism? Maoism? Chinese technocracy? American liberalism? Some nebulous, generalized fear of income redistribution? Unless you establish what the hell you're talking about, don't be surprised if you're treated as a troll because that's exactly what you're being.

[Qwezos]

Afer Capitalism I really don't see what could be any worse.

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/fullsearch.pl?query=socialist

This is not rocket science.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The analogy clearly applies to income redistribution, which is the cornerstone of ANY political organization/nation that considers itself "socialist."

Now why is NOBODY trying to argue for income redistribution in this thread (Well, other than the one guy who agreed the grading scheme is good, but the good students should have to tutor the poor students)?

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/fullsearch.pl?query=socialist

This is not rocket science.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The analogy clearly applies to income redistribution, which is the cornerstone of ANY political organization/nation that considers itself "socialist."

Now why is NOBODY trying to argue for income redistribution in this thread (Well, other than the one guy who agreed the grading scheme is good, but the good students should have to tutor the poor students)?

So, you think the US is a socialist economy where no one works? Since you have income redistribution.

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/fullsearch.pl?query=socialist

This is not rocket science.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The analogy clearly applies to income redistribution, which is the cornerstone of ANY political organization/nation that considers itself "socialist."

Now why is NOBODY trying to argue for income redistribution in this thread (Well, other than the one guy who agreed the grading scheme is good, but the good students should have to tutor the poor students)?

So, you think the US is a socialist economy where no one works? Since you have income redistribution.

Obviously there is a socialist aspect to the US economy, but not of the same magnitude as one would find in Europe. Should we strengthen government spending or lessen it? Should we increase income redistribution or decrease it, or do away with it altogether? Who will benefit and who will pay under each scenario? If is not fair to redistribute grades in the classroom, and doing so will create an unsuccessful environment, why is it fair to redistribute income in the real world? If we take away reward in the classroom, nobody bothers to learn. Why should we see something different if we take away incentives to work hard in the real world?

These are the type of questions I was hoping would be spurred by this thread as opposed to name-calling.

[RI]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/fullsearch.pl?query=socialist

This is not rocket science.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The analogy clearly applies to income redistribution, which is the cornerstone of ANY political organization/nation that considers itself "socialist."

Now why is NOBODY trying to argue for income redistribution in this thread (Well, other than the one guy who agreed the grading scheme is good, but the good students should have to tutor the poor students)?

lol

Also, look up the redistribution of GPA thread to see why grades and income are not a valid comparison.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/fullsearch.pl?query=socialist

This is not rocket science.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The analogy clearly applies to income redistribution, which is the cornerstone of ANY political organization/nation that considers itself "socialist."

Now why is NOBODY trying to argue for income redistribution in this thread (Well, other than the one guy who agreed the grading scheme is good, but the good students should have to tutor the poor students)?

So, you think the US is a socialist economy where no one works? Since you have income redistribution.

Obviously there is a socialist aspect to the US economy, but not of the same magnitude as one would find in Europe. Should we strengthen government spending or lessen it? Should we increase income redistribution or decrease it, or do away with it altogether? Who will benefit and who will pay under each scenario? If is not fair to redistribute grades in the classroom, and doing so will create an unsuccessful environment, why is it fair to redistribute income in the real world? If we take away reward in the classroom, nobody bothers to learn. Why should we see something different if we take away incentives to work hard in the real world?

These are the type of questions I was hoping would be spurred by this thread as opposed to name-calling.

Well...since you admit that there is redistribution of income in the US and that it has not led to "nobody bothering" to work, there is obviously more to the story here.

If all income were redistributed it would probably lead to little being produced, of course. But it's very unclear what you're arguing precisely.

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/fullsearch.pl?query=socialist

This is not rocket science.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The analogy clearly applies to income redistribution, which is the cornerstone of ANY political organization/nation that considers itself "socialist."

Now why is NOBODY trying to argue for income redistribution in this thread (Well, other than the one guy who agreed the grading scheme is good, but the good students should have to tutor the poor students)?

So, you think the US is a socialist economy where no one works? Since you have income redistribution.

Obviously there is a socialist aspect to the US economy, but not of the same magnitude as one would find in Europe. Should we strengthen government spending or lessen it? Should we increase income redistribution or decrease it, or do away with it altogether? Who will benefit and who will pay under each scenario? If is not fair to redistribute grades in the classroom, and doing so will create an unsuccessful environment, why is it fair to redistribute income in the real world? If we take away reward in the classroom, nobody bothers to learn. Why should we see something different if we take away incentives to work hard in the real world?

These are the type of questions I was hoping would be spurred by this thread as opposed to name-calling.

Well...since you admit that there is redistribution of income in the US and that it has not led to "nobody bothering" to work, there is obviously more to the story here.

If all income were redistributed it would probably lead to little being produced, of course. But it's very unclear what you're arguing precisely.

Like I said in the first post of the thread, I am interested in an open exchange of ideas, not an argument.

If all income were equally redistributed (i.e., "from each according to their ability to each according to their need"), it would lead to almost nothing being produced in the long-run. I think we can all agree on that point. Or can we? If this is true, then what degree of income redistribution, if any, is optimal? And is it fair for some to say that people who have earned a decent living still "owe" something to the less fortunate, or even those who refuse to work? Or is it fair to say that doing so amounts to theft, is unconstitutional, etc. if it is forced by a government bureau rather than taking place through charitable donations?

Let's just exchange some ideas on redistribution whether it be income, grades, etc.

[Јas]

If all income were equally redistributed (i.e., "from each according to their ability to each according to their need"), it would lead to almost nothing being produced in the long-run. I think we can all agree on that point.

I don't see how "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" necessitates equalised income distribution.

And who advocates for strict equality of income distribution anyway?

[RI]

If all income were equally redistributed (i.e., "from each according to their ability to each according to their need"), it would lead to almost nothing being produced in the long-run. I think we can all agree on that point.

I don't see how "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" necessitates equalised income distribution.

And who advocates for strict equality of income distribution anyway?

Strawmen in Politico's head.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Some people are born rich. They contribute nothing to society, benefitting from their parents' wealth. Is it fair to give a good grade to the professor's child, if the child did nothing to earn the grade?

Some people who own businesses contribute very little themselves. They profit off of the work of others. Is it fair to give a good grade to someone who plagiarized another's work, or bullied the class nerd into writing their paper for them?

Many poor people are poor through no fault of their own. Maybe their small business failed when the market crashed. Maybe they lost everything to a natural disaster. Is it fair to simply fail a student who missed a deadline because of a severe illness, without giving them the opportunity to make up the work?

[Link]

I posted this in another thread which has gone awry. I feel like this "legend" is better suited to a thread of its own. I hope it will spur discussion about socialism along with an open exchange of ideas about economics in general. I would imagine that most college students and graduates will be able to instantly relate. The author of this piece is unknown, so the piece is not copyrighted and is therefore reprinted in its entirety:

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 if enacted, no one would be poor and no one would be rich. It would be a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.”

The professor decided that all grades would be averaged together and everyone would receive the same grade. In other words, no one would fail, but no one would receive an A either. Everybody would be equal.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone received a B.

The students who studied hard were upset, but the students who studied little were happy.

As a result of the averaged grade, both the students who studied hard as well as the students who studied little decided to study even less for the second exam.

The average score this time was a D and no one was happy.

When the third exam rolled around, the average score was an F.

The scores never increased and students blamed each other for the overall poor performance of the class. No one wanted to study hard for the benefit of another student, and those who wanted to get ahead based upon their individual merit were not going to achieve their goal under this system.

To their great surprise, all students failed the course. The professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when the government takes all of the reward away, no one will try hard or want to succeed.

Source: http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

Check.

Sorry I was just going through my political forum/comment section checklist.  Every time there is an extended conversation about politics someone trots out this dumbed down tickle me Elmo rendition of how a multi trillion dollar economy works.  If you want to know how me and EVERY economics professor on the planet grade this fairy tale please see the Econ grade on the following transcript.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/fullsearch.pl?query=socialist

This is not rocket science.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The analogy clearly applies to income redistribution, which is the cornerstone of ANY political organization/nation that considers itself "socialist."

Now why is NOBODY trying to argue for income redistribution in this thread (Well, other than the one guy who agreed the grading scheme is good, but the good students should have to tutor the poor students)?

So, you think the US is a socialist economy where no one works? Since you have income redistribution.

Obviously there is a socialist aspect to the US economy, but not of the same magnitude as one would find in Europe. Should we strengthen government spending or lessen it? Should we increase income redistribution or decrease it, or do away with it altogether? Who will benefit and who will pay under each scenario? If is not fair to redistribute grades in the classroom, and doing so will create an unsuccessful environment, why is it fair to redistribute income in the real world? If we take away reward in the classroom, nobody bothers to learn. Why should we see something different if we take away incentives to work hard in the real world?

These are the type of questions I was hoping would be spurred by this thread as opposed to name-calling.

Well...since you admit that there is redistribution of income in the US and that it has not led to "nobody bothering" to work, there is obviously more to the story here.

If all income were redistributed it would probably lead to little being produced, of course. But it's very unclear what you're arguing precisely.

Like I said in the first post of the thread, I am interested in an open exchange of ideas, not an argument.

If all income were equally redistributed (i.e., "from each according to their ability to each according to their need"), it would lead to almost nothing being produced in the long-run. I think we can all agree on that point. Or can we? If this is true, then what degree of income redistribution, if any, is optimal? And is it fair for some to say that people who have earned a decent living still "owe" something to the less fortunate, or even those who refuse to work? Or is it fair to say that doing so amounts to theft, is unconstitutional, etc. if it is forced by a government bureau rather than taking place through charitable donations?

Let's just exchange some ideas on redistribution whether it be income, grades, etc.

OK, yeah, only an idiot would contest that redistribution to achieve strict income equality is a bad idea. That's not really achieving very much though, is it? Since that notion is not an alternative ever discussed in public discourse anyway, disproving it doesn't really help society to get anywhere.

There are certain benefits to certain forms of redistribution which make it ambigious to determine what level is the optimal one.

[Foucaulf]

I don't see how "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" necessitates equalised income distribution.

And who advocates for strict equality of income distribution anyway?

To be fair, I am a closet Owenite and was the one "who agreed the grading scheme is good, but the good students should have to tutor the poor students".

If I wanted to seriously discuss the issue, I would scoff at the concept of "optimal taxation" altogether. I only tried to get Politico thinking beyond his abstractions on marginal utility.

[Politico]

If we can all agree that:

A) Redistribution has negative effects, and absolute redistribution is clearly a path to disaster (therefore one approaches this path to disaster the more one engages in flat redistribution)
B) We ought to still use government policy to assist the poor in some manner while minimizing perverse incentives to not work

Can we all agree that implementation of the negative income tax may be worthy of consideration?

[King]

I love people who think they can overturn hundreds of years of thoroughly cross-examined social and economic theory of hundreds, nay, thousands of thinkers with a half-assed allegory of an experiment that didn't even happen.

[minionofmidas]

I love people who think they can overturn hundreds of years of thoroughly cross-examined social and economic theory

No such thing exists, baby.

[Link]

If we can all agree that:

A) Redistribution has negative effects, and absolute redistribution is clearly a path to disaster (therefore one approaches this path to disaster the more one engages in flat redistribution)
B) We ought to still use government policy to assist the poor in some manner while minimizing perverse incentives to not work

Can we all agree that implementation of the negative income tax may be worthy of consideration?

Every government practices redistribution.  Some redistribute the wealth to the wealthy.  Some redistribute the wealth to the poor.  No government takes and gives back the exact dollar amount from every citizen.  Redistribution can have negative effects but it also has very positive effects.  As with most things in life the answers are complex.  They cannot be illustrated and explained in a dumb fair tale.

[MaxQue]

Without reading the thread, I see than the teacher confused socialism and communism.

[Gustaf]

Without reading the thread, I see than the teacher confused socialism and communism.

Nah, communism would mean shooting the top students in the schoolyard (unless they agreed to devote their mental capacity to writing party manifestos or constructing surveillance cameras).

Anyway, I don't see how negative income tax removes the disincentive to work? That will likely be there regardless, unless one leaves the poor to die. The flip side is that there are other incentives to work that are in play for a lot of people. Also, government spending, if done correctly can be done in a way that encourages work. This is probably why Scandinavia tends to have higher labour supply than continental Europe in spite of higher taxes.

[Likely Voter]

If one must use a classroom as the model, then it would be a more accurate test in the following...

Grades are awarded based on merit, however A and B students are required to provide tutoring for D and F students. However C,D & F students are required to do chores for the A and B students (clean their dormrooms, pick up their groceries, make dinner for them, etc). The amount of chore time given/received may be on a sliding scale based on grade.

This is a model where the entire class is incentived to get better grades and help each other. The net result should be a higher average grade for the class.

[Politico]

If one must use a classroom as the model, then it would be a more accurate test in the following...

Grades are awarded based on merit, however A and B students are required to provide tutoring for D and F students. However C,D & F students are required to do chores for the A and B students (clean their dormrooms, pick up their groceries, make dinner for them, etc). The amount of chore time given/received may be on a sliding scale based on grade.

This is a model where the entire class is incentived to get better grades and help each other. The net result should be a higher average grade for the class.

Why has this never happened if this is in the best interest of everybody?