Class Test ... Obama's Socialist Plan

[legelegel]

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 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 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.

[OSUEE]

Amen!

[Ivan]

Very nice example.

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

Next semester he went the other way. 3 people dropped. 5 people failed. 3 people made A's and everyone else got a C.

[OSUFan]

Next semester he went the other way. 3 people dropped. 5 people failed. 3 people made A's and everyone else got a C.

Actually, the professor would be out of work because no student wanted to enroll in his class after hearing he flunked his whole class the last semester.

[pistolpete2002]

I like VDO's scenario the best. It at least gives those who try the ability to succeed instead of those who try having to carry everyone else and STILL FAILING!!!!!

Great Example Vulgar!!!!

[Vulgar Display of Orange]

A true capitalist (conservative...since apparently 90% of the people spouting off have no idea that they aren't interchangeable) will also mistake opportunity for ability.

[pistolpete2002]

So are you saying that we just take away the opportunity for those that have the ability???

[legelegel]

A true capitalist ... will also mistake opportunity for ability.

Can someone help me on this one?

[bleedorange]

A true capitalist (conservative...since apparently 90% of the people spouting off have no idea that they aren't interchangeable) will also mistake opportunity for ability.

Only a lib would see no problem with handcuffing those with ability. That Dumbing-Down program is working well.

[MisterE-NYC]

Get rid of federal funding for fire departments. I have never had to use the fire department, so why should I pay for it. Those are tax dollars that could be better spent elsewhere. Why does everyone have to be burdened by paying for it, when only a few people use it. Wealthy people pay more to the fire departments then any other economic class, but house fires are more common and cause more damage in apartments and lower to middle income housing. The wealthy people are having to support fire departments, and those fire departments do more work for the middle and low income people. They are getting a free and cheap ride, and it must be stopped. Make the people that use the fire department pay for it, so all of the rest of us do not get burdened by it.

[legelegel]

The wealthy sure used the FDNY on a September day in NYC in 2001. I doubt anyone can repay enough for that day of attempted services.

[MisterE-NYC]

Ya, some wealthy NY'ers did, so did poor ones and a lot of working class ones. Why should people in other states have to pay for it though. It is not fair to those in the other states to pay for New Yorks problem.

[osupsycho]

Get rid of federal funding for fire departments. I have never had to use the fire department, so why should I pay for it. Those are tax dollars that could be better spent elsewhere. Why does everyone have to be burdened by paying for it, when only a few people use it. Wealthy people pay more to the fire departments then any other economic class, but house fires are more common and cause more damage in apartments and lower to middle income housing. The wealthy people are having to support fire departments, and those fire departments do more work for the middle and low income people. They are getting a free and cheap ride, and it must be stopped. Make the people that use the fire department pay for it, so all of the rest of us do not get burdened by it.

Why do you jump to saying that it is the wealthy that are at fault here. The real ones losing in Obamas plans are businesses (small and large) and they would gladly pay for fire protection. If you take away the incentives for those with the desire and ability to start and run businesses in this country then this country will die!! Heck what most people consider to be the "wealthy" are nothing more than shams...

[wood911]

Ya, some wealthy NY'ers did, so did poor ones and a lot of working class ones. Why should people in other states have to pay for it though. It is not fair to those in the other states to pay for New Yorks problem.

WHy did we pay a huge cash settlement to NYers who lost a loved one or was injured because of the 9/11 situation. OKC bombng survivors and victims didn't get any $ settlement.
Why is the federal gov't inovlved in fire depts? That should be an item for communities and states. If the federal gov't wasn't taxing us to death, we would be able to afford to take care of ourselves. The power is with the money, tho, so the feds take it then make us do tricks to get it back. Kind of like a trained seal.:D

[legelegel]

WHy did we pay a huge cash settlement to NYers who lost a loved one or was injured because of the 9/11 situation. OKC bombng survivors and victims didn't get any $ settlement.
Why is the federal gov't inovlved in fire depts? That should be an item for communities and states. If the federal gov't wasn't taxing us to death, we would be able to afford to take care of ourselves. The power is with the money, tho, so the feds take it then make us do tricks to get it back. Kind of like a trained seal.:D

But some people don't like fish or the fishy smell in the reward.

[MisterE-NYC]

Why do you jump to saying that it is the wealthy that are at fault here. The real ones losing in Obamas plans are businesses (small and large) and they would gladly pay for fire protection. If you take away the incentives for those with the desire and ability to start and run businesses in this country then this country will die!! Heck what most people consider to be the "wealthy" are nothing more than shams...

So, wait, you are saying that businesses would gladly pay for fire protection??? Are you then saying that they would not want to pay for healthcare? Because when an employee is sick and misses work, or is in the hospital, then the business is hurt. Health coverage, like fire coverage, would be beneficial to businesses. Healthier employees are more productive then sick ones, just as unburnt employees are in less pain the burnt ones.

Oh, and working for a small start up business right now, I know exactly where you are coming from. We are struggling, have struggles, and will continue to struggle. I am jobless because of this small company. But do you know what will really kill this country? Outsourcing and getting rid of job to technology. Outsourcing is obvious, but getting rid of jobs... think when you go to a bank and there is 2 tellers and 20 atms that do what tellers use to do, or going to home depot and having 20 self checkouts and 2 people checking out. We are cutting jobs to save money, but the cutting of the jobs means there are less jobs, and that is doing more harm to the economy. We are replacing people to make things cheaper, and our unemployment rate keeps getting bigger. Its a bad thing.

WHy did we pay a huge cash settlement to NYers who lost a loved one or was injured because of the 9/11 situation. OKC bombng survivors and victims didn't get any $ settlement.
Why is the federal gov't inovlved in fire depts? That should be an item for communities and states. If the federal gov't wasn't taxing us to death, we would be able to afford to take care of ourselves. The power is with the money, tho, so the feds take it then make us do tricks to get it back. Kind of like a trained seal.:D

I dont know why NYC got a huge cash settlement... maybe because NY knows how to lobby the government and OK does not.
Start petitioning to take away federal funding for fire departments, get your state to start taxing you more so you can cover your local FD, and that would really show me that you dont want the Fed involved with your money. I will back you up if you do that.

[legelegel]

If you haven't noticed, MisterE-NYC (http://www.ostatesports.com/community/member.php?u=419) is back in a big way. :)

[MisterE-NYC]

Haha, there has to be some voice or reason on this board

[osupsycho]

Actually businesses pay a huge chunk of the insurance cost for their employees, so much so that many of the new plans are requiring employees to see on their paychecks how much the business is paying toward their insurance. The problem is insurance is something that many small businesses just can't do. I am all for any plan that assists those companies and their workers in a reasonable and fudicary manner.

[FloridaPoke]

Oh, and working for a small start up business right now, I know exactly where you are coming from. We are struggling, have struggles, and will continue to struggle. I am jobless because of this small company. But do you know what will really kill this country? Outsourcing and getting rid of job to technology. Outsourcing is obvious, but getting rid of jobs... think when you go to a bank and there is 2 tellers and 20 atms that do what tellers use to do, or going to home depot and having 20 self checkouts and 2 people checking out. We are cutting jobs to save money, but the cutting of the jobs means there are less jobs, and that is doing more harm to the economy. We are replacing people to make things cheaper, and our unemployment rate keeps getting bigger. Its a bad thing.

I've seen this argument for 30 years and it gets funnier and funnier every time I see it. Since the 1950's our economy has transformed from an industrial one to an information/technology one. From value in low wage production to value in intellectual property. In your specific examples above, you ignore:

1. IT and high tech jobs to produce ATM's and manage ATM networks replacing low wage tellers.
2. IT and high tech jobs to produce auto check-out technology and service that technology at the expense of low wage checkers.

Our net employment base has risen steadily for 50 years. Our per capita income has risen for 50 years. All while transforming our economy through technology and innovation. Yet, people just can't resist looking at low wage job losses without remembering the offsetting high wage job that replaces it.

[MisterE-NYC]

I know there are jobs that pay a lot, and IT jobs do. So, fewer people are getting more money.
Our employment and income have definitely been rising, and so have the BS jobs. We have people employed to just manage, and then managers to manage them, and so on. We have banking industry jobs. I know that industry a bit, as I have done a little. Most of the people do nothing. The problem is that many jobs do not produce, and it is hard to have an economy that is sturdy with out a product.
We are going to continue creating jobs, which in all actuality do not need to be created. A job that is created just for the sake of someone having a job increases cost and decreases efficiency. Sadly, many jobs are those.
Now we are outsourcing a lot of or IT jobs overseas too. Programming, databasing, hell even tech support and building things. Yes, we have the managers of the IT people here, but the actual workers are overseas. You are correct that we have shifted from industry to IT, but I think that is a bad thing. With out a base product, we have nothing. Ag, oil, energy, and the production that still goes on are the jobs that actually create the good economy. The information jobs I believe will soon cause us greater problems. as we get more automated, there will be even fewer IT jobs. The fewer people that do more work saves money, but it also decreases the total number of jobs. The damage is not short run, but will really only show itself in the long run.

[FloridaPoke]

Wow, MrE. All I can say is Wow.

"Ag, oil, energy and the production that still goes on are the jobs that actually create the good economy".

Welcome to the 1950's my friend.

I am surprised you have made it to a Personal Computer on the internet to make such a statement that shows a total lack of understanding of economics.

Let's use a very simple example. You are most likely using a laptop to post on this site. I suppose you would prefer that laptop to be made in the US, but it is most likely made in Asia. And because of bad accounting methodologies, the world views the import of that laptop into the US as a current trade deficit for the US, and the press then says we are losing valuable manufacturing jobs to Asia. And then people like you assume the same.

But let's look at what is really going on in terms of real margin economics. Let's follow the cash and real jobs. The Asian manufacturer is selling a laptop for $1,000 that costs him $900 to manufacture, making him a net margin of 10%, or $100. He employs very few poverty level people to make the laptop due to robotics and automation. The world then view this as a $1,000 trade deficit to the US.

But embedded in that $900 manufacturing cost is a $300 Intel chip (that cost Intel very little to manufacture as it is enjoying and reaping the benefits if Intellectual Property) at a 70% margin and Microsoft Software (that cost MS very little to manufacture as it is enjoying and reaping the benefits of Intellectual Property) at an 85% margin. Both Intel and Microsoft employ hords of people at high wages, while the Asian manufacturer employs very few low wage people.

And......the total value chain of the $1,000 PC says US Intellectual Property firms enjoy 90% of the Margin (or value). The more value and margin, the more development and growth for the future due to the nature of reinvestment. The less value and margin, the less development and growth for the future.

It is hard for many people to get their brains wrapped around an Intellectual Property economy, because common sense says you need to manufacture or mine something in order to prosper. But actually, if you follow the money flow globally, you will find that "he who has the most technological advantage wins......always.....and regardless of where the stuff is actually "made". This also has been true since the beginning of man, when the societies who figured out how to make steel....and guns....and other technical advances won, and those that didn't lost. It will aso be true into the next milleneum. And the one after that.

[WyomingOSUAlum]

Start petitioning to take away federal funding for fire departments, get your state to start taxing you more so you can cover your local FD, and that would really show me that you dont want the Fed involved with your money. I will back you up if you do that.


So you agree with downsizing the federal government?

[MisterE-NYC]

I have a great idea! Lets open up the borders and allow people from Mexico come here, because we can give them all of the labor jobs. We Americans dont need those jobs. They dont pay much, so they arent important. We need to do Intellectual things, thats where the money is, and that is what matters. I know so many people can write software, do electrical engineering R&D.
I think it is funny you keep saying the 50's. How big were computers then? How many self checkouts did you have, how many atm's, how many computers and robots built the cars, how many factories were completely automated?
I understand that some people make it rich with technology (though you can argue that the money they take out is another burden on the economy, but we an save that till later), but what will happen when we eventually phase out all other jobs. Alot people are not techies, what will they do when they are no longer needed? It may be an Orwellian argument, it may mimic those of the previous years, but if you ignore the fact that labor vs i/t tradeoffs are not 1 for 1, then you will have a surprise coming.
Why are record numbers of Americans moving to China to get jobs?



I am all for downsizing the Federal Government if Local Government is set up to handle everything independently, and if citizens will work to do their part. Heck, allowing cities to opt out of fed help for some things would be great (not like military) and the percent of that tax payers dollars go back to that person, but then the city taxes the person to fund their projects. It would be a fun and interesting experiment.

[FloridaPoke]

Thank you for making my point about the lack of all things intellectual in the 50's as compared to today.

I am not talking about people getting rich. I am talking about all spectrums of paid employment and growing the number of jobs, as well as per capita income at all levels.

And without Mexicans taking the jobs that Americans simply won't do, they actually do us a favor. Let your mind wander for a bit about what would happen to California and Florida if all of the immigrants from Central and South America decided to all leave in the middle of the night. It would be Chaos.

[WyomingOSUAlum]

I am all for downsizing the Federal Government if Local Government is set up to handle everything independently, and if citizens will work to do their part. Heck, allowing cities to opt out of fed help for some things would be great (not like military) and the percent of that tax payers dollars go back to that person, but then the city taxes the person to fund their projects. It would be a fun and interesting experiment.


Local governments ARE set up to handle their own funding! Sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, bond intitatives are all local government funding sources. Fire protection is a local government issue.

I don't think any local governments can choose to "opt out" of federal funding programs, it's strictly an option to "opt in".

I believe most local government entities (city and county) do a better job of spending within their means than the federal government. I'm not anti-government. I just want responsible government. Federal intervention in local issues is just another excuse to spend money unnecessarily and to run up the debt and print more money.