Maryland Rising

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • JerseyMike

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2019
    437
    Germantown
    Alright, I’ll again give the disclaimer that the majority of you will ignore: I am not advocating for socialism, I do not believe it is something the US should adopt and I am not trying to defend socialism.
    What I am trying to do is point out how stupid this economics class metaphor is in the hopes that you will abandon it and focus on critiquing socialism on its merits; there’s plenty to work with and some of you have even pointed out what I think are good critiques in this thread. I agree with the sentiment that is essentially “hey sounds good in theory but when has this not gone catastrophically wrong when its been applied in other parts of the world? Hard to respond to that argument and personally I’d rather work with tweaking our capitalist system than undergoing a transition that could destroy the country. It wouldn’t surprise me if a significant number of people who are supposed proponents of socialism don’t really understand it and simply think it is more “fair” than capitalism so they blindly support it.

    Problems with this “thought experiment”:

    1) A classroom is not a functioning economy and it looks nothing like a market economy. It is closer to an authoritarian/totalitarian system where the authoritative figure (professor) assigns tasks and then provides grades based upon their subjective assessment of the student’s performance.
    2) Grades are not subject to scarcity. There are not a limited number of As and Bs, and it costs nothing to give As, Bs, etc
    3) There is an artificial cap on grades; you can only obtain an A, there is no way a student who significantly over performs could earn greater than an A.
    4) This thought experiment implies that the typical classroom is akin to capitalism, which is incorrect:
    In a capitalist class, the means of production/learning (computers, pencils, paper, etc) would be owned by one student, we’ll call them the owner. The owner would require the other students (we’ll call them the workers) to give them all of their “points” from exams in order to use the owner’s means of production/learning. The owner would then determine how many points they needed to give back to the student in order to keep the student working for them. Thus, the owner would not need to do any academic work (Yes, you can argue they are contributing by allocating resources).
    5) Since the means of production/learning would need to be limited to illustrate scarcity, some worker students wouldn’t be provided any and would simply fail. Oh, but the owner would only give them to the worker students who produced the best results and got the best grades because this would give the best return, right? Well, if there is an artificial cap of an A then what is the incentive? What incentive does the owner student have to increase the grades of the worker students, and if they control the means of production/learning what recourse do the worker students have to obtain those means elsewhere? In addition, how do the worker students ever “move up” to become an owner student? What happens when the owner finds a way to automate some of he tasks (i.e. research, writing) and no longer needs as many students? What happens to the students who had those skills that are now automated? Its a crap example, doesn’t work to depict either system and should be discarded. You want to describe capitalism you need to add many more details that can’t be assumed and it really destroys the value of the metaphor.
    6) You’d get a bit closer to socialism if you let the students control the class, elect teachers for certain lessons, allow them ownership of the books and all other educational material, allow them to devise their own lesson plans, and to grade each other. In this "lesson," on the other hand, there's still a teacher with absolute control. Of course, this still isn't actually socialism, because socialism is an economic system, not a system of running a classroom. In a socialist system, there would still be teachers and there's nothing necessary about how to run a classroom. Metaphors are simplistic.
    7) Socialism is worker ownership of productive property (factories, farms, workshops, the like). This lesson suggests that it is a boss telling the workers of a factory that they all get the same wage no matter what. This is inaccurate; in socialism, all of the workers own the factory, democratically direct its production, and either all share in its wealth or use its wealth to benefit the community. Or, that's one version of socialism. Another issue with this lesson is that it presumes that there is one system called "socialism," rather than a network of systems with radically different ideas of economics and the role of the state.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,234
    Montgomery County
    Problems with this “thought experiment”:

    1) A classroom is not a functioning economy and it looks nothing like a market economy.

    That's the entire POINT of that thought experiment. It treats a situation based on individual merit (does each student rise to the level of expected performance, or not? whether another student does or doesn't has no bearing on that), and turns it into the kind of "market" that socialists always crow about: one where everyone shares in the equally divided prosperity (as long as at least a few high achievers are harnessed up to pull the load). The thought experiment juxtaposes meritocracy with the incentive rot that's baked into socialism in all its manifestations.

    Grades are not subject to scarcity. There are not a limited number of As and Bs, and it costs nothing to give As, Bs, etc

    Again, not the right point. Good grades ARE scarce in the normal classroom, because they are only there for people who work hard for them. The good grade isn't there to be collected, it must be created for each student, by each student, or it doesn't exist. Socialism treats the reward as already existing, and simply in need of fair carving up and distribution. Socialism assumes there will always be a beast of burden that than can't help themselves but to work hard and create that which the system's elites can make a living carving up in the name of fairness.

    There is an artificial cap on grades; you can only obtain an A, there is no way a student who significantly over performs could earn greater than an A.

    Also not true in many institutions. There are academic honors and other perks that come with demonstrably working past the normal A-level effort. And of course the mastery of the work ethic and hunger for knowledge is its own reward post-classroom, where the student that learns to perform at that level will always have a competitive edge.

    In a capitalist class, the means of production/learning (computers, pencils, paper, etc) would be owned by one student, we’ll call them the owner. The owner would require the other students (we’ll call them the workers) to give them all of their “points” from exams in order to use the owner’s means of production/learning. The owner would then determine how many points they needed to give back to the student in order to keep the student working for them. Thus, the owner would not need to do any academic work (Yes, you can argue they are contributing by allocating resources).

    This is, as they say, so wrong it's not even wrong. In the non-socialist classroom, EVERY STUDENT IS THE OWNER. They own their own time. In the classroom, knowledge and experience is the product, and the means of production is the applied brain of each student. Pencils and papers are a pedantic distraction in this metaphor, but even so: generally each student INVESTS in the process of their own readiness-for-life production by bringing their own materials to the process.

    Since the means of production/learning would need to be limited to illustrate scarcity ...

    Once again totally missing the point of the discussion and applying a nonsensical take on the metaphor. You're trying WAY too hard to muddy the waters, here. It's simple: for those who prefer to avoid the toxic perils of collectivist mediocrity and misery, the classroom wants to be seen as a room full of individual people competing against their own ignorance. If they work, they win. If they slack, they lose. The collectivists seek a way to win while avoiding the work, but require somebody else to do it. The reward is hollow, and every collectivist venture always dies of that hollowness.

    You’d get a bit closer to socialism if you let the students control the class...

    Still wildly mis-applying the experiment's metaphor. Except in one important way: Socialism's lazy people do indeed always clamor for control over those who actually have the moxy, industriousness, and intellectual curiosity needed to make civilization work.

    Socialism is worker ownership of productive property (factories, farms, workshops, the like).

    Except the term and those who've popularly embraced it have changed. It now translates to: "Socialism is the fair distribution of the stuff that the harder working people would otherwise get more of." That's where we are now. That's what contemporary socialists directly say they want and what they say their movement is all about.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Alright, I’ll again give the disclaimer that the majority of you will ignore: I am not advocating for socialism, I do not believe it is something the US should adopt and I am not trying to defend socialism.
    What I am trying to do is point out how stupid this economics class metaphor is in the hopes that you will abandon it and focus on critiquing socialism on its merits; there’s plenty to work with and some of you have even pointed out what I think are good critiques in this thread. I agree with the sentiment that is essentially “hey sounds good in theory but when has this not gone catastrophically wrong when its been applied in other parts of the world? Hard to respond to that argument and personally I’d rather work with tweaking our capitalist system than undergoing a transition that could destroy the country. It wouldn’t surprise me if a significant number of people who are supposed proponents of socialism don’t really understand it and simply think it is more “fair” than capitalism so they blindly support it.

    Problems with this “thought experiment”:

    1) A classroom is not a functioning economy and it looks nothing like a market economy. It is closer to an authoritarian/totalitarian system where the authoritative figure (professor) assigns tasks and then provides grades based upon their subjective assessment of the student’s performance.

    Untrue - we could pick math, physics or biology with objective answers and get the same result.

    2) Grades are not subject to scarcity. There are not a limited number of As and Bs, and it costs nothing to give As, Bs, etc

    Also untrue. Many undergrad classes esp "weed out" classes for med students are both objective and graded on a curve, ensuring a limited number of As and Bs.


    3) There is an artificial cap on grades; you can only obtain an A, there is no way a student who significantly over performs could earn greater than an A.

    This contradicts #1 and 2, but is nevertheless also untrue. On many scales an "honors" class A=5.0, wheras a normal course Honors A=4.0 scale.

    If one grades on a curve, A's are scarce.

    4) This thought experiment implies that the typical classroom is akin to capitalism, which is incorrect:
    In a capitalist class, the means of production/learning (computers, pencils, paper, etc) would be owned by one student, we’ll call them the owner. The owner would require the other students (we’ll call them the workers) to give them all of their “points” from exams in order to use the owner’s means of production/learning. The owner would then determine how many points they needed to give back to the student in order to keep the student working for them. Thus, the owner would not need to do any academic work (Yes, you can argue they are contributing by allocating resources).

    I am not sure I understand the relevance or how this is a counter argument against the example. The University owns the means of production.

    5) Since the means of production/learning would need to be limited to illustrate scarcity, some worker students wouldn’t be provided any and would simply fail. Oh, but the owner would only give them to the worker students who produced the best results and got the best grades because this would give the best return, right? Well, if there is an artificial cap of an A then what is the incentive? What incentive does the owner student have to increase the grades of the worker students, and if they control the means of production/learning what recourse do the worker students have to obtain those means elsewhere? In addition, how do the worker students ever “move up” to become an owner student? What happens when the owner finds a way to automate some of he tasks (i.e. research, writing) and no longer needs as many students? What happens to the students who had those skills that are now automated? Its a crap example, doesn’t work to depict either system and should be discarded. You want to describe capitalism you need to add many more details that can’t be assumed and it really destroys the value of the metaphor.

    Again, I am not sure I understand the relevance or how this is a counter argument against the example.

    As and Bs can easily be made scarce - most under grad pre-med courses in Chemistry, math, biology etc are graded on a curve. These are objective classes with objective outcomes (been there, done that, on both sides of the lectern).

    6) You’d get a bit closer to socialism if you let the students control the class, elect teachers for certain lessons, allow them ownership of the books and all other educational material, allow them to devise their own lesson plans, and to grade each other. In this "lesson," on the other hand, there's still a teacher with absolute control. Of course, this still isn't actually socialism, because socialism is an economic system, not a system of running a classroom. In a socialist system, there would still be teachers and there's nothing necessary about how to run a classroom. Metaphors are simplistic.
    7) Socialism is worker ownership of productive property (factories, farms, workshops, the like). This lesson suggests that it is a boss telling the workers of a factory that they all get the same wage no matter what. This is inaccurate; in socialism, all of the workers own the factory, democratically direct its production, and either all share in its wealth or use its wealth to benefit the community. Or, that's one version of socialism. Another issue with this lesson is that it presumes that there is one system called "socialism," rather than a network of systems with radically different ideas of economics and the role of the state.

    We all can own shares of Apple directly or through a 401k, we can democratically elect board members and "share" in the dividends, does that mean we are socialist???

    The point of this classroom exercise is that it boils the incentives problem down to essentials: reward everyone with the average regardless of hard work or merit. You can frame it however you like in terms of property rights or whatever, but the basic core incentive problem in this classroom exercise is accurate.
     

    Glaron

    Camp pureblood 13R
    BANNED!!!
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 20, 2013
    12,752
    Virginia
    Alright, I’ll again give the disclaimer that the majority of you will ignore: I am not advocating for socialism, I do not believe it is something the US should adopt and I am not trying to defend socialism.

    Problems with this “thought experiment”:
    Apparently you went to a modern easy-mode children school, or education.

    2) Grades are not subject to scarcity. There are not a limited number of As and Bs, and it costs nothing to give As, Bs, etc
    There CAN BE.
    When I went grades in Engineering College were on a curve. Policy. Sucked. But policy.
    In a 300 Level Electrical Engineering course I scored an A- at 94% on the final exam. As stopped at 97%. You had to work your ass off.

    Same University. I had economics class to "balance" my education. I scored an A there, but the Ds went down to 30%. The teacher gave most of the class their test to take home and correct open book for more credit. :shrug:



    3) There is an artificial cap on grades; you can only obtain an A, there is no way a student who significantly over performs could earn greater than an A.
    Wrong. I scored an internship with a company my senior year. Worked on a real life project. That was capped in reality(supply/demand). They didnt give jobs to everyone. We call those real life skills. ;)
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,877
    I see where Jersey Mike is coming from , but alas a classroom setting is both kind of different from a macroeconomic model , and can be interpeted differently depending upon the context you are applying . ie just amongst the students in a particular class, among the class including the teacher(s) , within a school system , or the role of education in a society .

    Even in " primarily capitalist " society , education is typically one of the handful of things provided/ subsidised for the greater public good , at least to certain levels .

    What is the "product" of education ? Is it grades of specific students ? Is it the level of knowledge gained by specific students ? Is it the level of useful skills and knowledge achieved by the student body generally ?

    To try to apply larger concepts to a classroom setting , you also spin it that the " capitalist " model would be each student supplying their own books, supplys, computers, etc .

    As several people above me pointed out , grades are not necessarily infinite , there is grading on a curve , which can be done multiple ways , with multiple results . I have also been in settings where it was 10% A , 20% B , 30% C , 20% D , and the rest F . Also settings where the highest score by any student becomes the baseline , and 90% of that is A , etc . Under either of these , there can be situations of good students knowing the material can fail , or bad students not knowing the material can recieve high grades .

    *******************************

    But the original example in this thread was intended to aimed at students , using a setting familar to them , to extrapolate to larger ideas .

    In this context , it illustrates individual effort and personal responsibility vs collectivism , in terms of both their individual grades , and in the advancement of the group overall ( as imperfectly represented by average grades of whole class ) .


    Bottom line - The thought exercise works for intended audience and context . On the flip side , economists , and political science majors can argue semantics , and hypotheticals until the cows come home .
     

    outrider58

    Eats Bacon Raw
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 29, 2014
    49,815
    I see where Jersey Mike is coming from , but alas a classroom setting is both kind of different from a macroeconomic model , and can be interpeted differently depending upon the context you are applying . ie just amongst the students in a particular class, among the class including the teacher(s) , within a school system , or the role of education in a society .

    Even in " primarily capitalist " society , education is typically one of the handful of things provided/ subsidised for the greater public good , at least to certain levels .

    What is the "product" of education ? Is it grades of specific students ? Is it the level of knowledge gained by specific students ? Is it the level of useful skills and knowledge achieved by the student body generally ?

    To try to apply larger concepts to a classroom setting , you also spin it that the " capitalist " model would be each student supplying their own books, supplys, computers, etc .

    As several people above me pointed out , grades are not necessarily infinite , there is grading on a curve , which can be done multiple ways , with multiple results . I have also been in settings where it was 10% A , 20% B , 30% C , 20% D , and the rest F . Also settings where the highest score by any student becomes the baseline , and 90% of that is A , etc . Under either of these , there can be situations of good students knowing the material can fail , or bad students not knowing the material can recieve high grades .

    *******************************

    But the original example in this thread was intended to aimed at students , using a setting familar to them , to extrapolate to larger ideas .

    In this context , it illustrates individual effort and personal responsibility vs collectivism , in terms of both their individual grades , and in the advancement of the group overall ( as imperfectly represented by average grades of whole class ) .


    Bottom line - The thought exercise works for intended audience and context . On the flip side , economists , and political science majors can argue semantics , and hypotheticals until the cows come home .

    Well stated Foot. :thumbsup:
     

    ras_oscar

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 23, 2014
    1,666
    Had an acquaintance come for a visit from Denmark. He saw someone with a shirt that said " socialism sucks" he muttered under his breath" sure does" I caught the comment and asked him to explain. His reply was "eventually the Government runs out of other people's money to spend"
     

    TinCuda

    Sky Captain
    Apr 26, 2016
    1,556
    Texas
    I spent a couple of weeks in China late last year on a vacation trip. (Before the virus outbreak) One of the state controlled and professionally trained tour guides made an interesting comment. When one of the other tourists ask him about how he thought this whole socialism/communism thing was working out for the Chinese, his answer was polite but firm, "Please do not ask me those types of questions. You never know who is listening." This guy was not joking. It was very sobering and a bit chilling.
     

    jmland

    Pro adventua apocalyspi
    Sep 9, 2013
    10
    "2) Grades are not subject to scarcity. There are not a limited number of As and Bs, and it costs nothing to give As, Bs, etc"

    Not always true. Back in the day, in several of my college courses, grades were given on a "curve". The best 10% got an A regardless of the numerical score they achieved. Usually those scores were in the 70's to low 80's, occasionally in the 60's. Very rarely (almost uniquely, but happened more than once), the top 10% were in the 99.5+ range, and someone with a score of 98 would get a "B".

    FYI, Lehigh in Bethlehem PA.
     

    EDA98

    Active Member
    Dec 4, 2019
    121
    Laurel MD
    I despise communism with a passion. But Jersey Mike is correct on this one. The thought experiment begins to break down more when you consider the varied types of socialism. You have Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, hippy communism, all of which vary greatly. Ideally the concept behind socialism is to replace a monetary benefit, with something else. The doctor heals the farmer not to get paid 200k for a surgery, but instead because they know both are vital to the country. Does it really work out like that? No. Not at all.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,234
    Montgomery County
    I despise communism with a passion. But Jersey Mike is correct on this one. The thought experiment begins to break down more when you consider the varied types of socialism. You have Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, hippy communism, all of which vary greatly.

    But EVERY flavor of collectivism ends up killing incentives and requiring increasing authoritarianism to keep it on life support until it finally burns down. Because it cannot - ever - work without a stand out sub-group that does the hardest work and become, essentially, slaves. And when your smartest, hardest workers are slaves, you get a slave revolt by the people most able to make it stick.
     

    EDA98

    Active Member
    Dec 4, 2019
    121
    Laurel MD
    Of course. It’ll never work because people are lazy and selfish. That doesn’t mean that it should be explained incorrectly though.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,234
    Montgomery County
    Of course. It’ll never work because people are lazy and selfish. That doesn’t mean that it should be explained incorrectly though.

    As a high-level intro to the inventive erosion and resulting failure of collectivism, the classroom/grade thought experiment doesn’t misrepresent that mindset in any of its manifestations.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,877
    Boiled down , the experement focusses on Collective Efforts vs Individual Efforts .

    The attendant questions about ownership of the building and learning tools quickly drive into the weeds with semantics about specific sub-catagory of " -ism " .

    Don't obsess over the specific label , the Collective vs Individual lesson is valuable and widely applicable .
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,234
    Montgomery County
    Boiled down , the experement focusses on Collective Efforts vs Individual Efforts.

    At the risk of more pedanticy, the experiment never strays from Individual Efforts, because it's only ever some individuals in the group doing the real work, until their incentives turn into punishment, and then nobody makes an effort. The experiment is really about Individual REWARDS vs Collective Rewards. Making the rewards collective is what crushes individual effort. There's never any truly collective effort once something like this is put into place, and that's really the heart of the matter.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,789
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom