Redistribution of Wealth Analogy Debunked

It’s been said:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, 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 on socialism. 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. But, 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, 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. Then every one is poor.

and…

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing? She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend Audrey who only has a 2.0? That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.

'The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'

HERE IS WHY THESE AND OTHER SIMILAR ANALOGIES ARE FALSE

First: It's bad math. Because in any school or class, there's a maximum efficiency. Meaning, you can max out and get a 4.0, an A, no better, that's the best. Economics and finances are not like that. There is no maximum amount of money one can earn; the sky is the limit. This alone proves that $ ≠ GPA.

Also, in a classroom, there is no reason why everyone cannot get an A. There is no limit to the number of A’s that a professor can hand out. Everyone can, if they try and are capable, succeed. This is not true in a capitalist system (despite whatever lies we may have been fed as children). There are a finite number of resources (including money) in a given nation, country, or state. Thus it follows that for one to be rich, another must be poor. For one to have, another must have-not. Everyone cannot be rich. To break it down, here is a digestible comparison: All the people in the country (or world) are symbolized by five people in a room. All the resources in the world are equal to ten widgets. Now, equally distributed, each person gets two widgets. Two’s not a lot, but in this case it happens to be enough to get by (yes, if we equally distributed all the worlds resources everyone would have enough to get by). But, if we change the game to reward those who are greedy, so they get three or four widgets, than inevitably some will be left with one or none (not enough to get by). Once that happens, no matter how hard those without widgets try, they can never get more widgets without the people with them giving theirs away. It is not possible, and it is not because the people without are not “trying hard enough”, it is because our system rewards those who are greedy (or with low melanin and external genitalia) and those who are not are then left without.

In this system some individuals will gain more than they need, more than anyone would ever need. Many of these individuals (again, mostly white men) will do nothing to deserve this wealth other than be in the right place, at the right time. There will also be those, in this same system, who through no fault of their own will not be able to make what they need. This is not because they are lazy or don't want to make it (please, show me one person of any race or nation who wants to starve), but because the system is rigged against them. Which is the second major problem with these comparisons, they perpetuate the myth that the poor are poor because they are lazy.

This myth stems from people’s belief in the just world (psychologists have shown this to true). Basically, some people believe the world is fair or just, other people think it is sometimes, and other people think the world is cruel and unfair (they’re actually not separated into three categories, they fall on a high/low continuum). What scientists have shown is that the more one believes the world is just, the more likely they are to blame the victim, despite any wrongdoing on his/her part. This is so the “just world believer” can maintain their view of the world as such (Changing the way we see the world is a difficult thing to do, especially when our beliefs are strong. It is, in fact, easier for us to distort our view of things so they appear the way we want them to. This is very well documented). If the world is fair, then those at the bottom must be there because they did something to deserve it, not because the system is rigged or because some people are just born on bottom and not allowed the resources to climb up (that would be unfair). Thus it follows that rich people are much higher in just world belief than are poor people, and those rich people firmly believe that they are where they are because they deserve it. Another fun fact about the character variable trait which scientists have come to call JWB: just world believers are more likely to hold rape victims (or anyone who has been hurt, injured, assaulted in anyway) accountable for the crimes committed against them. What’s fair is fair, right?

In our current system, the only moral (and truly just) solution is to redistribute the wealth. Economics is like GPA only if you need a high GPA to in order to eat, and all the teachers, principals, and even janitors in the school are racists, and the students with low GPAs are forced to participate in more after school activities as punishment, filling up all their spare time (i.e., 2nd and 3rd jobs). In which case, it would also make sense to redistribute GPA, just like it makes sence to redistribute wealth.

Lastly, the first terrible GPA/economics comparison leaves out the very likely possibility that everyone would work together so everyone got As. A system, such as capitalism, which is based on greed and selfishness, will never work for everyone, only the select few who are most devious and proficient at being greedy and selfish. A system based on sharing and community is the only way to foster a healthy and prosperous way of life for everyone. And in this way of life, we all work together. We all win.

it's just a (game)

in my view, life is often like the video game "Astroids."

In both life and astroids, it is wise not to concern yourself with the large undertakings until you're sure you can handle the smaller responsibilities it will break up into. It is also adventagous to attack one boulder at a time, as not to get too overwhelmed with tiny rocks. Large astroids are easier to see and shoot than smaller ones... but that might just apply to the game.

Inevitably, right when you think you have everything under control, there's bound to be a UFO who comes along seemingly with the sole purpose of making your adventures more difficult. Yet UFO's hold high point values, and we are stronger after defeating them. These people (or aliens) seem to have no problem navigating through our troubles just to piss us off (while emitting the most annoying sound ever conceived).

Finally, it doesn't end until you die. The struggle of irritating UFO's and wavering death rocks continue throughout life. At no point do you "get there," or "beat the game." One can only hope to achieve a high score, which could be translated into living a good life, whatever that means for you. We're all better off once we accept that one day, we too will die. At least in "Astroids" you get a second (and third) chance.

now, for a more insightful and enlightening view on life and humanity: the late (and great) bill hicks

"The world is like a ride at an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it, you think it's real, because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round and it has thrills and chills and it's very brightly colored and it's very loud. And it's fun, for a while.

Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question: 'Is this real? Or is this just a ride?' And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and they say 'Hey! Don't worry, don't be afraid - ever - because... this is just a ride.' And we kill those people.

'Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride! Shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry; look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real.'

It's just a ride. But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that - ever notice that? - and we let the demons run amok. But it doesn't matter, because... it's just a ride, and we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort. No worry. No job. No savings and money. Just a choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy bigger guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one.

Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, into a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defense each year and, instead, spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would do many times over - not one human being excluded - and we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever. In peace."

the concept

white digital:

an expression of loneliness in an electronic, technology rich world.

the combination of our cognitive abilities and opposable thumbs have created the world you see around you now. this was not always the way the world looked, and it does not look this way in all places (but since you're on a computer linked to the internet, surely this world surrounds you now). in many ways, this technology has been created in response to our desire for individuality. we're not collectivists, for the most part anyway. we build robots not as friends, but as coworkers. we automate to make a process more "efficient" and "productive", which means less requirement for people. one case in point, sign painters. that used to be a real occupation.

now we have people alone with machines doing all their "work". work at home. work at work. with a computer. an electronic machine does everything we need. date on the machine. fuck on the machine. love on the machine. buy from the machine. read from it. do business on it. never leave the machine.

white digital is an expression of loneliness in an electronic, technology rich world. me and my machine, alone. what effect has the machine had on your emotions? does it comfort you? do you feel good after a night of browsing the internet to accomplish no real goal or objective? does reading this now make you feel good about your decisions as a person? you may feel more integrated into society, more informed (hell, you're reading a blog, right?). but what society are you integrated into? what compelled you to ever read a blog in the first place? why is this blog being written?

examination of our society and our lives is critical. we are currently on an unsustainable path. irregardless of your personal beliefs, attitudes, and so on, this fact is undeniable, just as much as the fact that we are human and we drink water and breath air, so is this fact of unsustainability. many modernizationalists compare contemporary (free market) society with a jet plane, flying high (they then posture that we ought to give other, "third world" countries the push they need to fly like us). we are a jet plane, indeed, en route to a destination which we do not have enough fuel to reach. some would say the plane is already on a crash course, spiraling downward (too bad that hudson bay pilot isn't in the cockpit). our current leadership insists that we can make it, we can do it, and that there is no real threat or danger. capitalism is flying high.
we who think critically about society, life, and/or politics know different. we either need a drastic, conscious change in course (a "landing pad", if you will) or we need to prepare for impact.

white digital, (literally speaking, the pixels on the screen), will not teach you this. white digital lies. any comfort found here is false. know that the tv has become the tool of the machine. the internet still remains somewhat free, but that is scheduled to change (see: net nutrality). though it may itself be "free", it cannot free you. you are not free. you come here to white digital because you are a slave, because i am. we are comforted by this tool only to be let down by it in the next breath. therefore the goal here, like all worth pursuing, is to be realized and thus self eliminate. in other words, if this blog completes it's agenda (or i complete mine) than the blog itself will no longer be necessary.

that being the primary purpose, surely much less focused and meaningful sentiments will occasionally surface. i reserve my right be lighthearted, addicted to the meaningless, and make possibly unsuccessful attempts at humor. everyone deserves a break sometimes.

first: the problem

here's the problem:

in a natural, say, "tribal" society, one would farm, for example. the person would farm food for his/her family. this might happen 9 months out of the year. the summer would be time for rest. as long as the weather cooperated, there was always enough food. there were no ipods. but everyone was taught how to farm, therefore, everyone ate. everyone was fulfilled and happy. there was no depression, no substance abuse, no real social problems. there was no poverty.

then capitalism came. capitalism said to the farmer, "we have dammed the river and created chemicals, so now you can farm all year and grow greater yields. you can sell these. you can buy food and with any extra, an ipod. if you do not, we will kill you and farm where you once stood." so things changed. the farmer now worked all year, and bad weather couldn't stop that. there was no "famine" per se (as long as the farmer never quit), but there was also no time for rest. because now, with the new system which required more work (and destroyed the soil in the land), no more yield was produced for the farmer. the yield now went to the capitalist. the farmer no longer kept the product of his labor. now the farmer worked more (and maybe his family had to work now too) but received less. however the capitalist, he did not have to farm or work at all. his work was threatening the farmer. now that that was done, the farmer farmed for the capitalist. this went on.

now there are two ways to get rich. one gets you rich, and the other gets you super-rich. if you just want to get rich, all you have to do is please a capitalist (see musicians, athletes, entertainers of all kinds, and all those 'second in charge', right-hand-man types you don't remember the names of). if you want to get super-rich, you have to be the capitalist. that's the only way. and the only way to be a capitalist is to exploit the worker, the farmer, the proletariat (note that the names of the richest people in the world are not the entertainers and celebrities, they're the capitalists, like gates and trump and turner and the wall mart guys and so on). so basically, you can be a bastard or a whore. or you can starve, there's always that option. because if you don't suck a capitalists dick every once in a while (or try to compete with one by exploiting all the other whores and workers) than he won't give you any food. because, if you remember, they control all the food. that's how this whole thing started. oh, and you can't get rich by just working. the workers must always be kept wanting just a little bit more. that's how you keep them working. give them just enough to live, but no more. if a worker gets rich, he/she will not work anymore.

when i was a child, about 4, i was curious about money. where did it come from and what did we use it for, i wondered. and after i got a grip on it i said to my mom, "but we don't have to pay for food, right? food should be free." she let out a gentle laugh and said, "oh no, we have to pay for food." i was so puzzled. why would anyone allow such a thing to happen? how did it come this far?

now, i know what you are thinking (if you've even made it this far), "oh silly liberal, you just think everyone should get a free ride and not have to work for anything, don't you?" actually, no i don't. i do think you should have to work for food. of course. however, i also believe that if you make something, if you work to create something, you should get to keep it and everything it generates. why the trickle up? why should a capitalist get to keep the money made from a crop grown by a farmer? why should the capitalist get a dime? they like to sit back and call the unemployed lazy, however i find that sadly and bitterly ironic. the kings calling the servants lazy.

so now we've been going on like this for some time. we've wiped out an entire nation of natural, tribal farmers to create the "land of the free". again, ironic. and in this "free society" we are lush with social problems. alcoholism, depression, anxiety, OCD, ADD, HPV, AIDS, cancer, theft, abuse, and so on. not only did those "savage" farmers that we wiped out not have our social problems, they also didn't have disease. now look at us, with our ipods, we're so happy.

friends, this cannot go on. this capitalist system is destroying the world and everyone in it, and those in control have absolutely no reason, no incentive to do a damn thing about it. it HAS TO BE us. no one else is going to step up. god will not save us. we have got to save ourselves before this machine swallows itself. it's already starting to happen, right underneath our feet. take the time to look down and you might just see your life, and the lives of the farmers who we've walked over to get here, crumble away.