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.