An economics professor at a community college recently announced that he had never previously failed a single student, but that recently he had failed an entire class. This is what happened:
The class had challenged his approach to economics, insisting against his logic that socialism always works and that, if Obama’s income equalization policies were to be implemented, no one would be poor, no one would be rich, and everyone would be happy.
The professor responded by setting up an in-class experiment on Obama’s plan: All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade. There will be three tests during the semester. In the first test, I shall initiate the process towards equalization by averaging all your grades, as registered, while disallowing grades A and F from the calculation. In the remaining tests, there will be be no grade constraints, but all grades will be averaged.
In the first test, the average grade was reported out at B. The students who had studied hard were upset. Those who had studied little were delighted.
As the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little for the first test studied even less, while the students who had studied hard now reduced their work rate. The averaged outcome for that test was D. No one was happy.
So the third test would be crucial. How would the students respond to the signal from the second test? The average grade for the third test was F. Everyone failed. No one would study for the benefit of anyone else. And no one was happy!
The professor then explained to the class that Obama socialism would also fail. When the potential reward is great the incentive to succeed is also great. But when government takes away the rewards, no one will try to succeed.
Hat Tip: Amanda Owens
Tags: a classroom test, economic implications, Obama socialism
Charles Rowley's Blog 
December 10, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
Stupid professor!
He does not know that the socialism is not a natural process. He also should know that capitalism is not a natural system either.
Money-less economy is the only natural system. God has given this earth free to all of us. No one has any authority to claim its land and people as his own property. When we die we leave everything behind. Why then mistreat people using guns of capitalism.
In money-less economy, we can run the exact same economy, that we have now, in the exact same way, and without any money. All people will be happy. Everybody will have whatever they want, yet it will not be socialism.
We will work free for 40 hours and we will get everything free in return. If we do not work we will not get our food and shelter. Everybody will have to work to do some good for his community to get free food and shelter and everything else.
If you want a corporate jet, you can go and get it. If it is available, you will get it free. If it is not available, then you have to wait for it to be manufactured for you, just like now.
See the following blog site for more on money-less economy:
People have been discussing money-less economy for more than 100 years now. The professor should have known that. If he supports capitalism then he is not a professor. Capitalism is run by free money. Money is free for the central bank. Thus in one sense capitalism is a money-less economy. If you control people using something that is free like air, then that professor failed to explain economics to his students. The professor should also get an F grade.
April 7, 2012 at 5:53 am |
I’ll just flat out say it. You’re crazy.
There are people in this world that will feed off of the free stuff that is put out there no matter what and the only way to ensure that these bottom feeders don’t get just as much as a naturally driven individual is capitalism or an economy similar to it. Private jet? Are you serious? EVERYBODY in there right mind wants their own flippin’ jet. The only thing stopping them is their drive to succeed. In a moneyless economy we will always have a bunch of people complaining and pouting that they haven’t gotten their turn on the private jet. Why should they work just as hard as someone else, but then some other guy gets the jet before they do? Why? I repeat the only way to ensure those most deserving get that jet is to have a competition for it and that’s what capitalism is. If ou can’t afford something it means you need to work your butt off if you really want it.
Ugh…
April 7, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Can Bill Gate own a jet or a factory if he lives by himself on an island?
December 10, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
“If he supports capitalism then he is not a professor.”
– I support capitalism and I am a professor. Of Spanish Literature. Is that OK with you?
“All people will be happy. Everybody will have whatever they want”
– Such claims have been made many times throughout the history of humanity. And every single time they ended in bloodshed of terrifying proportions. Do you really believe that you have a recipe for everybody’s happiness and that this happiness has to do with the way the economy is run?
I was born in the Soviet Union, so I’m not surprised at how this brilliant prof’s experiment turned out. When there is no specific reward and no way to distinguish yourself from others through your hard work, people simply stop working. Every single time. And then there is famine.
December 10, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
Obama rails against the rich like Stalin railed against the kulaks, like Hitler denounced the Jews and Mao excoriated the landlords.
December 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
[…] A prof conducts an experiment on establishing a socialist system in the classroom. Try to predict the results before reading the post. Of course, it was easy for me to do, given that I was born in a society that was run just like this classroom. […]
December 11, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
This is epic.
December 12, 2011 at 5:25 am |
Yeah, epic fail. Obama Socialism? What nonsense!
December 12, 2011 at 5:58 am |
Anyone who thinks Obama is a socialist has got to be really, really, stupid.
And I hope that story about the “experiment” is apocryphal, because is such a thing really happened, that professor should have been fired as an incompetent nincompoop.
December 12, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
The story is refuted on snopes…
http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
December 17, 2011 at 12:37 am |
The following info gives some perspective to this experiment.
However, contrary to popular myth, the grades in the class were averaged out and most of them were not given to lazy students–who are only a few in the class–but were actually given to those students who were sick (healthcare) and who maintained security (defense) for the class.
Also, the grades were more from A+++++ all the way to not only F but Z—–. Yes, all the way to grade Z minus (because the wealthiest 1 percent of U.S. households had net worth that was 225 times greater than the typical median household’s net worth. The wealthiest annual income on average is any where from $1 millions to $27 millions and the top 1% of the population owns 35% of the country’s wealth or the top 20% owns 85% of the country’s wealth). So the experiment of the college professor in this story should have been redesigned as follows to more accurately match reality.
Out of his 100 students, he should put one student, his A+++++ student, in a very comfy air-conditioned room filled with plenty of nutritious food /drinks and room services. He also provided this student with the best tutor available.
On the contrary, he put the other 99 students (those with a grade of Z—– to A++++) outside to study in the heat and cold, with insufficient sleep and with terrible food, and subject them to a lot of interruptions and abuse.
Then he gave them the exam to see who will do better on the test. By making sure no student can bring anything into the test room or to get any outside help, the professor was very satisfied that he had conducted the exam in a fair manner.
Oh, by the way, the A+++++ student had not actually earned his A+++++ grade as a result of his own efforts. He was no smarter or studied harder than the other students but he was automatically given A+++++ even before taking any exam because he was the son of Albert Einstein!
Of course, LIFE IS NOT FAIR!
Exactly, because life is not fair that the 99% of the students in the class ganged up to unfairly take away the grades that the 1% has worked hard to earn and then they told the 1% that’s the way it is, that life is not fair! Then they would say, if you don’t like Obama, pack your bag and move to another country! If you don’t like the president or the government, you are a traitor, unpatriotic and anti-american. If you don’t like Muslim or Buddhism, go back to your country, wherever it is.
Can Bill Gates still be a billionaire if he had lived alone on an island? Of course not. He was able to get rich only with the contributions of other people. So, without other people, there is no billionaire as nobody can get rich or build a factory on his own. Although Bill Gates had paid others for their contributions to his wealth (or the richest 1% had paid the other 99% percent of the population their “fair” shares), the wealth gap between the 1% and the 99% just keeps widened. Why? If 100 people play a game, say, blackjack, in which just 1 person (or the house) keeps winning and winning and pulling in more and more money as the game went on, wouldn’t any analytical-minded person question the integrity and fairness of the game? Or they just blindly and meekly accept whatever they are stuck with and said there is no room for improvement and just let the other guy (or the casino) taking in more money.
December 17, 2011 at 12:46 am |
This story is based on an unstated assumption which is very ignorant and insulting that poor people (who do not get an A grade) are lazy. Obviously, the author chose to ignore all those poor workers (for example, janitors, gardeners, food workers etc) who work very very hard and sometimes even 2 jobs.
Let’s turn the table on those who believe the poor are lazy by asking them this question: “Why aren’t you as rich as Bill Gates? Because you are poorer than Bill Gates, it shows that you are lazy, unmotivated and not working hard enough!”. I hope they grasp the insight that there are always people, including them, who are poorer than others.
January 24, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
I am by definition “poor” according to the government’s guidelines, and I do not want anything from the government that is taken from others who work their butts off finding a way to be ahead or on top! I am a firm believer that if you put your heart, head, and passion into something you will for sure be blessed with great things! I do not expect anything from those who have done great things. I am so happy for them and that is what makes America the land of the Free! We should not be overly governed. We should be able to make wealth for ourselves, live a mediocre life, or even be a bum if that makes you happy. 🙂
January 25, 2012 at 12:09 am
I commend you for your independence attitude and hard work, which is ironically negated by those who still think you are lazy because you are not as rich as they are. They think that just because you start out playing the monopoly game without some hotels, houses and properties as them, then you must be lazy and stupid. But you may take console in their own logic that they are also lazy and stupid in the eyes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet because they are poorer.
A lot of people including even liberals, progressives and democrats believe that Progressive is all about robbing the rich to give to the poor. How wrong they are! Please make a note that Progressive is about making sure everyone play it fair and nobody is abusing his/her advantages to bully others to further his/her position even further. Please teach this important insight to other ignorant people too because I am tired of all the craps going on!
January 25, 2012 at 3:44 am
Joel, I am surprised that you would want to make such an ASS of U and ME 😉 by stating that there is an idea “which is very ignorant and insulting that poor people (who do not get an A grade) are lazy.” Where do you come up with this assumed assumption?
I personally feel the way I do because I surround myself with wealthy people full of wisdom. I will not be “poor” my whole life. My husband and I have been “lazy” if you would call it that. Because although my husband is one of those who work 2-3 jobs a night, we were complacent, had no dream or passion. Complaisance is what keeps people in their poor status for life. “Lazy” people are the ones who beg on the street and are fully capable of working but feel owed because the government makes them feel like they have a right to have what they did not work for. Lazy people are the ones who stand outside of the supermarket trying to sell you the food stamps that your tax money paid for. Lazy people are the ones who know they can get welfare and just don’t work since they can get that free ride. I could be doing all of these things but we have decided to climb the latter and get out of the system.
Most of these wealthy people did not start out with “hotels and properties” They just wanted out of their blah blah life and had a dream then followed it with passion. So what! Don’t hate them for that or assume that they think you are stupid. Go be someone and do something. Then share all of your riches with the lazy and poor. (By the way, most wealthy people give thousands, millions and more to charities!) Joel, go make a friend with a wealthy honorable person and then find out their true feelings on what you assume they feel. 🙂 Good luck to you
January 25, 2012 at 6:08 am
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I did not mean to say all rich people have that kind of attitude or look down on poor people as being lazy. What I meant was that whoever fabricated this economics class experiment assumed that poor people are poor because they are lazy in the same way as someone gets a D or F grade because he/she did not study hard enough. Here is the excerpt from that story:
“In the first test, the average grade was reported out at B. The students who had studied hard were upset. Those who had studied little were delighted. As the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little for the first test studied even less, while the students who had studied hard now reduced their work rate.”
I never advocate taxing the rich to support the poor. If you read my post carefully you can see I was trying to say that we can label the free enterprise whatever we want but please do not label it as fair or level-playing field. Why? Because people are not rewarded based on their own merits but based on what they inherited. The children of rich parents may not be any smarter or work harder than the children of poor parents but they are rewarded with money, connections and opportunities to compete with the poor children. How can that be a “fair” competition? That’s why I said “life is not fair” (and if life is not fair, then everything goes, including robbing the rich to give to the poor!–if someone proclaims that “life is never fair” then that person should not whine and should be prepared to be treated unfairly)
December 20, 2011 at 11:05 pm |
Ok let’s be serious for a minute and put political beliefs aside in our judgements of this experiment. The hypothesis of the students was if everyone gets equal amount of money no matter how hard they work then everyone will be happy. A good hypothesis and in a perfect world it would work. To comment on the comment by subhendu das, what is the difference in money and grades? Grades in the classroom simply are a variable that represent money in society. The professor made a valid experiment that was easy to put together and easy to prove. He proved that in economics a socialist system will never work because when someone who works hard and someone who doesn’t work are both paid the same, the person who works harder will stop.
I know those who support obama are going to say this is a stupid experiment and those who oppose him will say way to go! But put aside ur bias and think for urself for once. Socialism does not work and will never work with the type of government we have in place. We do not have a dictator we have congress and a president, along with having freedoms.
December 29, 2011 at 11:39 am |
The answer is 42.
February 10, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
Don’t panic
December 29, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
January 29, 2012 at 4:26 am |
There exists two serious fundamental problems with this “experiment,” one of which lies in the fact that the terms capitalism and socialism are two extremes of a spectrum, and are not mutually exclusive. Elements of both can and,in our government, do exist together. The second fundamental problem is that if one takes more than 20 minutes to research Obamas policies, he has no “Income Equalization Policies.” Someone needs to check their information. However, this country being a far right-winged capitalist state, there is no doubt in my mind that Obama does want to move center, which from our point of view seems to be socialism. Neither extreme is good for the people. An unforgiving harsh capitalism or an understanding weak socialism are both extremes this country should avoid.
January 29, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
This is not a realistic story; it’s an urban legend. http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
February 1, 2012 at 4:24 am |
That anyone gives this story any credence at all shows that the “dumbing-down of America” is not a possibility to be feared, but an accomplished fact.
February 16, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
I can’t agree with this, if it were true that socialism didn’t help the economy, why in the world were Soviet Russia, and China two of the most powerful economies in the world. Socialism isn’t a bad idea in theory, but it would have to be led by a benevolent dictatorship, something which rarely happens. It would also mean that everyone would have to eat a large amount of humble pie, and work for the betterment of society instead of the betterment of their bank accounts.
All that said, I would like to finalize by saying that I do not support a socialist government in the U.S. I do not believe that is the solution we need, however we do need to put forth the effort required to make this work.
February 22, 2012 at 10:34 pm |
this expirment has sooo many holes in it, and its a joke, i don’t see one program that President Obama has put in himself that comes close to this. Wow this story sucked.
November 20, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
Note to Subhendu Das:
You’re a neocommunist dupe. A moneyless society has already been tried in Cambodia in the late 1970s. See Pol Pot.