With the budget debacle seemingly behind us, spending still outrageously high and ObamaCare still a shit show, albeit one that will no longer be challenged by the Pusillanimous GOP, which should really be called the Gimpy Old Party, because it’s filled with intellectually challenged halfwits, the progtards have turned their attention to “income inequality.”
See, the progtards have chafed vaginas because the rich people are apparently getting richer, while the poor are apparently getting poorer, and everyone from Pope Francis to Barack Obama is losing bowel control because of this. So the progtards are planning to do something about it. They are planning to make “income inequality” the cornerstone of their collective campaigns this year, promising to take away money from those money hoarding rich people and give it to the poor.
It’s their usual mantra. It doesn’t matter whether those “greedy rich” got their money through hard work or political connections. They have, and others have not, and therefore what they have must be taken away by government force.
The great Walter Williams penned an essay about income today. Income, he says is the result of productivity and the value placed on it.
Except in many instances when government rigs the game with crony capitalism, income is mostly a result of one’s productivity and the value that people place on that productivity. Far more important than income inequality is productivity inequality. That suggests that if there’s anything to be done about income inequality, we should focus on how to give people greater capacity to serve their fellow man, namely raise their productivity.
What does this mean? There’s been a story circulating on the web about a college professor who showed his class exactly what this means in practice. Unfortunately, the story is false, according to Snopes, but the idea of the story is solid.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently 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 will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an “A”…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
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 new average was an “F”.
As the tests proceeded, 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.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED 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.
Human nature will always cause socialism’s style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers).
It could not be any simpler than that.
The owner of an engineering firm that designed and manufactured widgets told his workers who had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer, “OK, we will have an experiment at this firm on Obama’s plan.” All pay will be averaged and everyone will receive the same pay, divided equally after all profits were calculated.After the first payday, the pay was averaged, and everyone – from the lowliest, illiterate janitor to the most brilliant engineer got exactly the same salary. The engineers did what they did best, and the company made a profit, which was divided equally among all employees.. The engineers didn’t get as much as they usually got, so they were not happy, and the janitors and secretaries got way more than they normally did. They were happy. As the second pay period rolled around, the lower paid, less educated workers did even less, because they knew they were guaranteed the same salary as the engineers and managers, who got their education and produced the widgets for the company’s profit. But the engineers and managers didn’t want to put forth the effort they normally had for less money, so fewer widgets were produced that pay period, and the company didn’t make as much of a profit as usual. Everyone got less money but it was still divided equally. No one was happy, but no one got more than anyone else, no matter their work ethic, education or knowledge.When the 3rd pay period rolled around, the new average was barely enough to feed everyone’s family. The producers in the company knew they weren’t going to make as much as they did before, so they stopped producing. Why should they put for the effort when their pay was being cut? The company’s profit margin decreased further, and the paychecks shrank. As time went on, the pay never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would work for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, the company closed down and their former boss 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.