So in my college Economics class the other day we did a simple experiment. Everyone in the class was given 4 playing cards of the same value, 2 red cards and 2 black. The value doesn't matter only the 2 colors. Every round we would give up two cards, face down, of any combination (2 red, 2 black, 1 red 1 black). The red cards were the cards of value, the black were worth nothing. For each red card the teacher collected the group would get 1 point collectively, for each red card kept in your hand you gained 4 points. The experiment was meant to show the dangers of free-riders (people who use public goods but don't contribute) but it showed very well the downside of capitalism. There was roughly 25 people in the class, so if everyone in the class gave up their red cards everyone in the group would earn 50 points (25 * 2). On the flipside if everyone kept their red cards everyone would earn 8 points. The goal in a capitalist society would be to maximize your profit. This could be accomplished at the expense of others by keeping your red cards for yourself (selfishness) while others contributed to the group (selflessness). If everyone did not contribute both red cards the ones who kept them were rewarded with extra points. (Say 48 red cards were contributed and one person kept both of theirs, they would profit 48 while the one who kept both would earn 56). We quickly found that there were those in the group who were concerned with nothing except winning (which capitalism encourages) and our beginning attempts at being selfless turned to selfishness when people kept their red cards. Logically the only reason to keep your cards is selfishness because donating them benefits the group as a whole far more than keeping them even when they are worth 4X more. As the rounds went on less and less people gave up their red cards instead opting to selfishly keep them because of the selfishness of others. Even when the teacher offered extra credit if the entire group gave them up it didn't happen. The result was devastating to this imaginary economy. We did about 10 rounds and in the end the top player had something like 360 points while the rest had around 200. He admitted that he mostly kept both of his red cards. We discovered that if everyone had just gave up their cards in all rounds we would ALL have around 600 points. This is similar to real life. In a capitalistic society we find that a very small group of people holds immense wealth (in America the top 1% hold 40% of the wealth), this is similar to the game where one or two people had far more than the rest. In a pure capitalist society there are no roads or schools or police because pure capitalism says you have no right to take money from individuals. So at the very least America is partly socialist but VASTLY capitalist. Likewise, in a society where people share the wealth we find that everyone is richer collectively. Roads can be built, schools can be built, healthcare can be standard and the result is cheap public services and wealth for everyone instead of a few selfish people using the goods that others have paid for. This isn't just theory, this is real life fact. Socialist countries beat the United States in literally every category that matters. The US has one of the highest GDP per capitas in the world but keep in mind that our economy is FAR larger than the rest and therefore the figures show a few rich people and a WHOLE LOT of poor people averaging out to a middle class. This is fake, most americans are very poor. Just because a few IMMENSELY rich people average it out means nothing. The other countries on top are socialist and they are richer than you. List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And finally let's look at our tax rates: When the top tax rate really kicks in - CNNMoney Wow, America's taxes is so high!!! No they aren't, you're a simpleton and you misread the graph. That graph is telling you that people making over FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR pay a 44% tax rate. Let's take a look at a socialist country like Denmark. They pay 60% taxes if they make over 55K a year. This system keeps super rich people to a minimum and honestly who needs super rich people? They're a burden, they're scary, they rob your economy, they exert unfair influence, they corrupt. This keeps the government wealthy as well so it can repair roads (compare to our shitty road system), fund schools, healthcare and anything else the public needs. "Wait a minute! I don't want my government to be rich! They're taking my money!!!" Actually, they're providing you with public services at a far cheaper rate than a private industry could. This puts money in your pocket. They can pay the budget that they pass instead of inflating the deficit out of existence, this puts money in your pocket. They create a fairer and safer society, this puts money and happiness in your pocket. We can see the results. The 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index Across the board socialist countries are the happiest in the world. Not capitalist, not communist, socialist. I wish Americans would get off their high horse because if you really look around this country isn't what it's cracked up to be and other countries are kicking its ass. "They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." - George Carlin
Capitalism and socialism need to be mixed. No purely capitalist society will be successful and the same can be said for socialism. Interesting post, OP. I don't fully agree with all of it but I appreciate it nonetheless.
I don't really understand the game but I would be skeptical of any economics course that taught socialism > capitalism. There just isn't any evidence of it. There is no successful socialist model. Finland/Denmark/Australia, those are all capitalist nations with some very good socialist programs. A purer socialist example would Venezuela or Argentina, hardly a role-model for achievement.
except for the fact that in 8 years of socialism venezuala improved in just about every measurable way over the previous capitalist system. so much in fact that when the capitalists tried to stage a coup d'état the people had broken chavez out of prison and had him back in office the very next day. currently they are trying again now that chavez has unfortuantely passed away. RIP comrad Chavez. i highly recommend this documentary, its also on netflix (or at least used to be) [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTnVsy32bE[/ame]
My class didn't "teach socialism over capitalism", I just deduced it from our experiment. No evidence? Did you close your eyes and pretend to read my post? Denmark is a capitalist country? LOLOLOL
This isn't proof of anything. This isn't fact. I'm not trying to knock socialism or promote capitalism, I'm just saying that this isn't even a realistic model of actual economic circumstances. It's a silly activity your teacher or professor devised, trying to get you to believe the same way he does. That's how I see it. I mean it's supposed to show you that if you give in to the common good that's better for everyone, but real life isn't cards. It's much more complicated than this and your teacher has an agenda.
That's just ridiculous. You don't need government to take money from people to have those things at all. In a purely capitalistic society, capitalists would provide these services and they would be more efficient because of competition in a free market. A few selfish people using the goods others have paid for? How about nobody pays for anyone else's shit unless they want to? Plenty of wealthy people pay more than 60% in some states, while plenty of people pay no taxes. There's no need for involuntary taxes especially when more of the money goes toward the military and other things besides public services. Our government takes more than enough of our money to fix our shitty roads and provide healthcare, they just choose to spend it on off- I mean "defense." What's so scary about rich people? They create jobs. The people destroying the economy are the people draining the system because they feel entitled to "free" shit, and of course Ben Bernanke. Our government is a burden. Again in a free market, private industries would without a doubt provide cheaper services than the government could dream of. And that third sentence doesn't make any sense. There's no such thing as a government creating a fair society. Redistributing wealth is unfair. Safer? The protection provided by the government is shit. You're more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist. Private companies could provide better protection too. You fail to realize reality. There are no purely capitalistic or socialistic societies. We experience crony capitalism, which involves big corporations lobbying government to regulate the market. Socialism cannot work on a large scale. The government controls the commons and this creates an upper class and leaves the rest of the nation equally poor. And why should people take jobs with greater responsibility and work for the same pay? It assumes that people are the same, which is different than being equal. In an ideal capitalistic society everyone would have equal opportunities in a free market. And there could still be cooperative enterprises and workers controlling means of production. That is the American Dream. All we need is government to get out of way. They had their chance and failed miserably at everything they have ever attempted. I'm tired and may have worded some things poorer than I'd like, but the point is capitalism>socialism, and I look forward to your response tomorrow. If only you had posted this in politics...
It's a common sense experiment backed up by real word facts. The experiment was to show the effect of free riders in the economy. My teacher is a capitalist and has no agenda. Stop jumping to conclusions
Why do you move this over to politics? That would be funny. EDIT: Also if you think Denmark isn't a capitalist country then you are severely misinformed.
Also I think this is pretty relevant; [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNtyV0CXfzU]The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism - YouTube[/ame]
no socialism>capitalism because capitalism is a system of exploitation. and some of the responses in this thread are quite hilarious. like thinking that it would be cheaper for the private sector to build roads. idk about you but i hate paying tolls as it is, the last thing i want is tolls on every fucking road... the private sector doesnt do things out of the goodness of their heart, they only care about money... although in that same post they brought up a very interesting point that i bring up all the time. america has a billion dollar a week kill brown people addiction. people bitch about people on welfare bleeding the system dry while america spends more on military in 8 days than what would be needed to end world hunger...
Since wealth is not a measurement but a subjective idea, you can't say that any one of those people would actually have 600 degrees of wealth unless they were making their own wealth. What if I don't value what is taught in schools, or the way roads are managed, etc? Then I am not as wealthy as those that do. Besides, you can never count on people to voluntarily work for the collective (and if you force them, you will get shit results; see slavery), so you might as well count on them to work for themselves, which requires them to produce what others consider wealth too.
Your definition of capitalism is twisted while you use the word "exploitation" to cause an emotional effect to the listener. Capitalism, me offering you a certain amount of money to do something for me that will get me a certain amount of money. Or me building something and simply selling it to you if you wish to purchase it. Where is the exploitation?
The ignorance in this thread is monumental, not surprisingly. This is the list of the most prosperous nations from the link provided. 1. Norway 2. Denmark 3. Sweden 4. Australia 5. New Zealand 6. Canada 7. Finland 8. Netherlands 9. Switzerland 10. Ireland 11. Luxembourg 12. United States Of these nations the ones I bolded are more capitalist than the US. None are pure socialist or pure capitalist, all are mixed economies. See here for the list of the most economically free nations, and therefore the most capitalistic. Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom The ones listed which aren't more capitalistic have about equal elements of capitalism and socialism in their economies as the US does. The OP's problem, and everyone who agrees with the OP, is a complete ignorance of what capitalism and socialism are and what defines them. Mixed economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That's what almost all modern nations are, mixed economies. To simplify them into "socialist" or "capitalist" shows an extremely low level of economic understanding.
How is there a downside for me offering you money to do something for me? Which is pure capitalism. What are you referring to when you say capitalism? Our government and their corporations? The federal reserves hold on the system? This card game can ONLY represent what happens in the card game itself. It has no relevance to real life since it absurdly starts off by handing a bunch of people "money" in the form of red cards and then the game tries to get them to split it with a group. No one worked for that money. You might as well try it with bums and food. You dont succeed by hording your money anyways. You make it sound like being at the top is bad. Do you realize jobs are provided by people that want to succeed? My father started his own steel company because he wanted to achieve and succeed and now employs a good amount of workers. If you're worried about "free riders", they're all in office.
If the students weren't free to exchange the cards between each other, for services and/or goods, and could only give to the prof, then it is a flawed experiment. You already pay tolls on every road, even the ones you don't and will never use...Multiple times...It's called taxes and car registration.