Economics Questions

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

azazel — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:47:04 GMT

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

bloomj31 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:18:32 GMT

I went to this school here in Atlanta called the Galloway School until like 7th or 8th grade when I got kicked out. It's a very very liberal school.

I remember vividly being forced to learn the school song which was both closet homosexual and incredibly collectivistic. They encouraged that sort of mentality.

Eventually I got kicked out and went to public school which I enjoyed much more and then I attended a second private school which was much less...dogmatic. I don't mind it if teachers think that capitalism is evil. What I mind is when they try to make little kids think the same thing without presenting them with any opposing argument.

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

Student — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:10:48 GMT

Jack,

Well, normally, when I hear someone talk about "socialism" in everyday conversation I assume they usually mean Scandinavian-style Socialism (not many full-blown communists running around these days). If that's what they meant here, then they are correct by most measurements I've seen.

For example, the Gini Coefficient for countries like Sweden are much lower than the coefficients for the U.S., which implies they have a more equal income distribution.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

fakename — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:29:33 GMT

laminustacitus:

Do you have any evidence, statistics especially, to corroborate this claim?

well I do but now that I look at them again I have to modify my original claim: boston was not hugely equal in the 1680s but it was more equal than it was in the 1750s.

This is info. from the 1965 paper "Economic Development and Social Structure in Colonial Boston" by Henretta. So for instance in 1687, the lower middle class to upper middle classes held in total 34% of the wealth. In 1771, this class had significantly less total income, declining by about 10%.

All data was taken from lists of taxable assets. Some data was missing.

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

laminustacitus — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:40:27 GMT

fakename:
Take boston in the 1680s I believe -they were capitalist but the proportions of wealth that each class had were mostly equal.

Do you have any evidence, statistics especially, to corroborate this claim?

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

JackCuyler — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:23:16 GMT

Student:
Well, capitalism *does* result in more income inequality than socialism. This makes sense theoretically and can be observed empirically.

Have you any evidence to back this claim? I would argue that the average Cuban and the average Castro have very very high income inequality.

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

fakename — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:12:15 GMT

sometimes though, capitalism does mean rather equal incomes. Take boston in the 1680s I believe -they were capitalist but the proportions of wealth that each class had were mostly equal. I think whenever a new market is exploited, the tendency is for incomes to start equal in relation to that market and later, to become unequal.

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

Student — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:44:10 GMT

Well, capitalism *does* result in more income inequality than socialism. This makes sense theoretically and can be observed empirically.

So I am not sure why you are offended by these remarks alone. Unless they said something like "socialism results in less inequality and that's a good thing" there is really nothing to object to.

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

Caley McKibbin — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:35:16 GMT

I find that teachers are typically the stupidest people. I take Mencken's explanation for it.

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

Hard Rain — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:10:51 GMT

Daniel Muffinburg:

Everyone is equal when everyone is poor and starving. Just ignore the luxuries of the officials of Communist Party.

That sums up my experience living in England for a few years. I worked my butt off and had a meager existence to show for it. Other people did nothing and got the same kind of life as me for free. Oh well, I guess that system equalized us, all right!

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

Daniel James Sanchez — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:10:19 GMT

krazy kaju:

J. Grayson Lilburne:
Never mind that the operation of a market tends toward the equalization of wages and profits.

I'm not sure in what context you're saying this

I'm referring to this notion...

"If we assume that there are no institutional barriers preventing or penalizing the transfer of capital goods, workers, and commodities from one place or area to another and that the workers are indifferent with regard to their dwelling and working places, there prevails a tendency toward a distribution of population over the earth's surface in accordance with the physical productivity of the primary natural factors of production and the immobilization of inconvertible factors of production as affected in the past. There is, if we disregard the cost component, a tendency toward an equalization of wage rates for the same type of work all over the earth." (Mises, HA, 21.9)

and this notion...

"First of all we must realize that entrepreneurial profits are not a lasting phenomenon but only temporary. There prevails an inherent tendency for profits and losses to disappear. The market is always moving toward the emergence of the final prices and the final state of rest." (Mises, HA 15.9)

krazy kaju:
Bill Gates's wealth could not have existed without capitalism.

He might also never have existed to the extent that he does without being shielded by interventionist barriers to entry.

krazy kaju:
The street beggar, though he has benefited from capitalism a little, has barely benefited at all.

The street beggar is a creature of interventionism.

"As far as there is unhampered capitalism, there is no longer any question of poverty in the sense in which this term is applied to the conditions of a noncapitalistic society. The increase in population figures does not create supernumerary mouths, but additional hands whose employment produces additional wealth. There are no ablebodied paupers." (Mises, HA, 35.2)

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

krazy kaju — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 05:28:40 GMT

J. Grayson Lilburne:
Never mind that the operation of a market tends toward the equalization of wages and profits.

I'm not sure in what context you're saying this, but I would say something different: capitalism increased the real compensation of everyone, but it increases the real compensation of some quicker than others, thereby creating and widening class differences. Case in point: Bill Gates vs. a street beggar. Bill Gates's wealth could not have existed without capitalism. The street beggar, though he has benefited from capitalism a little, has barely benefited at all. So without capitalism, I would say that the wide class disparities between Bill Gates and the beggar could not have existed. Instead, there would be a lesser class disparity between, say, Senator Lieberman and the [poorer] street beggar if we lived in a socialist society.

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

chloe732 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:16:27 GMT

J. Grayson Lilburne:
I knew my school indoctrinated our students with the anti-capitalist mentality. But I didn't realize before today how overt it was.

My socialist indoctrination began at age 13. In "limited government" school, we were shown films of Greenpeace activists saving the whales, which ultimately led to the "conversations" about the evils of capitalism (evil Russian whalers are killing whales for profit, etc. Ironic that they used a Communist industry to illustrate the point). In time, the conversation was expanded to demonstrate that, in general, "profit kills people". It took many, many years to unscramble my mind from the damage inflicted on me. And, I owe it all to the "service" provided by "our" "limited government" education system. Tax dollars at work.

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

Spideynw — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:20:52 GMT

Snowflake:

J. Grayson Lilburne:
Never mind that the operation of a market tends toward the equalization of wages and profits.
ftw. Logic/evidence? Might be a bit of a loaded request...

No monopolies (all monopolies are government granted). No regulations, licensing laws, patents, or copyrights means much easier market entry for entrepreneurs. But I am sure you know this.

Re: Overheard at a private middle school

mouser98 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:01:52 GMT

i happened to run across this:

Conspiracy Theories and Public Education

the writer basically says something about not understanding why some parents might believe there is a liberal agenda in the public school system... which is understandable because liberals are always oblivious to liberal agendas... but what i found interesting were the comments... some of them were supportive of the article but there were several commenters, teachers themselves, that saw public education for what it is... and finally there was one commenter who described a horrific experience with her children and the local school district.

personally, i am having problems with my daughter's kindergarten teacher. my daughter Gabby is very strong willed and has problems with transition, which means that once she becomes engaged in an activity, she resists giving it up to move on to the next activity. but since Gabby is a discipline problem, i have a 25 year old government bureaucrat mistreating my daughter and making veiled threats, presumably about contacting social services...

one really has to wonder if the conspiracy theorists who suggest that public education was brought about to break up the family unit and indoctrinate children in marxism aren't right on the money.