I already went from the A student to the D level really... I never thought about what motivated that but it just hit me after reading that story... I was working real hard, this is about fifteen years back, and my neighborhood underwent a rather quick change from a middle class situ to a lower class one.. after awhile I realized that the people around me were milking the welfare system for all it was worth and basically they had a similar level of life and a hell of a lot more free time while I was exhausting myself... I retired in place on the job and studied trading all day. Eventually I got fed up and dropped out of the work and debt cycle completely, literally told them all to go fck themselves, defaulted on credit cards and the whole bit, fck it... no regrets today, why fight the trend, somebody wants socialism in the USA so bad, fine, socialism it is... Socialism is hell on productive people, pure hell... Bush tried to reform SSI and they all went ballistic on him... senseless bastards...
Yes, it's urban legend. But we did have a major experiment with this in the 20th century - the Soviet Union. We ended up producing goods that were worth less than the materials that went into production of those goods and the whole country was living in shit. So, pretty much the same outcome as the urban legend - only worse because it was more than one class and it was real.
So... you're a Russian from the former USSR? Please correct me if this is wrong, but my understanding is that before the fall of the empire, there was something like a FEW party uppers who had money and a good lifestyle, another echelon of party "middles" with a moderate lifestyle, and perhaps 90?% of the people who were no better off than lower class... standing in line for their ration of potatoes and toilet paper? All because the State confiscated nearly all of the empire's wealth to wage an arms battle with the USA? Is that anywhere nearly correct?
Every person wants Liberty (even animals want it), they want their score to be determined by their effort, not by others. In the example, hard-study students have no control on their score. One student's score is solely controlled by the ruler (teacher who make this policy) and the average score. The upper average students feel dumb for high effort with less reward, while the lower average students feel smart for low effort with high reward. Everybody want to feel smarter, to do so is to be at the lower than the average and as a consequence the average continues to move lower and lower.
Currently no society has pure socialism or pure capitalism. There is a mix. The question is, how much of each. That said, Sweden treated it's banks a lot more capitalistic than we have. And Norway has a lot of millionaires per capita. Go figure I'm not saying they have the greatest system, but painting with broad strokes is a bit simplistic. As I said, all countries have a mix of the two. Our Socialism really benefits the top percent. And it's not a recent phenomena. I think it's funny to see my fellow countrymen complain the loudest when it's the lower class schleps that get nickles, and when the 100 dollar bills go to the plutocrats, less is said. By the way, I studied tax law in Law School, you will be shocked by the many loopholes specifically created for wealthy types - actors, hedge fund managers, ballplayers, etc.... If you factor in all these loopholes, over the past 30 years our tax code has flattened, it has become less progressive from the days that the top rate was over 70%. Gee, were we starved, unentrepeneurial commies form the 1950s-1960s when the rates were that high? I'm no fan of higher taxes. But let's not boil this discussion down to simplistic unrealistic scenarios. There's a reason that over the last 30 years wealth has accumulated into fewer hands. And Socialism ain't the reason. At least not the traditional sense of Socialism.
Sounds like an urban legend to me... Broadly, though, it sums up the incentive issues inherent in socialism, if it were offered to humankind today. However, I would also suggest that the credit crunch demonstrated how capitalism itself has some very fundamental incentive flaws. So, in summary, currently socialism = long-run economic underperformance and general malaise, while capitalism = extreme boom and bust. On balance, I would probably still go for the latter...
That's barely even a social issue. It's mathematical. "Capital begets capital". Of course, "the rich get richer"... it's because they have savings and investment which can compound and grow. Those living paycheck-to-paycheck don't develop savings and capital. The greater the time factor, the greater the difference. That's not to say it's correct to claim "unfair because the rich have more". Rather, it should be an INCENTIVE for all to accomplish more and accumulate capital for themselves.