Idea: Students can "share" grades

[MotionMan]

For the above, I got bored with translating into the awkwardness of grades and took some liberties with exaggerations and oversimplification. Properly, the found answer keys should only have some answers with capital reinvestment allowing for more answers to be found. Also the levels of management needs to be created, as well as the middle class, earning more by servicing the next level of the economy.
But none of you understand systems, so that would just confuse you.

Reminded me of this:

Leon Kodak: You see, the country has mood swings.
Lewis Rothschild: Mood swings? Nineteen post-graduate degrees in mathematics, and your best explanation for going from a 63 to a 46 percent approval rating in five weeks is mood swings?
Leon Kodak: Well, I could explain it better, but I'd need charts, and graphs, and an easel.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

LOL @ last.

Grades are capped at what you can do for yourself and presume an even environment. An analogy that properly converts grades to money is going to have to really wrangle with the definition of "grades."

Here we go:


A classroom of 100 students. One stumbles upon a series of answer keys for upcoming tests, puts in a little effort to learn the first key, and gets a 4.0. The rest, not having that advantage, get 1.0 (the test was above their level [you can't make a nuke plant with bronze age technology]). The one with the answer keys says, "Hey, I see you're all getting 1.0's. Now, these answer keys are my property, but I'll let you in on them for the right to administer the grades. I'm offering 1.1 GPA's right out of the bag!"
The rest of the students jump on it. They learn the answer keys and earn 4.0's. The entitled answer-key owner collects all those points and hands out each worker his 1.1. The answer-key owner now stops working himself, and still has a GPA of 96.1. Which is the baseline his children will start at.

Conservatives: "But he EARNED that 96.1GPA! Every point."

And this is why we say conservatives are stupid.

So, instead of deciding to work harder to get a higher grade, they decide to take the easy way out. In the process, they make, in hindsight, a bad deal and we are to blame the smart guy? Isn't the result win-win, with everyone getting EXACTLY what they dealt for, a higher grade?

Also, in this analogy, are the tests actually impossible to pass unless you cheat? Is that how you see the world? Have all rich people been given the answers ahead of time in the real world?

Should we eliminate inheritance and have everyone's wealth that they acquired in their life revert to the state? What about everyone's debt - should the state take that on to, or, since the debt is probably owed to rich people, that can be eliminated?

MotionMan

 

[DominionSeraph]

Reminded me of this:

Leon Kodak: You see, the country has mood swings.
Lewis Rothschild: Mood swings? Nineteen post-graduate degrees in mathematics, and your best explanation for going from a 63 to a 46 percent approval rating in five weeks is mood swings?
Leon Kodak: Well, I could explain it better, but I'd need charts, and graphs, and an easel.

LOL

 

[DominionSeraph]

So, instead of deciding to work harder to get a higher grade, they decide to take the easy way out. In the process, they make, in hindsight, a bad deal and we are to blame the smart guy? Isn't the result win-win, with everyone getting EXACTLY what they dealt for, a higher grade?

First off, working harder will not necessarily put you in the same position that the ultra-wealthy was in before he was ultra-wealthy. He was in a position where his labor exploited the wealth-generation capacity of the labor market, not extracting wealth for himself.
A construction worker working his ass off and earning $80k/yr will not necessarily be able to convert that into a construction company that earns him millions off the backs of $25k/yr laborers. He is far more likely to just be making $80k until he retires.

Secondly, win-win does not mean fair. After a certain point an avenue of environmental exploitation becomes part of the environment, and to not have access to the full measure of exploitation counts as a loss from that baseline.
There's a reason we so highly regulate monopolies and disallow them in most instances, because THAT level of ownership trends towards severe imbalances. If you had to pay $5/KWh for electricity instead of $0.11 because someone had an iron monopoly and was gouging everyone, it would still be a win over having no electricity. But at some point shouldn't you not have to pay that extra $4.89 per KWh?
The owner is banking on government protection for his property. Should not the cost of that be, after a decent amount of wealth has been extracted, fairness? Fair access? What benefit is there to the Nation to grant one family perpetual ease based on a piece of paper?

Conservatives have this false impression that everyone works for what they have -- that anyone can reach the top echelon if just they put in enough elbow grease. But that's not the case at all. The top echelon isn't about working for yourself, it's about getting others to work for you. And you cannot have everybody at that level -- it's inherently pyramidal. A top exploiting the bottom needs a bottom to exploit. And it is in the People's interest to put limits on that exploitation.

Having extra wealth in the hands of proven wealth-generators is good. Having the system send most of the wealth to them is not, for then their interest shifts from youthful cowboy wealth-generation to old and miserly protection of the system that guarantees their income. You need to give them a threat of loss -- of someone newer and fresher taking their place. When they own most of everything, like is the case right now, this isn't a threat, for they can just abuse the system to create hurdles for new entry, allowing them to buy up exploitation rights for a pittance.

Taxation is by no means a perfect answer, but it's the best we have right now. Until we have some sort of supercomputer that can regulate businesses on an individual level, our combination of regulation and taxation is the best we have to both exploit capitalism's strengths while limiting its down sides.

 

[MotionMan]

First off, working harder will not necessarily put you in the same position that the ultra-wealthy was in before he was ultra-wealthy. He was in a position where his labor exploited the wealth-generation capacity of the labor market, not extracting wealth for himself.

He started in the same position as all the other students, discovered something that gave everyone an advantage and sold that idea to willing customers.

A construction worker working his ass off and earning $80k/yr will not necessarily be able to convert that into a construction company that earns him millions off the backs of $25k/yr laborers. He is far more likely to just be making $80k until he retires.

I am not sure that any construction company that currently makes millions of dollars became that big in one generation. Today's construction worker could work, get his contractor's license, open his own company, become successful and wealthy and pass the company on to become a raging success under his children or grandchildren. Then again, those children or grandchildren would become the people you are talking about having advantages.

Secondly, win-win does not mean fair.

Why does it have to be fair?

After a certain point an avenue of environmental exploitation becomes part of the environment, and to not have access to the full measure of exploitation counts as a loss from that baseline.
There's a reason we so highly regulate monopolies and disallow them in most instances, because THAT level of ownership trends towards severe imbalances.

Monopolies are not disallowed or bad. Abuse of monopoly power is disallowed and bad and, IMO, should be closely watched and regulated.

If you had to pay $5/KWh for electricity instead of $0.11 because someone had an iron monopoly and was gouging everyone, it would still be a win over having no electricity. But at some point shouldn't you not have to pay that extra $4.89 per KWh?

But in your story, the students got exactly what they bargained for and had a reasonable alternative (don't cheat and work harder to get that 1.1).

The owner is banking on government protection for his property. Should not the cost of that be, after a decent amount of wealth has been extracted, fairness? Fair access? What benefit is there to the Nation to grant one family perpetual ease based on a piece of paper?

Because that is available to anyone who has the smarts, will and, yes, luck, to get that. The system is fair, not that it has to be, because it applies the same to everyone.

Conservatives have this false impression that everyone works for what they have -- that anyone can reach the top echelon if just they put in enough elbow grease. But that's not the case at all. The top echelon isn't about working for yourself, it's about getting others to work for you. And you cannot have everybody at that level -- it's inherently pyramidal. A top exploiting the bottom needs a bottom to exploit. And it is in the People's interest to put limits on that exploitation.

I do not believe that everyone can reach the level of the ultra-rich. However, I do believe that everyone should be allowed to reach as high as they can. If you place a false ceiling on the economy, no one will strive to surpass it, and that is bad for the economy.

Having extra wealth in the hands of proven wealth-generators is good. Having the system send most of the wealth to them is not, for then their interest shifts from youthful cowboy wealth-generation to old and miserly protection of the system that guarantees their income. You need to give them a threat of loss -- of someone newer and fresher taking their place. When they own most of everything, like is the case right now, this isn't a threat, for they can just abuse the system to create hurdles for new entry, allowing them to buy up exploitation rights for a pittance.

So, what is the threat of loss you propose?

Taxation is by no means a perfect answer, but it's the best we have right now. Until we have some sort of supercomputer that can regulate businesses on an individual level, our combination of regulation and taxation is the best we have to both exploit capitalism's strengths while limiting its down sides.

You know what happens when you tax people or companies? They take their business elsewhere. You know what happens to jobs when businesses move out? They go away.

Also, do you believe that the government (any U.S.-based government) spends out tax dollars wisely? I rather leave that money in the hand sof the people and companies to spend as they see fit. At least they have some incentive not to waste it.

(Now I remember why I usually don't post in P&N. It is tiring.)

MotionMan

 

[fskimospy]

I cannot believe this thread is still going on. This is an incredibly stupid analogy.

 

[Patranus]

I cannot believe this thread is still going on. This is an incredibly stupid analogy.

You work hard, you get a better grade, and this improves your GPA.
You are lazy, you get a bad grade, and your GPA goes down.

You work hard, you get more money, and this improves your net worth.
You are lazy, you get less money, and your net worth goes down.

 

[coloumb]

Um..no.

Those who can't perform will have low performing jobs - jobs that are simple to perform and don't require as much brain power.

 

[fskimospy]

You work hard, you get a better grade, and this improves your GPA.
You are lazy, you get a bad grade, and your GPA goes down.

You work hard, you get more money, and this improves your net worth.
You are lazy, you get less money, and your net worth goes down.

As has already been explained in here, in any given classroom everyone generally starts in approximately the same place or they wouldn't be taking the class together.

In life everyone does not start in the same place.

Terrible analogy is terrible.

 

[Patranus]

As has already been explained in here, in any given classroom everyone generally starts in approximately the same place or they wouldn't be taking the class together.

In life everyone does not start in the same place.

Terrible analogy is terrible.

Um.

Those with higher IQ will achieve more than those with lower IQ. Don't we need social justice to compensate those with low IQs?

 

[Infohawk]

As has already been explained in here, in any given classroom everyone generally starts in approximately the same place or they wouldn't be taking the class together.

In life everyone does not start in the same place.

So what are you going to do about life being unfair? You should do your best.

And people are really bending over backwards to act like schools are completely fair. Kids have different parents who pay for different amount of tutoring and who provide different amounts of help. Not to mention some people are just smarter than others. Also you have one person who decides how well you know the subject. If you don't meet their criteria you're basically screwed. I'm not trying to say hard work doesn't get you ahead in school, but let's not pretend it's a pure meritocracy.

Again, you get a 1.0 in school you're probably getting kicked out. Compare this with life where even abject failures are allowed to live life and reproduce like crazy in our society. The economy gives people freedom that the school system doesn't even come close too.

 

[fskimospy]

So what are you going to do about life being unfair? You should do your best.

And people are really bending over backwards to act like schools are completely fair. Kids have different parents who pay for different amount of tutoring and who provide different amounts of help. Not to mention some people are just smarter than others. Also you have one person who decides how well you know the subject. If you don't meet their criteria you're basically screwed. I'm not trying to say hard work doesn't get you ahead in school, but let's not pretend it's a pure meritocracy.

Again, you get a 1.0 in school you're probably getting kicked out. Compare this with life where even abject failures are allowed to live life and reproduce like crazy in our society. The economy gives people freedom that the school system doesn't even come close too.

It's not a complete meritocracy, but in any given classroom there is far less separating the students than there is between classes in society and we all know this. That's why it's a bad analogy.

Who cares about the rest? The question here is if the situation in a school classroom is an accurate proxy for the world at large. It isn't.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Why does it have to be fair?

The burden would be on you to support a positive rationale for the government to protect unfairness. (Remember, it is government which defends individual property rights. Property rights don't have some magical existence in the aether as an unmoved mover thus asserting infinite leverage.)
If the People wish to tax things into a higher degree of fairness, prove that this is misguided. Show that the elitists should prevent this for the unwashed masses' own best interest.

Because that is available to anyone who has the smarts, will and, yes, luck, to get that. The system is fair, not that it has to be, because it applies the same to everyone.

Fairness before != fairness after. And the labor market not infinitely exploitable. Again, you cannot have everybody having everybody working for them. A system of labor exploitation is inherently segregated between haves and have-nots. The have-nots cannot all become haves because then there isn't the labor market of have-nots to leech from.

I do not believe that everyone can reach the level of the ultra-rich. However, I do believe that everyone should be allowed to reach as high as they can. If you place a false ceiling on the economy, no one will strive to surpass it, and that is bad for the economy.

No, it is not bad for the economy. You seem to be under the false impression that infinite capital reinvestment will result in infinite gains in an infinitely small amount of time. This is not how the universe works. Growth has a pace to it. Refinement of ideas takes time, and new ideas based upon that refinement cannot occur until the refinement has happened.
Insane concentration of wealth does not help the refinement of the majority economy, for it causes a major shift to the economy of the ultra-wealthy, to new ways of fleecing the workers (financial markets) as well as to protection of the ultra-wealthy.

How am I served by Rupert Murdoch consolidating his power by spending his money to create propaganda networks designed solely to brainwash the ignorant into protecting him and his interests? What value does this add to the nation?

If he can buy ten ultra-luxury yachts rather than five, how does this help me? How much does this drive innovation in the boating market over the buying of one?

If the wealthy are kept within reach of the rest there's much greater trickle-down, for what they are working on has implications for the rest. But there's going to be no innovation in steak and potatoes if the ultra-wealthy are busy packing caviar in diamonds.

So, what is the threat of loss you propose?

I propose not allowing them to acquire enough wealth to game the system. Make them live as mortals within the realm of the feeding frenzy, not allow them to acquire so much power that they have no fear of competition.

You know what happens when you tax people or companies? They take their business elsewhere. You know what happens to jobs when businesses move out? They go away.

You know what happens when you're an idiot? You say utterly retarded things. Stop that shit.
How can a business take their business elsewhere when the market is here, you frigging moron? When the buildings are here?
You can't have businesses leaving en masse. It just becomes socialized.
If all the US automakers tried to close shop and move elsewhere, yet every worker all the way down the supply line showed up for work the next day and went right back to making what they made the day before, with all the profits now going to the workers... how does that not work?
The workers have taken control of the means of production.

The wealth is in the American worker. It cannot be taken elsewhere. And there is no God to prevent him taking control -- to prevent him from breaking all boundaries of necessity to do what needs to be done.
There is no private ownership except by Consent of the People. No person has any absolute right over any brand name, trademark, or patent. The People are physically capable of raiding it all for their own use if they so desire.

You cannot steal from them that which you only control by their consent.

Also, do you believe that the government (any U.S.-based government) spends out tax dollars wisely? I rather leave that money in the hand sof the people and companies to spend as they see fit. At least they have some incentive not to waste it.

You assert waste to a large degree? Why don't you make your own budget for the federal government, then? Go over every dollar that was spent, what it was spent on, and tell us how that should be modified?

(Now I remember why I usually don't post in P&N. It is tiring.)

It's idling for me. The only challenge I have here is simplifying things to a level a first-grader could understand. I am geared to break lies-to-children and bring them to the full complexity of Truth, not to strip shades of Truth for the sake of compression to fit in lesser minds.

 

[JTsyo]

Do those that earn the 4.0 have the professor's ear and get tests modified in their favor?

Do they get the ones getting the 2.0 to do the actual work and then just hand it in?

 

[JTsyo]

...
You know what happens when you're an idiot? You say utterly retarded things. Stop that shit.
How can a business take their business elsewhere when the market is here, you frigging moron? When the buildings are here?
You can't have businesses leaving en masse. It just becomes socialized.
If all the US automakers tried to close shop and move elsewhere, yet every worker all the way down the supply line showed up for work the next day and went right back to making what they made the day before, with all the profits now going to the workers... how does that not work?
The workers have taken control of the means of production.

The wealth is in the American worker. It cannot be taken elsewhere. And there is no God to prevent him taking control -- to prevent him from breaking all boundaries of necessity to do what needs to be done.
There is no private ownership except by Consent of the People. No person has any absolute right over any brand name, trademark, or patent. The People are physically capable of raiding it all for their own use if they so desire.
...

Because the companies would take the capital with them. Where will the workers get the equipment and parts to make cars? Workers are just one part of the formula for making a product.

 

[MotionMan]

The burden would be on you to support a positive rationale for the government to protect unfairness. (Remember, it is government which defends individual property rights. Property rights don't have some magical existence in the aether as an unmoved mover thus asserting infinite leverage.)

Why is it unfair for people to be able to keep their property?

If the People wish to tax things into a higher degree of fairness, prove that this is misguided. Show that the elitists should prevent this for the unwashed masses' own best interest.

Because if people cannot keep what they earned, that removes incentive for people to earn.

Fairness before != fairness after. And the labor market not infinitely exploitable. Again, you cannot have everybody having everybody working for them. A system of labor exploitation is inherently segregated between haves and have-nots. The have-nots cannot all become haves because then there isn't the labor market of have-nots to leech from.

And not every have-not will become a have. But without the potential reward of becoming a have, why would anyone even try?

No, it is not bad for the economy. You seem to be under the false impression that infinite capital reinvestment will result in infinite gains in an infinitely small amount of time. This is not how the universe works. Growth has a pace to it. Refinement of ideas takes time, and new ideas based upon that refinement cannot occur until the refinement has happened.
Insane concentration of wealth does not help the refinement of the majority economy, for it causes a major shift to the economy of the ultra-wealthy, to new ways of fleecing the workers (financial markets) as well as to protection of the ultra-wealthy.

How am I served by Rupert Murdoch consolidating his power by spending his money to create propaganda networks designed solely to brainwash the ignorant into protecting him and his interests? What value does this add to the nation?

If he can buy ten ultra-luxury yachts rather than five, how does this help me? How much does this drive innovation in the boating market over the buying of one?

Ah, now I get where you are coming from.

In any event, if he can buy ten luxury yachts instead of five, that means twice as many workers had jobs.

Ah, now I get where you are coming from.If the wealthy are kept within reach of the rest there's much greater trickle-down, for what they are working on has implications for the rest. But there's going to be no innovation in steak and potatoes if the ultra-wealthy are busy packing caviar in diamonds.

How many people would be out of well-paying jobs if the ultra-wealthy lost that wealth. Who would employ those people?

I propose not allowing them to acquire enough wealth to game the system. Make them live as mortals within the realm of the feeding frenzy, not allow them to acquire so much power that they have no fear of competition.

How much would you allow them to acquire? Please give an exact number that we can place in your new law.

You know what happens when you're an idiot? You say utterly retarded things. Stop that shit.
How can a business take their business elsewhere when the market is here, you frigging moron? When the buildings are here?
You can't have businesses leaving en masse. It just becomes socialized.

So companies are not leaving high tax states for low tax states? IF you say so.

If all the US automakers tried to close shop and move elsewhere, yet every worker all the way down the supply line showed up for work the next day and went right back to making what they made the day before, with all the profits now going to the workers... how does that not work?
The workers have taken control of the means of production.

So the workers are going to buy the buildings (or do they just steal them?), pay for the raw materials (steal them?), hire the designers, pay for the advertising, negotiate the contracts, hire and fire each other...

And who decides which workers are in charge? Who decides what path the business is going to follow? Do all the workers share in the profits equally? Does the janitor get paid the same as a supervisor? Do all the workers share in the risk of loss, i.e. taking money out of their pockets?

The wealth is in the American worker. It cannot be taken elsewhere. And there is no God to prevent him taking control -- to prevent him from breaking all boundaries of necessity to do what needs to be done.
There is no private ownership except by Consent of the People. No person has any absolute right over any brand name, trademark, or patent. The People are physically capable of raiding it all for their own use if they so desire.

You cannot steal from them that which you only control by their consent.

And where in the world has this system you propose worked? Has it been attempted in other countries? How did that work out?

You assert waste to a large degree? Why don't you make your own budget for the federal government, then? Go over every dollar that was spent, what it was spent on, and tell us how that should be modified

Do you assert that there is not a huge amount of waste in the government?

It's idling for me. The only challenge I have here is simplifying things to a level a first-grader could understand. I am geared to break lies-to-children and bring them to the full complexity of Truth, not to strip shades of Truth for the sake of compression to fit in lesser minds.

You can assume that I would understand at least a high school-level explanation of your position.

Your dumbing-down approach just makes it sound dumb.

MotionMan

 

[boomerang]

Let’s Examine The Child’s Mind

 

[fskimospy]

Let’s Examine The Child’s Mind

Why is it that people are incapable of arguing against progressivism without hilariously distorting it? It's like you know you can't win if you argue on the actual merits.

 

[werepossum]

Why is it unfair for people to be able to keep their property?

SNIP
MotionMan

Dude, seriously. You're arguing with an anime emo in public. That's like mud-wrestling a pig except without the pig's modesty and work ethic.

You're better than that.

 

[MotionMan]

Dude, seriously. You're arguing with an anime emo in public. That's like mud-wrestling a pig except without the pig's modesty and work ethic.

You're better than that.

Yeah. Just dipping my toes into the P&N cesspool to remind myself as to why I don't do it more often.

I'll be leaving now.

MotionMan

 

[xj0hnx]

Dude, seriously. You're arguing with an anime emo in public.

lulz

Animo

 

[theeedude]

The sad thing is the OP thinks he's being clever by rehashing that same old cliche.

 

[Howard]

Yeah. Just dipping my toes into the P&N cesspool to remind myself as to why I don't do it more often.

I'll be leaving now.

MotionMan

argument win by default by attacking credibility of person

 

[Steeplerot]

Dude, seriously. You're arguing with an anime emo in public.

Were, you can do better then this. Attack the messenger? Really?

That's pretty much instantly conceding your point.

 

[MotF Bane]

argument win by default by attacking credibility of person

Arguing with trolls wastes the time of one and feeds the other. Everyone knows this. :awe: