College Students Favoring Wealth Redistribution Asked to Pass Their GPA To Other Students

[Rael]

A California college student is conducting a social experiment where he’s trying to get his peers to sign a petition in favor of distributing grade point averages to show how the federal government distributes wealth.

Oliver Darcy, a recent college graduate, proposes that students with good grades contribute their GPA to their academically sluggish friends. He argues that this is how the federal government takes wealth from the country’s high wage earners and distributes it to the low income earners.

“They all earn their GPA,” said Darcy in an interview with "Fox and Friends." “So we asked them if they’d be interested in redistributing the GPA points that they earned to students who may be having trouble getting a high GPA.”

Darcy, who films his encounters with teachers and fellow students, doesn’t have much luck selling this theory.

He said many students on college campuses support high taxes on the rich, but when put into relative terms, cringed at the thought of spreading around their academic wealth.

In a video posted on Exposingleftists.com, one student said, “If I do give GPA points to students that don’t deserve it, it isn’t fair, I work for what I have.”

Oliver also goes around campus asking whether students want to sign his petition to pay their share of the national debt – which amounts to nearly $47,000 per person.

This, too, brought mixed reaction, with one student saying the debt isn’t hers because she didn't contribute to it.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/17/college-students-in-favor-wealth-distribution-are-asked-to-support-grade/#ixzz1WDsh3UO0

[AlexAmore]

Awesome stuff! Great analogy.

[Bern]

Why does everyone focus on GPA wealth distribution and ignore the more fundamental problem of grade inflation? Grade inflation is seriously devaluing the nation's GPA wealth!

[rolle]

They are being too generous in this study. They are assuming that 100% of taxes taken from one group will be given to another. But as we know, most of the taxes collected and distributed are lost somewhere in bureaucracy. Also, they are ignoring the regulatory nightmare that comes with socialism. They should first make it more difficult for the top students to get good grades (regulations), and then elect a wise and benevolent gpa distributor to make sure the points are given out "fairly." But the top students should not be surprised when they find out that much of their gpa points went to pay off the wise and benevolent, gpa distributor's friends.

[YumYum]

This is overall a good illustration, but what about "debt"? How does debt fit into this? The rich wanted Bush's war, and at the same time Bush gave tax cuts to the rich (people making $2.5 million or more don't pay). Now all the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) want the middle class and poor to pay more in taxes, but not the rich. So, how do we fit the rich who got tax cuts, and wanted war, into this little scenario?

[WilliamC]

This is overall a good illustration, but what about "debt"? How does debt fit into this? The rich wanted Bush's war, and at the same time Bush gave tax cuts to the rich (people making $2.5 million or more don't pay). Now all the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) want the middle class and poor to pay more in taxes, but not the rich. So, how do we fit the rich who got tax cuts, and wanted war, into this little scenario?

Well obviously when you start the class you already have a grade of 'D' since the other students in the past ran up bad grade debt which you are now responsible for.

So you have to make A's for the first third of the semester just to pull a C average in the class.

Before the grade distribution kicks in of course.

[TCE]

This is an absolutely amazing experiment. Even though it isn't perfect because 100% of taxes don't go to other people, this is a down-to-earth explanation that is easy to understand and might get people thinking about why wealth distribution is so immoral. These people are the ones we need to target. The college students we have a real shot with whereas people 65 and older are the way they are.

[VBRonPaulFan]

This is an absolutely amazing experiment. Even though it isn't perfect because 100% of taxes don't go to other people, this is a down-to-earth explanation that is easy to understand and might get people thinking about why wealth distribution is so immoral. These people are the ones we need to target. The college students we have a real shot with whereas people 65 and older are the way they are.

taxes absolutely do go to other people in the form of refundable tax credits like EIC, addt'l child tax credit, etc.

[TonySutton]

They should do one where they ask people to let someone borrow their car, live in their house, come eat dinner with them once a week... forever.

[Philhelm]

They are being too generous in this study. They are assuming that 100% of taxes taken from one group will be given to another. But as we know, most of the taxes collected and distributed are lost somewhere in bureaucracy. Also, they are ignoring the regulatory nightmare that comes with socialism. They should first make it more difficult for the top students to get good grades (regulations), and then elect a wise and benevolent gpa distributor to make sure the points are given out "fairly." But the top students should not be surprised when they find out that much of their gpa points went to pay off the wise and benevolent, gpa distributor's friends.

Good point. To add to that, 50% of the GPA points collected would be used to lower the GPA of a community college in another state.

[Philhelm]

Also, we'd need a private organization that would create Grade Points out of thin air...

[WilliamC]

Also, we'd need a private organization that would create Grade Points out of thin air...

Oh we do, it's called the Teachers Unions.

[UWDude]

Let me know when students can pass their GPA's on to their children, and loan out grade points at interest. And GPA's are not like money, because the most anyone can have is 4 points, whiel there is no limit to the amount of money someone can have. This article is ridiculous.

[AFPVet]

Also, we'd need a private organization that would create Grade Points out of thin air...

The University Grade Reserve! It's not a university organization, yet it has the title and the power to produce fiat GPA.

[AlexAmore]

Let me know when students can pass their GPA's on to their children, and loan out grade points at interest. And GPA's are not like money, because the most anyone can have is 4 points, whiel there is no limit to the amount of money someone can have. This article is ridiculous.

1. passing on GPA to children has no bearing on anything.
2. Loaning has no bearing on anything.
3. How much money someone has, has no bearing on anything. Having more money is a good thing, not a bad thing.

You're ridiculous.

[libertybrewcity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss

[libertybrewcity]

affirmative action already kind of does this. there are universities that will drop standards for underrepresented minorities.

[UWDude]

1. passing on GPA to children has no bearing on anything.
2. Loaning has no bearing on anything.
3. How much money someone has, has no bearing on anything. Having more money is a good thing, not a bad thing.

You're ridiculous.

1. It is one way a GPA is nothing like wealth.
2. It is another way, a GPA is not like wealth.
3. It is yet a third way, a GPA is not like wealth.

In other words, apples and oranges.

[reillym]

1. It is one way a GPA is nothing like wealth.
2. It is another way, a GPA is not like wealth.
3. It is yet a third way, a GPA is not like wealth.

In other words, apples and oranges.

Exactly. Comparing wealth to GPA is very, very wrong. It is not even comparable.

[Pauls' Revere]

They should do one where they ask people to let someone borrow their car, live in their house, come eat dinner with them once a week... forever.

that's called in-laws.

[sam9657]

Exactly. Comparing wealth to GPA is very, very wrong. It is not even comparable.

Please give your rational.....

Afterall this is RPFs.

[GunnyFreedom]

Oh we do, it's called the Teachers Unions.

http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/aug/28/school-board-drops-grades-below-60-ar-1268448/

[libertybrewcity]

1. It is one way a GPA is nothing like wealth.
2. It is another way, a GPA is not like wealth.
3. It is yet a third way, a GPA is not like wealth.

In other words, apples and oranges.

you work for your wealth. you work for your grades. the government can take your wealth. the government can take your grades by lowering standards for other students thereby diluting your GPA. They may not be the same, but it the idea that counts. People need to understand that the government has no authority to take the fruits of labor. It is a concept that people can easily understand.

[UWDude]

you work for your wealth. you work for your grades. the government can take your wealth. the government can take your grades by lowering standards for other students thereby diluting your GPA. They may not be the same, but it the idea that counts. People need to understand that the government has no authority to take the fruits of labor. It is a concept that people can easily understand.

Not everybody works for their wealth. Some are born with it, some make money simply by having it.

[affa]

To be fair, grades are (in general) earned and a direct reflection of one's merit.

Wealth, on the other hand, can be: inherited, married into, nepotism, luck (lottery), etc... in addition to being straight up earned.

Yes, it's true a grade here or there can be the result of something other than merit, it's far more likely to be the case with wealth.

The analogy, while 'funny', isn't really an accurate representation in terms of reflecting the argument for some degree of wealth redistribution. If everyone was born with no money and no last name (ie, no family connections) we'd have a far more reasonable comparison.


I've said it before on these boards, and i'll say it again -- if you want any chance of convincing someone of something, you need to understand why they hold the views they do. simply assuming they are stupid, or ill-informed, isn't enough. the issue most people have with concentrated wealth is that wealth begets wealth - or, put another way, it takes money to make money. not only is it harder to make money if you start off poorer, you're also far more likely to have a substandard education and a generally more volatile environment growing up. Yes, the rare individual can break through any barriers, but to absolutely ignore the class difference in this country requires blinders. Wealth redistribution is a possible answer to this. Does it work? Well, obviously, there are significant problems with most wealth redistribution. But that doesn't address the fundamental problem people who support various forms of redistribution have.

I realize most here believe wealth redistribution is theft. It's a valid point. But understand that concentrated wealth is also a form of theft, just different. By claiming something, you are denying it to others. Fair enough, but then when one takes into consideration that some people are born into a world where everything is already claimed, it sure feels like they're being robbed from their perspective. Robbed of the ability to exist. Obviously, I'm oversimplifying, and likely in the wrong forum since I know the libertarian line on this topic... but truly, the first thing one must understand is that not all wealth is earned.

To use a slightly different analogy -- one i'm making up on the spot -- imagine a deserted island with two people. The only source of food is an apple tree. The short man can not reach any apples, and before he can climb the tree the tall man takes them all. Now, he earned those apples -- it was his labor that retrieved them. But given this is a limited resource, and a vital one (food), it can be argued that in denying the other man apples, he is stealing from the shorter man just as much as if the shorter man grabbed an apple out of the tall mans hands. Did the apples belong to all to begin with? Did the man who grabbed them because he was born with advantage truly 'earn' them? These are difficult questions. There's no clear answer. Some would say that man owns the apples, and they would be right. Others would argue that man has no right to lay claim to all the food on the island, and they too are right. And I suppose that's why people will never agree on this issue. The concept of property requires the denial of said property to others. And so the argument will go on forever, and ever.

[bunklocoempire]

Anything that is mine, or yours, that someone or some group steals to give to another or destroys is the issue.

How or why I got my thing, isn't even remotely the issue -assuming it wasn't gotten by theft.

The 'hows or whys' is a group think cop out fail.


Bunkloco

[muh_roads]

Not every rich person deserves to keep all of their money...

Bankers who got the bailout.
Military contractors.
Ethanol and all other types of subsidies.

They take from us so they can suck my ass. I would at least tax them for the entire amount of the government handout. Essentially nullifying their grants.

[Ronpauljones]

I remember this. It was done at the new college in my town. I was shocked to hear Glenn Beck say "Merced, CA"

[Bordillo]

Not every rich person deserves to keep all of their money...

Bankers who got the bailout.
Military contractors.
Ethanol and all other types of subsidies.

They take from us so they can suck my ass. I would at least tax them for the entire amount of the government handout. Essentially nullifying their grants.

banks that got bailed out, I agree

Military contractors, they shouldn't really have that many tax grants if we werent fighting so many wars. Since we are fighting so many wars Id rather support the military than not support it.

Ethanol and all other types of subsidies, subsidies can be useful in a several ways. For instance if we were to keep our current healthcare system, but subsidize the cost of medical care, the supply of hospitals would remain constant(more or less) while people that couldn't afford the medical care before now could get it without the hospital taking the monetary hit. Subsidies are good or bad based on the situation, to say that all subsidies are evil is pretty naieve

[Bordillo]

Not everybody works for their wealth. Some are born with it, some make money simply by having it.

not everybody is born smart. Some people have to study hard to get good grades, while others are born naturally gifted with intelligence. If its fair in your mind to redistribute a billionares childs inheritance than it would only be logical to take a genius person's grades and redistribute them to the kids that had lower grades.

[moostraks]

Well obviously when you start the class you already have a grade of 'D' since the other students in the past ran up bad grade debt which you are now responsible for.

So you have to make A's for the first third of the semester just to pull a C average in the class.

Before the grade distribution kicks in of course.

love it !!! :D

[affa]

not everybody is born smart. Some people have to study hard to get good grades, while others are born naturally gifted with intelligence. If its fair in your mind to redistribute a billionares childs inheritance than it would only be logical to take a genius person's grades and redistribute them to the kids that had lower grades.

as it's been pointed out, this simply isn't a good analogy. even accounting for differences in intelligence, grades are still fairly distributed among people based on merit. the smart kids that don't have to study much but just 'get it' have As. the hard workers that study hard have As. the smart slackers have Cs. the complete slackers have Ds.

But ultimately, you have a distribution based on a complex merit system involving work and intelligence. Money distribution does not work that way, at all. There is little correlation between wealth and merit. This is NOT to say many people didn't earn it -- of course many did. But a ton didn't, and on the other hand a ton of hard workers are doing said work for very little money. This breaks down the correlation in a way that simply doesn't equate with the grade analogy.

[teacherone]

But ultimately, you have a distribution based on a complex merit system involving work and intelligence. Money distribution does not work that way, at all. There is little correlation between wealth and merit. This is NOT to say many people didn't earn it -- of course many did. But a ton didn't, and on the other hand a ton of hard workers are doing said work for very little money. This breaks down the correlation in a way that simply doesn't equate with the grade analogy.

You either earn money or you steal it. Are you claiming we're surrounded by a "ton" of thieves?

[Bordillo]

as it's been pointed out, this simply isn't a good analogy. even accounting for differences in intelligence, grades are still fairly distributed among people based on merit. the smart kids that don't have to study much but just 'get it' have As. the hard workers that study hard have As. the smart slackers have Cs. the complete slackers have Ds.

But ultimately, you have a distribution based on a complex merit system involving work and intelligence. Money distribution does not work that way, at all. There is little correlation between wealth and merit. This is NOT to say many people didn't earn it -- of course many did. But a ton didn't, and on the other hand a ton of hard workers are doing said work for very little money. This breaks down the correlation in a way that simply doesn't equate with the grade analogy.

what about someone that works really hard in school but get's C's. Wouldn't it be fair to take .25 gpa from all of the 4.0 students that were just brilliantly smart and give it to them.

[sam9657]

To be fair, grades are (in general) earned and a direct reflection of one's merit.

Wealth, on the other hand, can be: inherited, married into, nepotism, luck (lottery), etc... in addition to being straight up earned.

Yes, it's true a grade here or there can be the result of something other than merit, it's far more likely to be the case with wealth.

The analogy, while 'funny', isn't really an accurate representation in terms of reflecting the argument for some degree of wealth redistribution. If everyone was born with no money and no last name (ie, no family connections) we'd have a far more reasonable comparison.


I've said it before on these boards, and i'll say it again -- if you want any chance of convincing someone of something, you need to understand why they hold the views they do. simply assuming they are stupid, or ill-informed, isn't enough. the issue most people have with concentrated wealth is that wealth begets wealth - or, put another way, it takes money to make money. not only is it harder to make money if you start off poorer, you're also far more likely to have a substandard education and a generally more volatile environment growing up. Yes, the rare individual can break through any barriers, but to absolutely ignore the class difference in this country requires blinders. Wealth redistribution is a possible answer to this. Does it work? Well, obviously, there are significant problems with most wealth redistribution. But that doesn't address the fundamental problem people who support various forms of redistribution have.

I realize most here believe wealth redistribution is theft. It's a valid point. But understand that concentrated wealth is also a form of theft, just different. By claiming something, you are denying it to others. Fair enough, but then when one takes into consideration that some people are born into a world where everything is already claimed, it sure feels like they're being robbed from their perspective. Robbed of the ability to exist. Obviously, I'm oversimplifying, and likely in the wrong forum since I know the libertarian line on this topic... but truly, the first thing one must understand is that not all wealth is earned.

To use a slightly different analogy -- one i'm making up on the spot -- imagine a deserted island with two people. The only source of food is an apple tree. The short man can not reach any apples, and before he can climb the tree the tall man takes them all. Now, he earned those apples -- it was his labor that retrieved them. But given this is a limited resource, and a vital one (food), it can be argued that in denying the other man apples, he is stealing from the shorter man just as much as if the shorter man grabbed an apple out of the tall mans hands. Did the apples belong to all to begin with? Did the man who grabbed them because he was born with advantage truly 'earn' them? These are difficult questions. There's no clear answer. Some would say that man owns the apples, and they would be right. Others would argue that man has no right to lay claim to all the food on the island, and they too are right. And I suppose that's why people will never agree on this issue. The concept of property requires the denial of said property to others. And so the argument will go on forever, and ever.

There's nothing wrong with the tall man giving some of his apples to the short man, its called charity. Forced redistribution is when there is a third person, who comes in and takes a chunk of the tall man's apples and threatens to beat him up if he does not give some more of his apples to the short person.

[qh4dotcom]

Oliver also goes around campus asking whether students want to sign his petition to pay their share of the national debt – which amounts to nearly $47,000 per person.

This, too, brought mixed reaction, with one student saying the debt isn’t hers because she didn't contribute to it.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/17/college-students-in-favor-wealth-distribution-are-asked-to-support-grade/#ixzz1WDsh3UO0

She probably voted for Obama so yes, she contributed to it

"If you vote and you elect dishonest incompetent people and they get into office and screw everything up well you're responsible for what they have
done, you caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain. I, who did not vote, am in no way responsible for what
these people have done and have every right to complain as loud as I want about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with"

-George Carlin

http://www.noob.us/humor/george-carlin-voting/

[CaptainAmerica]

Tax credits=socialism

[LibertyEagle]

Ethanol and all other types of subsidies, subsidies can be useful in a several ways. For instance if we were to keep our current healthcare system, but subsidize the cost of medical care, the supply of hospitals would remain constant(more or less) while people that couldn't afford the medical care before now could get it without the hospital taking the monetary hit. Subsidies are good or bad based on the situation, to say that all subsidies are evil is pretty naieve

All subsidies are wealth redistribution. The government itself has no money, so they are taking from one and giving to another. How is that just?

I think maybe you are also not considering the fact that when the government subsidizes something, the cost of that something goes up.

[LibertyEagle]

Tax credits=socialism

How so? Tax credits are tax deductions, aren't they? If so, that is quite different than a subsidy. Tax credits reduce the amount of money that you have extracted from your bank account by the government. Subsides are government handouts of money they have already extracted from others' bank accounts.

[Bordillo]

All subsidies are wealth redistribution. The government itself has no money, so they are taking from one and giving to another. How is that just?

I think maybe you are also not considering the fact that when the government subsidizes something, the cost of that something goes up.

The cost does not go up when the government subsidizes, they subsidize it so that it doesn't go up. Also are you implying that you want a flat number for tax rate that everyone has to pay every year? Because any sort of percentage is redistributing wealth.

[UWDude]

DP................

[UWDude]

You either earn money or you steal it. Are you claiming we're surrounded by a "ton" of thieves?

The world is run by the best cheaters and sycophants. Over 50% of college students in America admit to cheating. People cheat, because it is the easiest way to win. Santa isn't real, and cheaters always win.

Furthermore, large shares of the nations wealth are held by corporations and families that profited directly from the exploitation of stolen native land, international colonization, slavery, and colonial slavery*, which did not really end until the 1940's. That wealth never went away, it was just passed down from generation to generation. I suppose an analogy would be if college students' parents were writing their essays and taking their tests for them. (which, many do).

[Mr Tansill]

I dunno, I think it's a fine analogy and illustrates a point - obviously, it's not perfect.

[AlexAmore]

To be fair, grades are (in general) earned and a direct reflection of one's merit.

Wealth, on the other hand, can be: inherited, married into, nepotism, luck (lottery), etc... in addition to being straight up earned.

Yes, it's true a grade here or there can be the result of something other than merit, it's far more likely to be the case with wealth.

The analogy, while 'funny', isn't really an accurate representation in terms of reflecting the argument for some degree of wealth redistribution. If everyone was born with no money and no last name (ie, no family connections) we'd have a far more reasonable comparison.


I've said it before on these boards, and i'll say it again -- if you want any chance of convincing someone of something, you need to understand why they hold the views they do. simply assuming they are stupid, or ill-informed, isn't enough. the issue most people have with concentrated wealth is that wealth begets wealth - or, put another way, it takes money to make money. not only is it harder to make money if you start off poorer, you're also far more likely to have a substandard education and a generally more volatile environment growing up. Yes, the rare individual can break through any barriers, but to absolutely ignore the class difference in this country requires blinders. Wealth redistribution is a possible answer to this. Does it work? Well, obviously, there are significant problems with most wealth redistribution. But that doesn't address the fundamental problem people who support various forms of redistribution have.

I realize most here believe wealth redistribution is theft. It's a valid point. But understand that concentrated wealth is also a form of theft, just different. By claiming something, you are denying it to others. Fair enough, but then when one takes into consideration that some people are born into a world where everything is already claimed, it sure feels like they're being robbed from their perspective. Robbed of the ability to exist. Obviously, I'm oversimplifying, and likely in the wrong forum since I know the libertarian line on this topic... but truly, the first thing one must understand is that not all wealth is earned.

To use a slightly different analogy -- one i'm making up on the spot -- imagine a deserted island with two people. The only source of food is an apple tree. The short man can not reach any apples, and before he can climb the tree the tall man takes them all. Now, he earned those apples -- it was his labor that retrieved them. But given this is a limited resource, and a vital one (food), it can be argued that in denying the other man apples, he is stealing from the shorter man just as much as if the shorter man grabbed an apple out of the tall mans hands. Did the apples belong to all to begin with? Did the man who grabbed them because he was born with advantage truly 'earn' them? These are difficult questions. There's no clear answer. Some would say that man owns the apples, and they would be right. Others would argue that man has no right to lay claim to all the food on the island, and they too are right. And I suppose that's why people will never agree on this issue. The concept of property requires the denial of said property to others. And so the argument will go on forever, and ever.

Ok so wealth can be inherited. That's true. So let's assume for a second that inheritance is an evil in this world or at least unfair. This means we need to tax inheritances, correct? So we need an IRS agent in each house during Christmas and Birthdays. But seriously, people will get around that loophole very easily OR simply we need bigger government insight into our private finances. Don't you believe in privacy? Do you just tell friends, family, and strangers how you're doing financially every day? But it's ok to tell government? Of course there's a gun to your head to do it but let's ignore that little bit for a second...

Marry into it, yes you can. So now a guy is thinking "I earned this wealth fair and square, but if I marry that chick I lose X amount of money to the government". So now we are taxing marriage...which means what my libertarian children??!? Ahh that's right! You get less of it! Very good! So this one is easy, people will simply have private marriages.

Then we have luck (lottery). The lottery is a great example and really hammers down a great point to think about. Most lottery winners lose their money in a short time or worse they go into severe debt! Heck while we're talking about this even those professional athletes apply here because they are rich but not wealthy and have gone into debt! Now there are financial schools for professional athletes. What is the meaning of this? Well these people didn't earn it through investment and creation. So as soon as the money supply runs dry, they are done. They don't understand how to appropriately use their money to create. It's a brilliant little real life experiment that we can look at and examine. We can see that giving money to uneducated people AKA subsidizing the poor is simply going to create more of it. Why does government give money to corn farmers? To create more of it. I'll let Chris Rock explain this while he was educating his black audience, obviously he feels strongly about this subject matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m37JkkGjAY&feature=related

The substandard education the poor grow up with is thanks to the government. The volatile environment can be attributed to the welfare state subsidizing single parents. Single mothers get better funding from the state than two parent households. So the mother think it's in her best interest to boot the father out and turn to the state. Remember what happens when you subsidize a certain situation! So black fatherless households are huge now compared to years ago when we weren't subsidizing it and the child grows up very F'd up because of it.

Your problem is you think wealth is a zero sum game. In other words for there to be a winner there must be a loser. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Since the free market took over at the beginning of America we have ALL gained. Our definition of poverty includes households that have incredible technology such as a TV or two, refrigerator, Xbox 360, clothes washer, A/C and a roof over their head and even food to eat. When America first started out you have to be hella rich to get a fraction of that if it even existed, now you're in poverty if you have even all of it and can sit back waiting for Uncle Sam's check.

If you look at the CEOs who get a shitload of money you might say they are taking away from the workers. Again, wrong. Businesses who get a good CEO will make the company stronger, bigger, and wealthier. This is a win for everybody that works there. A bad CEO will make the company bankrupt which means pay cuts, and a loss of jobs.

Ben and Jerry is a great example of bleeding heart hippy business owners trying to walk their talk but failing miserably when reality struck, but not for the worse since they learned their lesson.

Ben & Jerry's used to have a policy that no employee's rate of pay shall exceed seven times that of entry-level employees. In 1995, entry-level employees were paid $8 hourly, and the highest paid employee was President and Chief Operating Officer Chuck Lacey, who earned $150,000 annually. When Ben Cohen resigned as Chief Executive Officer and Ben & Jerry's announced the search for a new CEO in 1995, the company ended the seven-to-one-ratio policy

“Jerry appeared holding a poster that showed him and Ben dressed like jolly Uncle Sams, with upside-down pints on their heads, announcing the 'Yo, I'm Your CEO' contest. Anyone could apply, and, in 100 words or less, explain why he or she would make the best CEO. The winner got the job, and the runner-up got ice cream for life. More than 20, 000 applications poured in, mostly from caged yuppies desperate to escape.

On February 1, a press release announced the lucky winner: Bob Holland, whose poem was attached 'as per direction for Ben and Jerry's `Yo I'm Your CEO' contest.' What the release doesn't mention is that he wrote the poem after he was picked. A month after their press conference, Ben and Jerry's had hired Russell Reynolds Associates, a New York executive search firm to do the real work. The firm discovered Holland, a thirteen-year veteran at McKinsey & Company and consultant to several Fortune 100 companies. If asked, officials at Ben and Jerry's don' t lie about the search firm; they just don't mention it. No one at the shareholders' meeting I spoke to knew Holland had skipped the essay contest. But they didn't seem to care much, either. 'You must be related to Maya Angelou,' gushed one shareholder after Holland, who is black, read another poem at the meeting. 'No wonder they picked you.”

One last thing. Look at immigrants coming to our country now who come here and create a lot of wealth. I meet so many immigrants with thick accents who moved here and then accumulated a ton of wealth in a short time. It's very difficult for them to get welfare, plus they were coming to the great USA for it's famous opportunity and they grabbed the bull by it's horn and took action.

[Erentheca]

AlexAmoore (I won't quote you since your post is very long), but yes, I agree.


The world is run by the best cheaters and sycophants. Over 50% of college students in America admit to cheating. People cheat, because it is the easiest way to win. Santa isn't real, and cheaters always win.

Furthermore, large shares of the nations wealth are held by corporations and families that profited directly from the exploitation of stolen native land, international colonization, slavery, and colonial slavery*, which did not really end until the 1940's. That wealth never went away, it was just passed down from generation to generation. I suppose an analogy would be if college students' parents were writing their essays and taking their tests for them. (which, many do).

I definitely agree that much of the super wealthy have inherited their wealth from people who broke the law, committed exploitation, murder, and other heinous crimes. This isn't to say that I am threatened by their descendants, or that that I think government should be in the business of redistributing their wealth. The fact remains that the mega rich are extraordinarily good at keeping their wealth safe, and not even the most gargantuan or ambitious tax law will ever effect their holdings, simply because it is too easy for them to move their wealth beyond our government's reach. Tax-wise, we need to encourage those people to invest in our own economy, and that can only be done by removing taxes and restoring sound money.

I think though, there is something bigger going on, and it actually helps the mega rich. Much of our tax structure and social programs, despite promises of redistributing wealth for the common good, has, in combination with debasing the currency, actually redistributed wealth away from the middle class and the poor and into the pockets of the wealthy (and well connected). Socialism is the best vehicle for widening the gap between rich and poor.

I think we need not be concerned with how much money the rich have, we need to be very concerned about how much opportunity and freedom the rest of us have.

**
And on the subject of redistribution of "wealth" in education, while this is funny analogy, I think we do have a real form of education "inflation". There is no question the quality of education is under assault, and has been for some time. All the while, government keeps spending more and more on education, and we are told continually how much help the government is giving our underprivileged students, how everyone will get to go to college. "No child will be left behind." But what is a college degree worth these days? Well, it depends on what school you graduate from. Many businesses though, are now getting very skeptical about graduates, and holders of Bachelor's degrees are having more and more difficulty finding jobs right out of college. Some see this as a reflection of "market over-saturation" but this is more likely a reflection that many graduates are reaching the workplace with less and less skill.

It's just funny that we are talking about redistributing "educational wealth" as a metaphor, but it has already happened.

Oh, and good luck getting your 4 year old (with a 3rd grade reading level, 3rd grade math level, et cetera) into 3rd grade. He'd make the other kids feel bad, and it's not good for socialization, so he needs to get bumped back to preschool, so says the conventional wisdom. We need to opt out of our educational and economic mess.... en masse.