Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

Equal Outcome Musical Chairs Anyone?

capital-building (7)By Diana Erbio –

Would there be any eagerness to join a game of Musical Chairs if there were the same number of chairs as players? Maybe Bernie Sanders and others who like a guaranteed equal outcome would consider that version of the game ideal. I have a feeling the participation rate would dwindle as would any interest in the game.

Children I know have been participants in that type of Musical Chairs game. Why was that version offered? My guess is that those offering that spin on the game wanted to avoid hurt feelings or squabbling. However when I asked the kids if they liked playing the game that way I was told “No, what’s the point?” They did not like it. Young children have no political ideology to sway them. They are a pretty honest bunch when it comes to what they like and don’t like to play. They expressed what I believe is an innate human desire to have a chance for a better opportunity. It’s called hope. If hope is squashed, malaise sets in. Despondency will drain enthusiasm and that is not good for the individual or the collective.

The one chair for all Musical Chairs economic experiment, has been tried on a national level in many countries and it has not worked out well. Currently we can look at Venezuela or Greece to see its failure. In the past the promise of equal outcome for all has led to disastrous results.

The redistribution of wealth game that socialists and communists have set up time and time again does not work because humans do not desire equal outcomes. I contend that we are born with a sense of hope that we can make things better for ourselves and others, and that if the chair is guaranteed; the sense of hope is pulled away, and so too is the desire to be productive. The unwillingness to participate will shrink the economic wealth of that society and sap its energy.

Those who think the redistribution of wealth is the only compassionate way believe there is a limit to the economic wealth that can be grown. But that is flawed thinking. There is not one finite whole that must be divided, and if one person gets more, the other must get less. Free market capitalism is a system that does not limit the wealth that may be grown. Free market capitalism offers hope and an opportunity to a better outcome for all.

Yes, there must be some rules of fairness in capitalism, as in a game of Musical Chairs that leaves one chair out. A chair cannot be pulled from someone as they are about to sit on it. The music cannot be preset to stop only when the preferred player is in front of a chair. Chairs must remain upright and not be knocked over, although leeway for an accidental tip of a chair must be allowed for. If the rules are consistent and enforced even though the outcome is not guaranteed, and although you may not get a chair to sit in every time you play, enthusiasm to participate in the game will keep the game going and will keep the hope alive that a better outcome is there for the taking. A game with a predetermined outcome will encourage players to sit it out and leave little enthusiasm to participate for a chance to better one’s position. As eagerness to participate wanes, so will the game or the economy.

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Read more articles by Diana Erbio

Leave a Reply

13 Comment threads
22 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
15 Comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Nancy Fedell

It’s the same way in playing any game, if someone doesn’t play as hard as I do and still gets the same amount as I do, why should I even play?

Ellen Milner

Socialists have the mistaken belief that wealth is like a pie, so if someone gets a piece there’s less for everyone else. Capitalism is based on the idea that wealth is created by investment and invention with no foreseeable limit. When the creators of Apple, Microsoft and Facebook achieved extraordinary wealth they didn’t take it from someone else. In addition Society greatly benefited from their discoveries. The Government takes money from those who earned it and gives it to someone who didn’t. This is the opposite of wealth creation. The more capital the Government takes from the private sector the less available it is for investment. And if you think inherited wealth is easy to keep look at the track record of Lottery winners. Within five years 90% of winners are broke or deceased. Everything looks easy from the outside. Without risk, invention and investment we’d still be living in… Read more »

Dick Wallin

Agree with Ellen. Socialists believe that the economy is a fixed-sum-game — one can only benefit by taking away from someone else. And, most socialist proponents believe that they will be among the elite setting rules. This system requires lots of “other peoples money” and coercion, hence the “collectivist” (vs individual) mind set to justify confiscation of property.

Charles L.

Some additional thoughts:
We can choose what is Right, or accept what is Left!
and as Dennis Prager said, “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen!”

Charles L.

The difference between the Left and the Right: The Right believes in equal rights, the Left believes in equal results.
The Left believes in lowering the bar to make everyone the same, and the Right believes in raising the bar to make everyone better.
The Right believes in doing good, the Left believes in feeling good.
The Right believes in building up, the Left believes in tearing down.


Capitalism rewards the lucky,
Provides for the hard-working,
And punishes the lazy.

Capitalism is like water it seeks it’s only level, it moves to points of opportunity, and nourishes.

Socialism is like stagnated water with the scum floats to the top.


I often wonder how many people know about the chronic grain shortages in the Soviet Union in the sixties and seventies. No one owned the collective farms, the land, the equipment, the produce. As a result, the tractors weren’t fixed, the seed didn’t get planted and what grew wasn’t harvested in time. The situation grew so dire that the politburo was forced to buy grain from us as well as other countries. This was controversial here, but it was a propaganda fiasco there. In desperation the leadership decided to allow some of their subjects to grow, harvest and sell small amounts of produce. The results exceeded any expectations these communist demagogues could have imagined. To most of us it’s obvious. Only when we are able to reap the rewards of efforts do we work diligently. I have used this simple model to try to explain collectivism to the young; I… Read more »

maria rose

Key point here is if the outcome is already predetermined, why participate. If I try to better myself financially, I should be able to rise above debt and live as I please to do. In doing so, I should not have to pay excess taxation to support someone who will never pay a tax in their life time but gets supported by the same government who taxes me. Make it fair for all. Heavy levies should not be dealt on the group who makes the income between just over the poverty line and below the line where the income is considered too high for taxation. This makes the choice to lower one’s income and get government free help more attractive than earning your own money, especially if you don’t make the so-called proper connection,i.e. pay a due to earn more.

Ivan Berry

Try if you will, to determine what so-called populism ( hand maiden to progressivism) has wrought. Three amendments that come to mind: the XVI th that paved the way ( as Ruel D has stated) for redistribution; the XVII th that (in Diana’s great illustration) took away the chairs reserved for the individual States so as to limit their play at the national (what once was federal) level; the XVII th that brought in prohibition, giving rise to criminal cartels and more political boondogglery, as well as the rise in power of the G-Men and the infant beginnings for a police state. Well established large enterprise has already left the game, taking their chairs with them and established out of country operations elsewhere. Small business, with limited assets, blocked by taxes, regulations, a decreasing economy, are failing. Start ups wain. Their chairs are gone. Money laundrying at the national level… Read more »


What really infuriates me is how the so-called Conservative Party, the Republicans, seem to be wholly acceptable of the destruction of the middle class. I can understand how the wealthy don’t care one way or another, they’re always going to be wealthy unless they totally screw up. The middle class disappears under Socialism/Communism which is a totally 2 class system, rich and poor. Where is the rhetoric exposing what Socialism/Communism really is? Why isn’t the Republican Party not showing how the so-called Democrats have been systematically converting America into another failing Socialist/Communist country? … Are young people so stupid to not realize that the only equality in Socialism/Communism is that they will ALWAYS be equally poor? … Are they so stupid that they just think the wealthy will just give up their riches? … We already see an exodus of wealth leaving this country. … The wealthy will always survive,… Read more »

Ruel D

Let’s talk about the first attempt at wealth redistribution in this country: the income tax. The income tax was born to help finance the Union half of the Civil War. It should have gone away after the war was over, but it was small (Mark Twain paid $34 in 1880 something), and most people just didn’t care. Then came Prohibition. One of the major obstacles the Anti Saloon League and their dry cohorts had to overcome was that the government got a huge amount of funding from the excise tax on liquor and beer. To combat this the ASL proposed increasing the income tax. To sell that to John Q Public, they advertised that it would be directed against the big, nasty, rich capitalists and not the little guy. They actually used the term redistribution of wealth. How’s all that working out for us?


By the way, this would make an excellent article for the weekend edition. While I would hope that most AMAC members know and understand what exactly socialism is all about (and also hopefully capitalism as well), this presents an explanation in an easy to understand way.


What I find so fascinating is there is almost no one calling into question the fact that we have a proud and self-admitted socialist (the other is still pretending to be only a “progressive”) running for President and most of the people under the age of 50 in the Democrat party are thrilled about it. All the major networks, even most of FOX, just treats it as nothing unusual or anything, anyone should be concerned about. Just your average, every day, normal American campaign for President. Have we become either so completely politically correct as a nation, that no one can even acknowledge the insanity of what is playing out? Or perhaps the progressive indoctrination process that has been going on in our schools for decades, from elementary to secondary through college, has done such an excellent job, that socialism is now the accepted and preferred course for this nation.… Read more »