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

35 Comments on "Equal Outcome Musical Chairs Anyone?"

Notify of
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted

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?

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 »

The minimum wage is also like a pie, with that pie representing a company’s financial resources available for payroll. If a company has 8 employees, then the pie is cut in 8 sections. If some workers demand a bigger slice of the pie, then that pie will be have to be cut differently. Say, 6 slices that are bigger. So, you get it, 2 people are out of luck, and out of a job. Liberals don’t seem to get this when a company that just raised their minimum wage has to layoff some people.

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.

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!”

The government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough TO TAKE AWAY EVERYTHING YOU HAVE!!!
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what is for dinner!!!

I believe Thomas Jefferson said that. Very true.

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 think the term CAPITALISM was invented by Karl Marx to describe a system to be DESPISED and ELIMINATED! I think what we are wanting is FREE ENTERPRISE, a system where everyone is allowed to be all they can!

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 »

Remember DA, history, either U.S. or world, is no longer taught in many schools anymore. The young are, for the most part, completely illiterate on the subject. What they learn is called social studies, which is frequently just brief summaries of selected events slanted to the progressive view. Most adults don’t know much history either, Most sadly have no interest in it and they consistently make bad choices throughout their lives because of it. It’s almost a badge of honor to be completely illiterate in history in our society. Which kind of helps explain how we’ve ended up where we now are as a nation. Ignorance was never supposed to be considered a virtue, yet much of our culture treats it that way.

…and with 99% of political contributions (recent poll) from university faculty going to Democrat candidates, is it any wonder?!

So true PaulE that many adults don’t know much history. I know there is so much history I do not know yet am interested in learning. Tara Ross has a FaceBook page and website where she posts interesting American history each day. Maybe AMAC members would be interested in taking a look to learn some fascinating American history!

Yes Diana, that would be a worthwhile website to reference. It would be good if a link to it could be posted somewhere, as some folks seem to have difficulty navigating the Internet on their own. I’ve tried to post comments with links in them before and whoever at AMAC manages this site, just flags the post and takes any post with a link in it down within minutes. Links don’t seem to be allowed for some reason. Yet it saves a step for some folks. Speaking of history, I see Scalia passed away tonight. Great Supreme Court justice, who actually cared about the Constitution as opposed to just giving it lip service. That is a real blow to the Supreme Court siding for both the Constitution and rule of law going forward. So many of the decisions that have stopped various over-reaches by this administration have been by 5… Read more »
With the death of Scalia, Obama has said he will move forward with an appointment. However, Lindsey Graham said something real interesting. He said he opposed the Democrats when they in acted the nuclear option, giving the majority group, the Democrats at the time, the ability to pass legislation with a simple majority. They would not need to go across the aisle. They did it for convenience to allow Obama to appoint Appellate court judges, and it made it possible for legislation like Obama Care to pass without a single Republican vote. Lindsey Graham warned Obama and Harry Reid that this move would be wrong and have consequences. So Graham is encouraging Mitch McConnell to use this rule, as written by the Democrats to delay until the election, an appointment. Turn about is fair play. The people should have a say in this. And if the Democrats win the election… Read more »
Yes, McConnell should have kept the nuclear option in place once the Republicans re-took the Senate. It would have helped blunt the Democrats progressive agenda. Then again, that’s not exactly McConnell’s style. Far too much of a go along to get along type. Hopefully, he grows a spine and keeps his word on NOT approving any Supreme Court nominee puts forth. As for Hillary saying she would nominate Obama to the Supreme Court, yes she meant it. Most people still don’t get that if the Democrats get to pick any more Supreme Court judges, they will damn this country this country for decades to come, if not permanently. Almost every Supreme Court decision to stop Obama’s over-reach has been by a 5 to 4 vote. So if the Democrats can replace a Constitutional conservative with a progressive liberal, that firewall will be gone and it will be so much easier… Read more »

Hi PaulE, I heard that Obama should nominate Biden because he has many Republican friends that probably owe him favors and that he would probably pass. Of course, then the Progressive Commies would be stuck with Bernie if Hillary gets indicted. Don’t you just love Obama’s comment that it was his Constitutional duty to fill the vacancy? After all, isn’t it his Constitutional duty to uphold all the laws and the Constitution upon taking his oath of office? Why doesn’t a Republican Presidential candidate say this to his face?
It’s certainly easy to hate ALL these politicians isn’t it?

Yes Obama is constitutionally obligated to nominate a replacement, but there is nothing that says the Senate has to rubber stamp his choice. So he can play word games for the media all he wants. The Senate has a right to refuse consideration of any and all nomines he puts forth.

When is ant Republican nominee supposed to say any of to Obama’s face when he never meets with any of them?

PaulE, I was watching Fox News w/ Chris Wallace this AM, I believe the guy’s name is Ed Rollins.

Ah, that washed up GOP establishment hack. I wouldn’t put much into anything he says. He’s just trying to remain relevent like a bunch of other washed up consultants still making the rounds.


Who is pushing Biden for the SC? The Republicans in the Senate have to show a spine for once and just refuse to approve ANY person put forth by Obama. They would all be progressive nominees.


PaulE I noticed links can usually be posted on AMAC’s FaceBook page.
I’ll try this www dot TaraRoss dot com :-)

Ha! Can’t wait to see one of the members try to click on the “link” and then complain it doesn’t work. ;-)

I’ve been on her email list now for awhile and look forward to each segment. Very worthwhile.

Good point, DA. A lesson for all time for all socialists that cannot be disputed. And while we wallow in collectivism here, China and Russia have been moving toward a market (albeit international) economy as our nation and the west faulter.

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.

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 »
Rik, Republican and fiscally conservative are not necessarily the same thing. I constantly hear the media referring to every Republican as ” the conservative candidate”, when in reality a significant portion hate conservatism. That has been for over 50 years now. There are many, many “go along to get along” Republicans, who would just as comfortable being in the Democrat party as the Republican. I could give you many examples, but I trust you know who many of them are. As to your question regarding the young, NO they do not really understand what they are advocating for when they support socialist candidates, They know NO history. They know NO economics or much math. They know very little in the way of science. What they do know is they have been brought up coddled and told they are special and a winner (whatever that actually means these days). They have… Read more »
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?

Please don’t confuse us with history – we need to repeat what nobody knows already happened!

Sorry, won’t let it happen again.

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 »