An analogy even a socialist could understand

The story of the garden

Published on March 4, 2007 By Draginol In Politics

Once upon a time...

There was a man with a garden. He worked very hard tending his garden and produced far more vegetables than he would ever be able to eat. So he gave some of his vegetables away to up and coming gardeners who used the seeds to start their own gardens in exchange for the gardener getting a tiny percent of the profits they generated.

But then one day, the king decided socialism was a more "humane" way of doing things. He forced all the gardeners to give him all the extra vegetables they made to give out to the "poor".

Because of this, the gardener didn't have any extra vegetables to provide to up and coming gardeners to get them started.

In short order, the number of new gardeners came to a stand still while the population continued to grow even higher since, for now, there was a lot of free food thanks to the socialist king.

But soon after, people began to starve because there was no longer enough food to feed the growing population. The king couldn't understand why and decided he should take more and more food from the "Greedy" gardeners. But the problem only got worse as now no gardeners had enough vegetables to use to plant more crops in their own gardens for next year.

The moral of the story is that it's never a good idea for the government to confiscate from those who are producing things to give to those who are not producing - especially if it interferes with the ability for the producers to produce even more. Because in the end, all the people will suffer as a result.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Mar 04, 2007

Great Analogy, but I dont think they will get it.

Leauki

on Mar 04, 2007

What if there is no infinite supply of land and there cannot be another gardener?

pseudosoldier

on Mar 04, 2007

What if there is no infinite supply of land and there cannot be another gardener?

Then people need to stop breeding so fast?

greywar

on Mar 04, 2007

What if there is no infinite supply of land and there cannot be another gardener?

Then Market Forces tend to drive R&D to find new ways to grow more on less areas and Moron Forces drive Hippies to oppose those technologies.

cactoblasta

on Mar 04, 2007

What if there is no infinite supply of land and there cannot be another gardener?

There'll be famine and civil war brought about by the rise of regional lords (under the king) who are prepared to guarantee access to food supplies by taking the land of others. That's just how we humans roll.

On the analogy....

It's not very persuasive. There are few social groups less open to encouraging competition over land and resources than hereditary peasants. It's highly unlikely they would be giving valuable crops to people they don't know.

There's also the problem of the kind of society these farmers are living in. For an analogy to be persuasive it has to have an element of reality about it. But this one doesn't seem to. If the society is feudal or, indeed, nearly any kind of monarchy, why doesn't the king use his own lands to farm for the poor? After all, in nearly every society's version the king owns his peasants. They're his to do with as he wills. If he wants them to work themselves to death and produce only enough for themselves to survive that's damn well what they'll do if they know what's good for them.

Personally I've always liked the fishing analogy. Here's a version rewritten about Mexicans.

A business man was at the pier of a Mexican coastal village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the boat were several large yellowfin tuna.
The business man commented on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them. The Mexican replied only a little while. The business man then asked why didn't he stay out longer and catch more fish? The Mexican said he had enough to support his family's immediate needs. The business man then asked, "but what do you do with the rest of your time?"

The fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take a siesta with my wife, Maria. I have a full and busy life, senor."

The business man scoffed. "You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds of the bigger boat you could buy several boats. Soon you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles and eventually New York City where you would run your expanding enterprise.

"But what then, senor?"

The business man laughed and said, "That's the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company's stock to the public and become very rich. You would make millions."

"Millions' senior? Then what?"

The business man said, "Then you would retire and move to a small fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids and take a siesta with your wife.

Dr Guy

on Mar 04, 2007

Moron Forces

Would that be the Moron National Forces - or MNF?

Dr Guy

on Mar 04, 2007

Personally I've always liked the fishing analogy. Here's a version rewritten about Mexicans.

Brad was doing Socialism, not capitalism. Wrong analogy.

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 04, 2007

Here...let's rewrite cacto's piece the socialist way:

The setup's the same...businessman, Mexican, yellowfish tuna...so I won't rewrite it.

The businessman says "Why, you lazy oaf! How can you fish and catch only enough fish for your family while people go hungry in your village. You should catch ten times what you need and give the surplus to the village"

"Ay Caramba!" says the Mexican, "That would take me all day and all night and I would have no time to play with my ninos or enjoy the company of my wife".

"But that's the beauty of it," says the businessman, "we can take your children and put them into our schools to learn how to work for the state, and your wife can go to work in our sweatshops. There should be no unproductive citizens in the country"

"But what about those people loafing and making money off of the fruit of my labor?" the Mexican protests

"Oh. They're the government workers we're paying to make sure you do your job right!"

Dr Guy

on Mar 04, 2007

(Citizen)Gideon MacLeishMarch 4, 2007 17:18:10

Game set and Match!

Dan Greene

on Mar 04, 2007

Isn't when a king runs the land a monarchy rather then a communist/socialist state? I don't want to critize your story Brad but you lost me when you said, he "gave" away the extra vegetables rather then "sold" away how exactly did he raise the currency or barter necessary to provide for the necessities of life by which he could not produce?

Draginol

on Mar 04, 2007

It's not very persuasive. There are few social groups less open to encouraging competition over land and resources than hereditary peasants. It's highly unlikely they would be giving valuable crops to people they don't know.

I didn't say he was giving them away. He was trading those crops to other farmers in exchange for a % of what they brought in.

Draginol

on Mar 04, 2007

Personally I've always liked the fishing analogy. Here's a version rewritten about Mexicans.

The problem with your analogy is that it is written by someone who is not a business person.

Let me give a more realistic story:

"So what do you do with the rest of your time?" said the Business Man?

"I spend hours toiling to fix my fishing boat, keep my house and car repaired, and fixing broken equipment for my fishing boat." said the Fisherman.

"Well," said the businessman, "since you are so good at fishing, why don't you spend a quarter of the time you spend toiling on other things fishing and then hire specialists who can fix your boat, repair your house, and get new equipment?"

"Oh, I had never thought of it like that, Senor. Our local socialist convinced me that struggling to do the things I'm not good builds character and only the BOURGEOIS would have others do the unpleasant things for them. I thought being part of the proteriat was good."

"Nah," said the business man. "That's the sort of talk that has led your country to having water with so much shit in it that you can't drink it safely, boats and cars that you have to import from elsewhere and poverty everywhere."

I work about 60 hours per week. But I get to spend a lot LOT more time with my wife and children and get to look forward to spending my summers in a brand-new beautiful, on the beach, lake cottage. Because I don't spend any time on my weekends doing home repair, fixing cars, etc.

And when I vacation across the country, I don't have to drive across country with my family, wasting days of the vacation in a car, but instead can afford to fly us all so that we spend the maximum amount of time actually on vacation. And most successful business people enjoy doing what they do at work. They're not "puting in their time" they're doing something that they would do anyway.

Draginol

on Mar 04, 2007

Ha. Brilliant!

Draginol

on Mar 04, 2007

don't want to critize your story Brad but you lost me when you said, he "gave" away the extra vegetables

Clearly since just a few words later it talks about the exchange part:

he gave some of his vegetables away to up and coming gardeners who used the seeds to start their own gardens in exchange for the gardener getting a tiny percent of the profits they generated.

Or put in modern terms:

As soon as successful business people finish paying for expenses, they take the rest and invest it. That's how rich people get rich. They build assets through investments. Those investments then fund other businesses and ventures that create more opportunity.

Even Cacto's analogy clearly misunderstands the basics. The goal of business people isn't to work themselves to death. Rich people don't get rich working infinitely harder. They get rich because they use their extra capital to build assets, typically in the form of investments of various forms.

When the socialist comes along and says "You should pay more taxes because you can "afford" it" what they don't understand is that the rich person can afford higher taxes but the rest of the population can't afford to lose that investment. The government doesn't use capital as well as successful private citizens.

Dan Greene

on Mar 04, 2007

"I didn't say he was giving them away. He was trading those crops to other farmers in exchange for a % of what they brought in."

Well maybe you edited it what I read was...

"produced far more vegetables than he would ever be able to eat"
"he gave some of his vegetables away"

I assumed he would eat the rest of those that he did not give away as it didn't say otherwise.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!