Star-bursts and Capitalism

During our class experiment, we were each given 3 stars bursts by Ms. Bailey, but three people were given 10. Once explained, we were able to play each other in Rock Paper Scissors Shoot. If we won the game against the person we played, we took one of their star-burst from them. This was representational of an open market where everybody was able to compete for star-bursts, money. If you lost all of your star-bursts, you were considered out. There was stealing that went on among classmates to gain more star-bursts as well.

The first part of this experiment showed us capitalism at work. Once our alloted time was over, Ms. Bailey collected everybody's star-bursts and redistributed them to everybody so no person one had more than any other person. This showed us socialism where everybody is considered equal. Now with everybody being equal, the game started again. With Ms. Bailey having no control over any aspect of the game, this part of the experiment showed us communism.

I thought that playing the game was both fun and frustrating. I thought it was funny to see how different people thought and reacted during the game. It showed what people were adventurous and who just wanted to be content with what they had. I thought Jacquelyn's reaction to  people trying to steal her candy was funny as she brought out a ruler and warned Julia and myself that it has a sharp edge. My frustration came from losing a star-burst to such a simple game like Rock Paper Scissor Shoot that is based on luck and cannot show skills or talents you have.

From our class discussion the next day, I heard a lot of options I can agree with. I truly agree with Catherine when she said that playing the game using Rock Paper Scissors Shoot was unfair because it showed a person's luck and not their skill. It also did not take into effect the position that person holds in society. I also agree with Austin when he said that the invisible hand, proposed by Smith, is only good to run small businesses but is not suitable for the entire economy. An example that shows this is the supermarket Atlantic and the invasion of bigger supermarkets like Market Basket and Stop and Shop. The invisible hand was working well without these big supermarkets because Atlantic was able to compete with other small markets and stores that sold similar things to them and they were in competition to keep prices low. With Market Basket and Stop and Shop now present, Atlantic was unable to keep up with the demand that was expected of them, based on what bigger supermarkets were doing. The invisible hand is not the best idea because though the economy will eventually balance out, it will take a very long time. And with this in mind, this is the reason we see the government having to step in and take charge in the economy so they are able to balance it themselves and control it.

Marx did not believe in the ideas of capitalism and was known as the father of socialism and communism. He believed that with the freedom to complete in capitalism, there will be classes that came out with lots of money and classes with little or no money. The poor classes would experience a struggle and complain about it. In addition workers will revolt against the system and there will be people who liked the free market and others who hated it, based on their success. The government will then be forced to collect all the assets of the people and bring economic equality to all of its people. The aim of this is a classless society where everybody is equal. This shows how socialism works. Once this classless society was established, there would be no more need for a government to control its people, leading to communism. This is the poor helping itself because everybody in the society is equal and there is no longer a 'poor' class anymore.

Smith on the other hand, had a different idea of how things should work. He believed in the invisible hand. This idea suggests that when the government leaves the market alone, it will balance itself out. For example, if a bread store has bread for a price of $2 but another store across the street sells bread for $1.50, this will cause the price of bread to be driven down. This is because the first store will want to be able to sell their bread, but twitch he store across the street selling it for less, they will have to lower their prices, as well, in order to compete. The constant lowering of prices in order to compete for customers, helped the poor because they were now able to buy goods they need at lowered prices.

The best option for running a government is neither capitalism nor socialism nor communism. All of these situations are extremes that are unattainable. A perfect society would contain a little bit of everything, but not too much on one place. The government doesn't always need to be in control of the economy, but also should not be in total control. For parts of society that can handle themselves, such as small businesses, do not need be controlled by the government because the consumers in towns or cities are demanding what they want our of these businesses, and the small businesses are able to give them what they want with high quality. In contrast, big companies need to be controlled by the government so they do not take over and kick all small businesses out or turn into a monopoly. A monopoly would not be good for anybody because one company would have control over everything and nobody else would have a say in the economy.