A poker game in a casino is like a Socialist form of government.
Each player starts the game with exactly the same amount of money, let’s say $100. There are 9 players at the table, so there is $900 in the game, or “the economy”. So at best, any one player can only hope to win $800, or can he?
You see, on every hand the dealer takes “a 10% cut” of the total pot, which represents “taxes”. On every hand, one player will win money (becoming richer), and one player will lose money (becoming poorer). Nobody complains about the tax because it’s only the guy who wins (the rich guy) who has to pay it.
Nobody has any more money with them than the original $100 they sat down with. So the longer the game goes on, the less money there is “on the table”; as the house (government) continues to take its 10% off the table (out of the economy) on every hand. If this game were to go on as long as possible, eventually, just ONE player would be left with any money at all (super rich by comparison to the losers), and the house would have the vast majority of the original $900!
But this is a Socialist system, so the house, seeing that the game is about to die, “invests” in the game by giving each player, who lost all his money, $25 of free money to play with, just to keep the game going. How long could the game last? Where does the house get the $25 to give the losers? The houses only means of income is the tax on the game.
Each player starts the game with exactly the same amount of money, let’s say $100. There are 9 players at the table, so there is $900 in the game, or “the economy”. So at best, any one player can only hope to win $800, or can he?
You see, on every hand the dealer takes “a 10% cut” of the total pot, which represents “taxes”. On every hand, one player will win money (becoming richer), and one player will lose money (becoming poorer). Nobody complains about the tax because it’s only the guy who wins (the rich guy) who has to pay it.
Nobody has any more money with them than the original $100 they sat down with. So the longer the game goes on, the less money there is “on the table”; as the house (government) continues to take its 10% off the table (out of the economy) on every hand. If this game were to go on as long as possible, eventually, just ONE player would be left with any money at all (super rich by comparison to the losers), and the house would have the vast majority of the original $900!
But this is a Socialist system, so the house, seeing that the game is about to die, “invests” in the game by giving each player, who lost all his money, $25 of free money to play with, just to keep the game going. How long could the game last? Where does the house get the $25 to give the losers? The houses only means of income is the tax on the game.
How does the casino pay the dealer, or for the lights, or heat? Oops! The casino could never afford to give each player back $25 each time they lost all their money. Somehow, they would have to find a different source of cash, but where?
What about that fat cat player who keeps winning, you know the RICH GUY! He’s sitting over there with $400! He started with $100 and he’s made $300 profit! What if the casino charged him a special RICH MANS TAX? So for every $1.00 a player wins, over $100, the casino takes 50%. So the rich guy would now only have $250. Do you suppose the losing players would think this was a great idea? Heck the winning player might even think it’s a good idea, since he’s winning and doesn’t see any reason to think he won’t continue to do so, and if the casino doesn’t kick the money back in, he won’t have any players to beat! But can you see that no “new money” is being added to the game? Eventually it would all leak out through the costs of keeping the game going as in the dealers pay, the lights and heat. It cost money just to run a casino (government).
What if the "rich guy" decides his $250 is enough and goes home, compare this to investors taking their money out of the stock market when investment risk is too high, or taxes on return are too high.
The only way the game can continue is if the casino can attract ‘new money’ to the game. Somebody must produce new money or “wealth”. There are only two ways to produce wealth, earthier you produce new goods and services or you steal it from someone else! Many wars have been fought to bring new wealth back to the winning country!
What about that fat cat player who keeps winning, you know the RICH GUY! He’s sitting over there with $400! He started with $100 and he’s made $300 profit! What if the casino charged him a special RICH MANS TAX? So for every $1.00 a player wins, over $100, the casino takes 50%. So the rich guy would now only have $250. Do you suppose the losing players would think this was a great idea? Heck the winning player might even think it’s a good idea, since he’s winning and doesn’t see any reason to think he won’t continue to do so, and if the casino doesn’t kick the money back in, he won’t have any players to beat! But can you see that no “new money” is being added to the game? Eventually it would all leak out through the costs of keeping the game going as in the dealers pay, the lights and heat. It cost money just to run a casino (government).
What if the "rich guy" decides his $250 is enough and goes home, compare this to investors taking their money out of the stock market when investment risk is too high, or taxes on return are too high.
The only way the game can continue is if the casino can attract ‘new money’ to the game. Somebody must produce new money or “wealth”. There are only two ways to produce wealth, earthier you produce new goods and services or you steal it from someone else! Many wars have been fought to bring new wealth back to the winning country!
Government does not produce ANYTHING! Therefore it cannot create wealth; it literally must steal all it makes, either from its own people or from other countries! The problem is, eventually you run out of money as it is spent on perishable goods such as food or energy. Unless an economy can produce excess wealth, that is more wealth than it must consume in perishable goods and services, that economy is doomed.
Socialism is a form of government that expects some people to produce, while others merely consume. Sooner or later, the producers stop producing as they realize all their effort is going to the benefit of the consumers. If a man is not allowed to make excess money, because the government takes all excess as a tax (Communism), then what incentive is there for anyone to produce?
