:"An economics professor at a local college "yeah...caught out...

:"An economics professor at a local college "


yeah...caught out

Obabama is not Prime Minister of Australia so the college isn't local

lol

here is another one that has been around a while tha demonstrates why tne socialist arguement ultimately flounders

10 men decided to have a business lunch once a week. They always met in the same restaurant and the bill was always, $100.00, for all 10 men. If each man was responsible for his share of the bill, each would pay $10.00.

The men decided to divide the bill based upon their ability to pay, inspired by the government's progressive approach to collecting income taxes. The formula they eventually agreed upon included the following payment arrangement.

Man #1, #2, #3, and #4 paid nothing.

Man #5 paid $1.

Man #6 paid $3.

Man #7 paid $7.

Man #8 paid $12.

Man #9 paid $18.

Man #10 paid $59.

After a number of weeks of the 10 men reliably frequenting his establishment, the owner of the restaurant decided they deserved a discount. He offered to reduce the total cost of the men's lunch by $20.

This created a bit of a problem among the gentlemen, because the four men who paid nothing felt cheated that they were not sharing in the windfall. The others complained that if the $20 were to be distributed proportionally based upon the amount each paid each week, Man #10 would receive over half of the total discount amount.

So the restaurant owner proposed this solution:

Man #1, #2, #3, and #4 still paid nothing. They were unhappy at being excluded from the benefits of the reduction, but a discount from zero is still, in fact, zero.

Man #5 now also paid nothing. His contribution went from $1 to $0, so he received a 100% discount.

Man #6 now paid $2, receiving a 33% discount.

Man #7 now paid $5, receiving a 28% discount.

Man #8 now paid $9, receiving a 25% discount.

Man #9 now paid $14, receiving a 22% discount.

Man #10 now paid $50, receiving a 15% discount.

So they completed their meal and left the restaurant. Once outside, an argument ensued.

Men #1 through #4 were displeased that everyone else received a benefit except them. Man #5 was upset that he only got $1, while Man #10 got $9. Likewise Man #6. So these men beat up Man #10, took his money and left him bleeding on the sidewalk.

The men returned to the restaurant the following week for lunch, but of course Man #10 was a no-show. So when the bill arrived, the remaining men discovered they couldn't afford to pay even half the bill.


question....do you think man #10 was a miner?