In a meritocracy, the whole point of having “merit” is that you can run things (“ocracy”), and one of the points of running things is that you can get nice things for your family and friends.
So I think Reich’s argument would be stronger if he would go directly to the social, economic, and political consequences of inherited wealth and skip the bit where he idealizes meritocracy.The Washington Post
Meritocracy won’t happen: the problem’s with the ‘ocracy’
Andrew Gelman | Professor of statistics and political science and director of the Applied Statistics Center at Columbia University
(h/t Mark Thoma at Economist's View)
Well here is 'democracy':
ReplyDeletefrom Greek demokratia "popular government," from demos "common people," originally "district" (see demotic), + kratos "rule, strength" (see -cracy).
So 'ocracy' means 'rule'...
So when Gelman says here:
"Basically, “meritocracy” means that individuals with more merit get the goodies."
This is false... its not about "goodies" is about 'rule', ie who/what kind of people are ruling?
So this Gelman looks like your typical left libertarian who is blind to authority...
"cracy" means 'rule', the system of rule... not how many "goodies" we have...
This is like all the Picketty hub-bub, its materialist at core...
To these people its all about "goodies" and how much "goodies" everybody has vs the next person, pretty base and materialist imo...
so to Gelman, if everybody had the same amount of "goodies" then everything would be aok.... its a materialist view.
He should move to the third world then, everybody there looks like they have the same amount of "goodies" ie not very much, but everybody has the same amount which Gelman should appreciate..
rsp,
Aesop et al covered this adequately, over 2000 ago
ReplyDeletehttp://www.taleswithmorals.com/aesop-fable-the-belly-and-the-members.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhenever I see any use of "meritocracy", I immediately think of the following two essays: a Guardian comment by the man who coined the term in 1958, and Mandy Brown's "You keep using that word". It seems to me that both of those essays get more to the heart of the issue than Gelman's (and Gelman even links to the first in his postscript).
ReplyDeleteNot only have we not taken the first obvious steps towards a "real" meritocracy, but (even if we could) a "real" meritocracy would be unsustainable and morally bankrupt. So any use of "meritocracy" for justification is merely a rhetorical smoke screen.
Merit: "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward"
ReplyDeleteSo 'meritocracy' is 'worthy people ruling' or 'good people ruling'
Or 'the rule of the worthy'...
So we obviously dont have this as we are being ruled by morons who are sometimes corrupt too...
So if we look at people who have a lot of "goodies" as somehow being 'rewarded' then we think we should put these people in positions of rule, then we have it backwards as we should instead be looking at their results FIRST and then perhaps praise or reward them in appreciation of the results of their rule...
rsp,
funny how often the topic of semantics crops up in all arguments, whether the combatants realize it or not :)
ReplyDeleteWhat'd Walter Shewhart say? "Without context, data is meaningless?" Semantics too.
Was Sparta a meritocracy?
ReplyDeleteIs nature a meritocracy in which the fittest rule?
ReplyDeleteAnd is the NAP all that is necessary to civilize the law of the jungle?
In an institutional world, "meritocracy" is just rationalization for the ruling class. It's a circular argument that begins with the premise that some are better than others and it is antithetical to democracy as popular sovereignty and the rule of law based on equal justice.
"He should move to the third world then, everybody there looks like they have the same amount of "goodies" ie not very much, but everybody has the same amount which Gelman should appreciate.."
ReplyDeleteFrom Wikiprogress:
"The most common measure of income inequality is the Gini coefficient. The coefficient varies between 0, which reflects complete equality and 1, which indicates complete inequality. So, a country with a low Gini co-efficient like Denmark (.24) is said to be more equal than a country with a high co-efficient such as Namibia (.74)"
http://www.wikiprogress.org/index.php/Inequality
See also the map below that text. :-)
Just sayin'
Magpie I'd like to see what the numbers would work out to if you could remove all of the foreign financial assets (ie USD financial assets) of the upper levels of wealth in those countries...
ReplyDeleteAlso remember that coefficient is just a ratio... and 1/2 is the same as 100/200, etc...
My main point here is that this form of 'meritocracy' where the observer exhibits covetousness and 'goodies' are used as a unit of measure is some sort of materialist system imo and the literal translation of 'meritocracy' means 'rule of the worthy' rather than 'the worthy get the goodies' as is asserted by these people...
Often times, the reality is that the 'unworthy get the goodies' (see Mike's recent posts on Jamie Dimon at JPM who could have made more money in US bonds...)
We imo have 'rule of the un-worthy' as measured by the actual results those in positions of rule (our majesterial people) are currently delivering.
So the problem here is not with the 'ocracy' its that these people dont even know how to use language correctly and they are perverting the actual word 'meritocracy' and have it backwards as if we look at their possession of "goodies" as evidence of a 'reward' or 'merit' and THEN they are put into positions of rule where they then shit the bed with impunity, this gets it completely backwards....
My hunch is these people are all left libertarians and are blind to the fact that 'ocracy' means 'rule' so when you miss that, who knows what kind of nonsense they will come up with like the materialist nonsense they have here..
rsp,