Capital in the Twenty-First Century

[crazy canuck]

You are assuming that a truly meritocratic system with a wealth tax would have homeless people.

It may not - and indeed, there is no reason for an imperfectly merit-based system to have them either. The issue of having homeless or not is not, strictly speaking, based on merit, but on choices in redistribution.

It will, however, continue to have inequality.

I took the "homeless freezing outside" notion to mean something like 'we choose not to redistribute wealth to them because they are not deserving of it - because our system assigns wealth to the deserving'. The presumptive counter-argument based on this article, in our current society, is 'that position is unjust, because in fact, our system is not truly merit-based and so someone can become homeless through no fault of their own'.

Thus, the more truly merit-based the system gets, the more force the 'they deserve their destitution' position has.

The other counter-argument - that 'we should not allow any human to suffer if we can avoid it, regardless of "merit"' - is orthogonal to the debate; it is present in both systems ...

I see.  Yes that is a danger but not what is being proposed here.

I see it as a basic problem with his argument.

Argument: 'inequality is an ideology. It is supported by a notion of fairness - that those who are unequal, in effect deserve it, because of meritocracy. However, the meritocracy we have is not true meritocracy, because of X and Y. I propose we change X and Y'.

Response: 'if we change X and Y, as you recommend, we will have true meritocracy - or at least, more like true meritocracy. In that case, would not the inequality that results be more fair'?

I think your reasoning ignores that a system which allows extreme wealth inequality can no longer claim to be meritocratic.  The ethical argument for a meritocracy is it is fair.  But that does not necessarily mean those who are less successful should not receive assistance.  As Grumbler pointed out non meritorious systems already deny that aid on the spurious basis it is underserved.

[The Brain]

A society that won't let you provide for your children sounds horrible.

It's probably a good thing that no one is proposing this, then.

Many people are of a different generation from their children.

[Valmy]

There is no such thing as a true platonically meritocratic system. I mean I do not even know how to really measure how meritorious somebody is.

But even if that was possible, how would that plus a wealth tax eliminate all homeless people? Those strike me as two different issues.

So just keep the broken system currently in place?

No just that ideas used to address poverty are different than ones that address inequality of wealth. I mean we have tried just taking all the rich people's stuff before and while that was effective at addressing inequality it typically has not done much for poverty.

[The Brain]

There is no such thing as a true platonically meritocratic system. I mean I do not even know how to really measure how meritorious somebody is.

But even if that was possible, how would that plus a wealth tax eliminate all homeless people? Those strike me as two different issues.

So just keep the broken system currently in place?

No just that ideas used to address poverty are different than ones that address inequality of wealth. I mean we have tried just taking all the rich people's stuff before and while that was effective at addressing inequality it typically has not done much for poverty.

At least to the Swedish left poverty is fine compared to inequality. They will rather have no kid get medical treatment than one kid get it and not the rest.

[crazy canuck]

There is no such thing as a true platonically meritocratic system. I mean I do not even know how to really measure how meritorious somebody is.

But even if that was possible, how would that plus a wealth tax eliminate all homeless people? Those strike me as two different issues.

So just keep the broken system currently in place?

No just that ideas used to address poverty are different than ones that address inequality of wealth. I mean we have tried just taking all the rich people's stuff before and while that was effective at addressing inequality it typically has not done much for poverty.

Yes, we have tried high taxation rates before and the result was high economic growth and low income inequality.  I am not sure what example you are thinking about.

[grumbler]

A society that won't let you provide for your children sounds horrible.

It's probably a good thing that no one is proposing this, then.

Many people are of a different generation from their children.

Oooh!  It's a non-sequitur contest!  Great!  Your's is a pretty good starting gambit.

I'll reply "What is the airspeed of an an unladen swallow?"

[Valmy]

Yes, we have tried high taxation rates before and the result was high economic growth and low income inequality.  I am not sure what example you are thinking about.

There have been far more confiscatory strategies tried than simply high taxes

But sure. Let's have high taxes. So the new system is just the old system with different taxes. It has the benefit of being straightforward to implement.

[The Brain]

A society that won't let you provide for your children sounds horrible.

It's probably a good thing that no one is proposing this, then.

Many people are of a different generation from their children.

Oooh!  It's a non-sequitur contest!  Great!  Your's is a pretty good starting gambit.

I'll reply "What is the airspeed of an an unladen swallow?"

You seem confused.

[grumbler]

No just that ideas used to address poverty are different than ones that address inequality of wealth. I mean we have tried just taking all the rich people's stuff before and while that was effective at addressing inequality it typically has not done much for poverty.

I don't believe at all that this is true.  I would argue that the poor in the US are far better off than they were at, say, the  end of WW2.  Income inequality is worse, and wealth inequality far worse yet.  There were fits and spurts of increased income equality, but I'm not sure the US has ever tackled wealth inequality. 

Here's a stat I found interesting, though it's several years old now;  the average American worker in a corporation of 500 people or more has to work more than a month to make what the average CEO of such a company makes in one hour.

[grumbler]

A society that won't let you provide for your children sounds horrible.

It's probably a good thing that no one is proposing this, then.

Many people are of a different generation from their children.

Oooh!  It's a non-sequitur contest!  Great!  Your's is a pretty good starting gambit.

I'll reply "What is the airspeed of an an unladen swallow?"

You seem confused.

Good one!  My response: "Spam is short for 'spiced ham.'"

[Malthus]

Speaking of other systems of incentive, one big one is reputational.

For example - some hunter-gatherers have a strong ethic of equal sharing, those who collect food are expected to share everything with the group. Individuals who don't share as they should are looked down upon. Those who bring in more than they eat are praised. Those who attempt to "free ride" are scorned; in the worst case scenario - kicked out of the group.

Interestingly, one group that behaved in exactly this way was pot-smokers in high school, with pot.  They hardly ever smoked up alone - the idea was to share one's pot with the group of stoners. The idea was that then, they would be smoked up in turn when they had none. Those who always smoked other peoples' pot, but never contributed, saw their reputation suffer, eventually suffering scorn and expulsion.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, we have tried high taxation rates before and the result was high economic growth and low income inequality.  I am not sure what example you are thinking about.

There have been far more confiscatory strategies tried than simply high taxes

But sure. Let's have high taxes. So the new system is just the old system with different taxes. It has the benefit of being straightforward to implement.

Yes there have other methods.  But that is not what "we" have tried so I was not sure what you were referencing.  What was it you were thinking about?

[Sheilbh]

OK.  Here's what I see.  It's just a rephrasing of the premise: that people "in power" have a need to legitimize themselves, but those out do not.

So I rephrase the question I asked Shelf: how does this premise obtain?

But in Marxist terms it's not a need. What matters is the economic material forces in a society: they produce the cultural and social apparatus, which forms the ideology of the ruling class. The ruling class economically produces the ruling ideology. And I don't know but I think with Marx it's a fairly basic concept and to change it you need to change the underlying material forces because ideology is just a product of economic relations. So the move from Medieval Christianity to the Enlightenment just reflects the move from feudal to bourgeois economic relations.

Gramsci makes this a lot more sophisticated by basically talking about the ruling class produces and is subject to its own ideology and that the other classes in effect consent. So the state, civil society, intellectuals, the Church all produce the world of what is "natural". It's not as simple as in Marx and the ruling class believe this stuff just as much as everyone else. So part of the way to change this is to disrupt the cultural hegemony, which I think is what Fox heads mean when they're talking about cultural Marxism.

So I read the section about ideology in that review and to me, the examples given sounds very similar to Gramsci which is weird because Piketty is apparently in contrast to Marx and talking about a battle of ideologies and not a battle of classes. And I wonder if your point is right and what he's saying is basically about the primacy of politics, ideology isn't just a product of material forces but rather a political force which shapes material forces. Or that section could just be getting his argument wrong

[Sheilbh]

I see it as a basic problem with his argument.

Argument: 'inequality is an ideology. It is supported by a notion of fairness - that those who are unequal, in effect deserve it, because of meritocracy. However, the meritocracy we have is not true meritocracy, because of X and Y. I propose we change X and Y'.

Response: 'if we change X and Y, as you recommend, we will have true meritocracy - or at least, more like true meritocracy. In that case, would not the inequality that results be more fair'?

I'm not sure if it's his argument yet, because it's just a review. As I say I'm not sure on at least one point.

But your response is the Michael Young "Rise of the Meritocracy" which I think is true - and he coined the word meritocracy. Basically meritocracy wouldn't weaken classes but strengthen them, but they'd form on intellectual/meritocratic forms. Society would be unequal fairly, while the old system was unfairly unequal.

[Malthus]

I see it as a basic problem with his argument.

Argument: 'inequality is an ideology. It is supported by a notion of fairness - that those who are unequal, in effect deserve it, because of meritocracy. However, the meritocracy we have is not true meritocracy, because of X and Y. I propose we change X and Y'.

Response: 'if we change X and Y, as you recommend, we will have true meritocracy - or at least, more like true meritocracy. In that case, would not the inequality that results be more fair'?

I'm not sure if it's his argument yet, because it's just a review. As I say I'm not sure on at least one point.

But your response is the Michael Young "Rise of the Meritocracy" which I think is true - and he coined the word meritocracy. Basically meritocracy wouldn't weaken classes but strengthen them, but they'd form on intellectual/meritocratic forms. Society would be unequal fairly, while the old system was unfairly unequal.

Yup, exactly.

Nothing wrong with an ideology of meritocracy. Alone, however, it can lead to bad results - if inequality leads to the "losers" suffering. What is needed is an ideology that suffering should not be tolerated, alongside the ideology of meritocracy. The "winners", however fair their "win" may be, must be under obligation to support the "losers", however 'undeserving'.

My favoured society would see a fair meritocracy tempered by an ethic of obligation.