Capital in the Twenty-First Century

[Eddie Teach]

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.

When 900 years old you reach, understand as good, you will not.

[Berkut]

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. 

I think Sam Harris has had several podcasts where he addresses the idea of "merit" which I found pretty compelling.

He pointed out that even our basic definition of "merit" is really pretty much bullshit. We say someone is deserving because what exactly? They are smart? Driven? Ambitious? Good looking? Athletic?

Almost none of these traits are actually anything that most of us have ANY control over - they are still just luck. I am damn smart. Did I do something to make myself smart? Nope. Just got lucky with the roll of the genetic dice.

Even attributes that are more about how we behave than what we are - say, hard working. Or ambitious. Did we do anything to be born with the "hard working" attribute? Or the lazy attribute?

Or, god forbid, the "mentally ill" attribute?

Even in a theoretically perfect meritocracy, what is the merit based on other than, well...just luck. You are lucky to NOT be born a dumb, lazy, ugly asshole?

We should reward intelligence and hard work and creativity not because those people who have those traits "deserve" the rewards, but rather because we want to encourage them to do things that will advance human well being for everyone, whether they "deserve" it or not. It is a strictly *practical* approach. And if we could reward the smart, innovative people who drive efficiency with something that worked better than money, that would be just as well.

[Malthus]

I think Sam Harris has had several podcasts where he addresses the idea of "merit" which I found pretty compelling.

He pointed out that even our basic definition of "merit" is really pretty much bullshit. We say someone is deserving because what exactly? They are smart? Driven? Ambitious? Good looking? Athletic?

Almost none of these traits are actually anything that most of us have ANY control over - they are still just luck. I am damn smart. Did I do something to make myself smart? Nope. Just got lucky with the roll of the genetic dice.

Even attributes that are more about how we behave than what we are - say, hard working. Or ambitious. Did we do anything to be born with the "hard working" attribute? Or the lazy attribute?

Or, god forbid, the "mentally ill" attribute?

Even in a theoretically perfect meritocracy, what is the merit based on other than, well...just luck. You are lucky to NOT be born a dumb, lazy, ugly asshole?

We should reward intelligence and hard work and creativity not because those people who have those traits "deserve" the rewards, but rather because we want to encourage them to do things that will advance human well being for everyone, whether they "deserve" it or not. It is a strictly *practical* approach. And if we could reward the smart, innovative people who drive efficiency with something that worked better than money, that would be just as well.

Three points on this:

1. This is a little theological - for example, is "hard work" really just luck, because I was born with the ability or disposition to work hard, or had that formed by my upbringing over which I had no control? This is just the whole 'free will vs. predestination' thing in modern day disguise, with the victory awarded to predestination. 

2. This may well be true - that we ought to reward "merit" despite the fact no-one has free will (or to put it differently - the ability to demonstrate 'merit' is just a product of lucky genes, lucky upbringing, being born as a white male or part on another  socially-favoured group, or whatever). This does not prove "merit" is bullshit, it just proves it lacks a moral dimension - that the inequality "earned" through "merit" is not a reward for being a better person, but merely an incentive to encourage people to display "merit", as you note. This doesn't really change much about meritocracy though. Meritocracy doesn't require a moral dimension. 

3. Another way to encourage merit, besides payment of money, is reputational - as in hunter-gatherer societies. That does sort of presuppose that merit has a moral dimension, though.

[Admiral Yi]

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

But this is just adding more superstructure to the premise I'm contesting.  And to my way of thinking the premise is neither supported logically--is there something innate in human biology, psychology, etc., etc., that means only ruling classes will produce ideologies?--nor is it supported by historical evidence.  Multitudes of ideologies have been espoused that do *not* legitimize the powerful.  Marxism, Social Democracy, Utilitarianism, Rawlsian justice, etc.

[Sheilbh]

Oh okay, on that I just think you're wrong

Sorry, as I wasn't really talking about that - I was just confused by the contrast to Marx. As ideology in Marxism isn't a set of political beliefs, it's more like culture - Marxism isn't an ideology in their language, neither is social democracy or utilitarianism.

But on your point Piketty says that every unequal society creates an ideology to justify inequality. But his idea is apparently that history is a "battle of ideologies". If it's a battle of ideologies then it's not just the ruling class that produces ideology.

[The Brain]

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. 

I think Sam Harris has had several podcasts where he addresses the idea of "merit" which I found pretty compelling.

He pointed out that even our basic definition of "merit" is really pretty much bullshit. We say someone is deserving because what exactly? They are smart? Driven? Ambitious? Good looking? Athletic?

Almost none of these traits are actually anything that most of us have ANY control over - they are still just luck. I am damn smart. Did I do something to make myself smart? Nope. Just got lucky with the roll of the genetic dice.

Even attributes that are more about how we behave than what we are - say, hard working. Or ambitious. Did we do anything to be born with the "hard working" attribute? Or the lazy attribute?

Or, god forbid, the "mentally ill" attribute?

Even in a theoretically perfect meritocracy, what is the merit based on other than, well...just luck. You are lucky to NOT be born a dumb, lazy, ugly asshole?

We should reward intelligence and hard work and creativity not because those people who have those traits "deserve" the rewards, but rather because we want to encourage them to do things that will advance human well being for everyone, whether they "deserve" it or not. It is a strictly *practical* approach. And if we could reward the smart, innovative people who drive efficiency with something that worked better than money, that would be just as well.

Sam Harris sounds like an immature thinker with an unusual image of meritocracy.

[Admiral Yi]

Oh okay, on that I just think you're wrong

Sorry, as I wasn't really talking about that - I was just confused by the contrast to Marx. As ideology in Marxism isn't a set of political beliefs, it's more like culture - Marxism isn't an ideology in their language, neither is social democracy or utilitarianism.

But on your point Piketty says that every unequal society creates an ideology to justify inequality. But his idea is apparently that history is a "battle of ideologies". If it's a battle of ideologies then it's not just the ruling class that produces ideology.

OK.  I think this particular sub-conversation has run its course.

[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.

When 900 years old you reach, understand as good, you will not.

That's not a non sequitur, and so not a valid entry in The Brain's game.

[crazy canuck]

An informative piece on how regressive the American tax system is and has been for some time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/opinion/sunday/wealth-income-tax-rate.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[Tamas]

I think Berkut's guy has a point.

When I was scanning through this thread and saw the inheritance tax discussion, in the context of increasing meritocracy, I thought that's pretty cool, once that's sorted all we will have left is limiting other inherited advantages.

For example, we could ban people with absolute hearing from attending music schools.

Also, tall people like CC should be banned from basketball.

[crazy canuck]

Bad analogy.  A trust fund kid needs to do absolutely nothing to be rich.  A tall kid needs to put in years of practice and two a days and even then may end up an average basketball player.  I know from personal experience 

[Berkut]

I think Berkut's guy has a point.

When I was scanning through this thread and saw the inheritance tax discussion, in the context of increasing meritocracy, I thought that's pretty cool, once that's sorted all we will have left is limiting other inherited advantages.

For example, we could ban people with absolute hearing from attending music schools.

Also, tall people like CC should be banned from basketball.

Nice strawman.

"My guy" makes no such conclusions.

Stating facts doesn't create conclusions. Have you ever heard the term cognitive dissonance?

[Tamas]

Bad analogy.  A trust fund kid needs to do absolutely nothing to be rich.  A tall kid needs to put in years of practice and two a days and even then may end up an average basketball player.  I know from personal experience 

Yes but if I put in the same effort, with my shorter statue and messed up knees, I won't reach your results

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm about 35 pages into the new book.  Going to take a while.

[Berkut]

Bad analogy.  A trust fund kid needs to do absolutely nothing to be rich.  A tall kid needs to put in years of practice and two a days and even then may end up an average basketball player.  I know from personal experience 

Yes but if I put in the same effort, with my shorter statue and messed up knees, I won't reach your results

Is there a point in here somewhere?