4 ms·
> I think you're getting stuck on the word "merit". It has context; there isn't some universal concept of the worth of a person being discussed here. No, I'm n
by mahogany 5y ago
> I think you're getting stuck on the word "merit". It has context; there isn't some universal concept of the worth of a person being discussed here.
No, I'm not equating it to worth of a person -- that's why I chose to compare Alice Walton to economics departments and political think tanks and bank CEOs (who I'm sure are not always of the highest moral character). This is about economic merit.
You said this:
> Democracy ought not be a meritocracy, but the economy should be, which means some people will and should be left out of decisions... I would love it if the government could grow the number of people who, on their merits, help guide the economy...
I picked these examples because to me personally, it's clear that just because someone has acquired more capital, it doesn't mean that their opinion with respect to guiding the economy is more valuable. Otherwise, George Clooney is of higher merit in this context than the faculty members of top economics schools, and so we should heed his economic decisions and guidance accordingly. That doesn't strike you as... a little odd?
To put it another way, just because you do well at a game (e.g. "the economy") doesn't mean you should be the one dictating and guiding the rules of the game. It's a bit circular -- in what direction do you think such people will guide the rules? What incentive would the winners have to change the rules?
- TameAntelope 5y agoWhy are we talking about the rules of how the economy operates in the US? That is not and should not be governed by meritocracy, it should (and is) governed by laws, which are decided democratically. Jeff Bezos cannot (or should not) unilaterally decide how corporate law works. He has a vote in who governs, legislates, and judicates, just like you have a vote in who governs, legislates, and judicates, and that's it. This is what I mean when I say "you're getting stuck on the word 'merit'". I believe it's okay that not everyone gets a say in how Amazon is run. Everyone does get a say in the things Amazon is allowed to do in the US economy. Those are different things, though it seems you're conflating them.
- mahogany 5y agoFirst, the two are inextricably linked and always have been. It has been demonstrated time and time again that capital begets political power, so these people are dictating the rules as well. Plus it's naive to think that those that simply "run the economy" (your language) are not affecting everyone else's lives in our society. But even ignoring this point and going back to an idealized world, maybe I'm misunderstanding you -- can you spell out what you mean by "guide the economy" or making decisions about the economy?
- TameAntelope 5y agoSimply the 10% who own 89% of stocks influence the economy by exerting influence over those organizations they proportionately own. A company's shareholders don't get explicit control over the entire economy or anything so absolute, they simply speak with whatever control they have over the private organizations that then, themselves, indirectly influence the economy. I don't think 10% of America should literally have extra voting power in elections, and despite your allusion, they do not. No matter how much you decry "money has influence in elections" people are free, in a democracy (as implemented by the US), to vote how they want. Any argument around, "People get manipulated" is a non-starter; as long as nobody is literally casting their ballots for them, they are free to choose to harm themselves. It's stupid of them[1], but that's democracy for you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla#/media/File:Cipolla-matrix.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla#/media/File:C...