Meritocracy, Winner-takes-all and class

Great Debates
81

elucidator:

The principle of efficiency is not conservative catechism.

It’s difficult to argue with someone when they use their ignorance as a shield. This is not a confusing or difficult issue.

If I offer a pool of people the choice of $50.00 for a day’s work, or $40.00 to stay at home, only an idiot takes the $50.00.

The differential does not merit the effort. Even given an enterprising young man who wants to make money and isn’t afraid to work. He would be stupid to take the $50.00.

He will take the $40.00 not to work for me, and go seek employment elsewhere.

People seek value for their efforts. They go where the greatest percieved value is. If you devalue work, you get less people willing to engage in it.

If you disagree with this, we have nothing further to say.

82

A needless slur. Regretably typical. Is your argument so weak it will not stand without insult?

Unless, of course, we admit the heretical notion that not all is gold and power. Have you never met anyone who works otherwise?

Perhaps. I will anyway. You may, or may not, as it suits you. If not, I will struggle on without you. It will be difficult, of course, but somehow…somehow…

83

Elucidator:

Of course. These exceptions don’t drive the economy.

It’s not an insult. You consistently belittle things you don’t understand. You disparage economics as a science. This would be fine with me if you had made the effort to understand economics and then had found it wanting.

But you have not. You’ve just declared it invalid without bothering to understand it.

If you did, you would understand what full employment was. You would understand that economic theory deals with both efficiency and innefficiency in the market. That’s all your argument is really. You’re suggesting that there’s inefficiency. What you don’t understand is that I’ve never said otherwise. I am simply pointing out that there is a market force for efficiency, not that inefficiencies don’t exist…

Those market forces move towards correcting inneficiencies.

The two basic problems with entitlement aid are the same two problems that occur with bears in a park.

  1. If you feed a bear it brings more bears next time.
  2. If you consistently feed a bear it becomes dependant on that food

If you are just blindly advocating aid and that everybody automatically gets a “decent life” you are just an ignorant tourist throwing handouts to bears. You are creating the problem you are trying to correct. You are making it worse. You are ensuring that there will be hungry bears incapable of finding their own food.

It’s nothing against the bears. The bears are behaving intelligently and efficiently. The person that is being stupid is the person feeding them.

Any program of aid, if it is going to do any good whatsoever, if it is not in fact going to cause more harm, needs to deal with these two problems.

You want everybody to have a decent life. Me too.

You like feeding the bears because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling and you think you’re doing something to help them. I’m looking at it deeper. You’re fucking the bears over and ensuring their failure and disaster.

Explain how you’re not feeding the bears by giving guarranteeing a “decent life.”

84

So you claim. You claim that our failure to eliminate poverty is due to “liberal policy”, that it is fundamentally flawed and therefore cannot succeed. I counter that it has never been entirely tried, due largely to the efforts of persons with your intellectual convictions, that we don’t know if it will suceed or not until we actually try.

As to my suspicions as to the “science” of economics, they are as they are. Two physicists can disagree as to the boiling point of water, an experiment will prove one right, the other wrong. In economics, there is no theory so cockamamie that some Ph.D will not produce statistical models to prove that it is pure gold. As witnessed by the voodoo of supply side theory.

First you pee on my shoes, then tell me its raining. By now you should know I’m nobody’s fool, Scylla, certainly not yours. You have no idea if I’ve studied economics or not, whether I know a Keynesian from my ass. I don’t agree with you, and that is quite sufficient for you to infer that I use “ignorance as a shield.” Your assessment of my knowledge is based on nothing more. Unless, of course, you have recently added psychic powers to your list of accompishments, and are privileged to peer into my mind and inventory its contents.

Further, your analogy of the bears is woefully simplistic. Human motivation is much more complex than is dreamed of in your philosophy. More to the point, we are not bears, which are by thier nature solitary creatures. We are monkeys, by thier nature social creatures. An agument that is based on the fundamental nature of human beings needs be more nuanced, at the very least.

By guaranteeing a decent life, I make my moral principles manifest. I suggest that unless one is willing to do so, one has no such principles worth the name. You suggest that such will elminate all motivation, I say Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! Why then is it than men who already have decent livings will continue to claw and struggle in order to obtain loud, shiny crap? You claim that men who have enough will not aspire to more? On what vareity of metaphysics do you support such a notion?

85

**

Of course it’s been tried. It’s called socialism, and the results have ranged from woefully inadequate to catastrophic.

[quote]
As to my suspicions as to the “science” of economics, they are as they are. Two physicists can disagree as to the boiling point of water, an experiment will prove one right, the other wrong. In economics, there is no theory so cockamamie that some Ph.D will not produce statistical models to prove that it is pure gold. As witnessed by the voodoo of supply side theory.
[/quote

What’s your objection to supply side theory that you think it’s harebraned, or voodoo?

**

I have no idea what you studied. I do know the effects. From this and other threads it’s become readily apparent that you are pretty much clueless on markets, finance and economics.

It’s not a fucking insult. I don’t know networking. You have opinions that you’ve heard. You have catchphrases that you’ve picked up. What you lack is the prerequisite knowledge to judge those opinions.

**

I’ve had such a privilege. We’ve probably had 20 pages of discussions dealing with issues tangential to economics. You are raising objections to things that are a non-issue to someone who knows what they are talking about.

You’re effectively saying there’s no such thing as a market and inefficiency is the rule, by denying arbitrage effects.

That’s not disagreement. That’s walking up to an aerodynamics engineer and arguing that planes fly because happy thoughts hold them up.

It’s flat out wrong, and it requires a lot of work on behalf of that engineer to bring the happy thoughts guy up to the level of knowledge where he can understand why he’s wrong.

I’m not an economist, but I know economics well enough that I’m quite sure you don’t.

I know. You do realize that this analogy isn’t a literal one, don’t you. It’s like explaining math by saying “If you have two apples, and then you have two more apples how many apples do you have?”

The correct answer is “4.” The correct answer is not “I’m counting oranges, they are very different from apples.”

For our purposes bears and humans are interchangeable, as the same effect occurs in both. Your point about monkeys is well taken. Saying that monkeys are more social than bears does not effect the analogy except to further validate as a moment’s thought will show you. I.E. Increased sociallness will speed up and emphasize the effect I’ve described.

**

Yes. You want to feed the bears and you’re blind to the consequences.

**

Which is a stupid thing to say. If you have an objection say it. A dismissal is not an argument. I didn’t say “all motivation.” I’ve said its a disincentive.
You’re talking in absolutes. It doesn’t work that way.

**

Get a basic understanding of economics and it will tell you the answer. We’ve already discussed and named it in this thread.

Why do you always misattibute? If you are going to say I said something, do us both a favor and quote me, Ok?

I have said no such thing.

86

So much disinformation, so little time!

Lets start with your droll aphorism:

Has it now? Well. it seems we must first have a working definition of socialism, mustn’t we? Would that be that Stalinism of the Five Year Plan? Would that also include the cradle to grave “socialism” of Brunei and Kuwait? Have they foundered and collapsed due to thier failure to consult Scylla? Why, no, it would seem not.

What about Sweden, with similar policies? I have been reading from conservative pundits for lo, forty years or more, that Sweden would collapse next week, surely, because its “socialism” and that is proved not to work. And yet, in thier ignorance, they continue to churn out blondes and Volvos unaware of thier certain and impending, immediate doom! If only they knew, they might rush to throw themselves at your feet and implore your guidance.

As to the “science” of economics, well, that as may be. Pressed, I would say I think it more of a study than a science, more akin to anthropology than chemistry.

Be that as it may, you make declarations as to human behavior and the predictability thereof that are more akin to athropology, and further claim that your expertise in bond markets and such must impel me to accept them, given your superior knowledge. And your comparison of myself to a simpleton naively questioning an aeronautical engineer is as fallacious as it is insulting.

In all my conversations with you, I have never understood why someone with your obvious gifts cannot bear disagreement without turning snide. Likely, it is a matter of psychology, I doubt it has much to do with the correct definition of an “audit committee”.

87

elucidator:

I can bear disagreement, I just have trouble suffering foolishness and stupidity. That’s not an insult. I just don’t know another way to say it. Quite frankly, you don’t have the background to rationally disagree with me on financial and economic subjects.

If you have a question in this area I will do my best to answer it in good faith. Hopefully as well as Minty Green fields legal issues when they come up.

However, it is rather irksome when I make the effort to explain to you the background you need to have a rational opinion, and we’re talking about pretty basic and accepted stuff, and you tell me it doesn’t work that way, or you say “just because you say it’s so doesn’t mean it is.”

But I’m not just saying so. I’m saying so, because I took the classes, I interned, I got a job in the field, and then another. While I am not an economist, I work with them. I talk with them. I read their reports, and I make judgements affecting 10s of millions of dollars based on them. I have a pretty fucking good working knowledge of basic economics.

And this is as basic as it gets. We’re talking about efficiency. It pervades economics and it’s a proven and observable fact.

And when I say proven, it’s not proven in terms of some sociological or psychological phenomenom, it’s proven in terms of repeatable and observable phenomenom.

In capital markets it gets expressed mathematically in terms of Efficient Market Theory which comes in 3 flavors.

In macroeconomics 101 you start to screw with the concept in the first chapter when you draw your first supply and demand curves.

You keep asserting notions about the whole of economics and how valid you think it is, but it’s very clear you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

You can’t put down the efficient market hypothesis unless you understand it. Unless you understand about efficient frontiers and effects of variability like Jensen’s Alpha the Sharpe ratio and the Treynor ratio and how they affect efficiency you are not qualified to have an opinion on what those things say.

If you want to know and understand and form a valid opinion it would be my pleasure to help you. And, I’ve tried to explain some of the more basic concepts. But, you’re just playing games and pretending you know what you’re talking about.

There’s a lot of science and math and research and independant verification that has gone into understanding these things, and to simply dismiss it out of hand without bothering to do anything but pretend that you know what you are talking about is ludicrous and infuriating.

No. It’s accurate.

You might understand how the aeronautical engineer feels somewhat frustrated by the simpleton who continues with his ignorant assertion.

My understanding of these things is founded on a great degree of effort. I have respect for people who know more than I. I have respect for people who know less than I, and are intelligent enough to realize it.

I have respect for people who disagree with me.

People who disagree with me, who lack the necessary knowledge to converse intelligently about the subject, irk the shit out of me.

I’ve given you two problems with entitlement aid. That these problems exist it is difficult to intelligently deny. The degree to which they come into play might be another discussion.

But you’re denying gravity here.

It’s ridiculous and yes it pisses me off that you don’t have the grace to acknowledge your lack of understanding, and either defer to me or go out and get the understanding yourself.

88

Tell you something, Scylla. Its on the local news here in Minneapolis. Its about how the homeless shelters have gone broke. Its about people with full time jobs, who cannot afford housing. Full time jobs, Scylla

They have a nightly lottery. You win, you sleep indoors tonight. Lose…I don’t know what they do. What do you think? Stern enough for you? Think thats close enough to “boot camp”, taking your children out into the cold? Yeah, its a mite brisk here in Minneapolis tonight. No doubt they’re getting the full effect of thier lesson in economics.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m even stupid. But if I’m wrong, I’m stupid, well, its a waste of money isn’t it. Terrible thing, wasting money. Something to really mourn over.

But what if its you who are wrong?

So fuck efficiency. Fuck Economics 101.

I’d rather be me, and be wrong, than be right and be you. If that makes me weak and foolish by your lights, so be it. Frankly, I couldn’t care less.

89

**

No. If you’re wrong, it’s why the homeless shelters are full. It’s why you can’t get housing with a full time job and a decent wage. It’s why there’s so much suffering.

Which is the problem.

90

You’re bluffing.

Some years back, I worked for a foundation that specialized in affordable housing issues and had to plow through godawful reams of statistics and mathematical models on the subjects of government sponsored projects as compared to profit-driven developments. I was also serving on the local Project Area Committee as we considered the prospects for a large re-development that would convert our local neighborhood into a high density neighborhood, with its attendent problems, etc.

So, as it happens, I know quite a bit about the economics of community development and housing and I don’t recall even one, one, mind you, serious academic suggestion to the effect that the problem was rooted in “liberal policy”.

But you know otherwise, right? You have the papers right at your fingertips, the cites, the relevent data. Well, of course you do, otherwise you wouldn’t be so certain.

OK. Put up or shut up. I call. Show me.

91

I have to back up Scylla. This notion that we are all better off as long as we spend money on anything is ridiculous. The idea that we would be better off ignoring efficiecy and basic economics is equally ridiculous. It does in fact sound like sound like a simpleton arguing to an aerospace engineer that we can reach the moon with good intentions! Fuck power to weight ratios! Fuck Physics 101! I don’t think I would want to ride in that rocket, would you?

Wasting money isn’t good for anyone. Money spent on homeless shelters is money that is not spent developing a business that could provide jobs to keep those people from being homeless in the first place.

Throwing money at the homeless and poor addresses the symptoms (which you also have to do to a certain extent). It does not address the causes of economic problems.

The cause, of course, is waste and inefficiency in the market.

92

The “liberal policy” thing was just my response to your “conservative cynicism” thingie, and not a citable case of academic dogma.

93

Hey, you know we don’t have to argue all this in a vacuum. I’ve heard rumor that beyond the border of the good ol’ USA there are other nations…even other wealthy Western nations who have larger welfare states. So, by Scylla’s logic their problems of people mired in poverty must be much greater, right?!? Or is the U.S. a special case and we can’t compare ourselves to any other countries?

94

“Not citable”, is it now? Is that anything like “full of baloney?” I think it very well may be. After all, you claim that these “liberal policys” fly in the face of fundamental rules of economics, rules that only utterly ignorant persons like myself are unaware of. Rules like the Laws of Thermodynamics are to physics. Rules that every academic economist are aware of.

Why, then, it must necessarily follow that virtually every academic economist has heaped scorn on all of these “liberal policies” since the days of LBJ. And yet I, in my ignorance and stupdity, as amply demonstrated by my refusal to defer to the World’s Foremost Authority, am unaware of them.

Dare I suggest that I am not alone in my ignorance of the utter solidarity of academic economists on this issue? Yes, I think I do dare. Even though I am woefully ignorant of bond markets and the correct definition of the funtion of an “audit committee”, I remain skeptical.

“Not citable” Has a nice ring to it, but I think I’ll still stick to

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!

for reasons of sentiment.

Mssmith, your point is well taken, as far as it goes. But “waste and inefficiency” simply cannot carry the full load. The fundamental cause of a lack of low-income housing is simply profit: there’s no money in it. There are dandy profits to be made in developing gated communities and such that pander to the wants and needs of the well-to-do. And prisons, of course.

If the capitalist community cannot be expected to build low income housing, who remains but the government? I will readily grant that such is likely to be less efficient than market driven efforts. But who else? The altruism of bankers and Big Money tends to be limited to the production of smarmy ads extoling thier deep committment to the “community”.

If not clumsily and inefficiently done by government, it doesn’t get done at all. As unpalatable as that choice may be.

95

This may not be a confusing issue. Shouldn’t we include some other real-life concerns? For instance, child care? What would a person do with their children? If a person makes an amount that will not cover transportation, child care, wardrobe needs, etc, they may actually end up “in the hole” so to speak.
Another concern would be the value of the experience the person gains from the work. Will this experience be perceived as an opportunity or stepping stone to future improved earnings?

I have questions about the feeding of the bears. Are these bears being fed the absolute best bear food available? Or are they getting only enough to keep them from starving? Are they being fed and allowed to live in a comfortable and safe setting or are they surrounded by criminal bears that write profanity all over the trees in the forest? I think a bear thinking would tend to lean toward independence and progression if the bear were surrounded by hopelessness, misery, filth, broken glass, stray dogs, and KOOL billboards.

96

Does this bear shit in the woods? No, the bear is shit upon in the woods.

97

I am an academic economist. You are interested only in slogans. That is a shame.

98

elucidator:

Put a cork in the histrionics. The categorization of “liberal policies,” was my own opinion, and I said it because you were being bitchy about “conservatism cynicism.” That is not my professional opinion. It is loose categorization, and I used it as a rebuttal because you were being a jerk.

It’s not citable, because it was just a throwaway comment, not a factual assertion.

Your playing games misattributing my arguments. Stop it. Grow up.

99

Is this directed at me?

100

All other things being equal you would expect more people as a percentage on welfare, a larger debt, and some severe retardation of the economy.

Of course comparisons are valuable.

We can talk about the Swedish miracle, if you like.