Who Said It?

[jpmassar]

... meritocracies may be fairer and more efficient than some alternatives. But fair in an absolute sense? Think about it. A meritocracy is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support, encouragement, and, probably, income; luckiest in their educational and career

Comments

[schmengie]

scares me to think that someone who believes that runs our nations bank...

[adbjupe]

His predecessor scared me more. But you probably would have guessed that.

[dmorr]

Is it scary because it sounds vaguely socialist, or is he wrong on some particular?

Because if what you care about is fairness, then he's right, a meritocracy rewards people who win the genetic lottery. Life outcomes are totally dominated by luck. If you'd been born living on a dollar a day in Malawi, there's no way you would have the success you had being born here, born smart, with enough nutrition and education that you could use your smarts for something.

Now a meritocracy does seem better than all the alternatives in terms of consequences. But like democracy, you pretty much have to think of it as a least-bad system, not something that remotely fills everything you would want to have in a system if you just listed out all the attributes you'd like.

[schmengie]

scary because I dont think fairness is something the nations banker should be concerned with. you and me have had this lifes lottery discussion before...i just dont buy it. now I agree that it is true that some people are born on third base and think they hit a triple..but I dont think they owe anyone or the world any additional considerations.

I think its great that many well to do people are very philanthropic but I dont think they have any great responsibility to do anything

[schmengie]

using your example I am totally lucky compared to the person in malawi. But compared to other people in the town I grew up in not so much. I lived in a 2 bedroom apartment with a brother and sister and my parents. Other people in my town had big houses. my parents didnt save any money while other friends had money given to them by parents or grandparents. and even those people were damn unlucky compared to people who lived on Long Island in the Hamptons who were unlucky compared to the people who lived in Silicon valley who were unlucky compared to the Saudi royal family. Where does fairness end?

I am just not a big fan of the fairness concept and would hate to see monetary policy of our country based on the ever changing concept of fairness

[dmorr]

1) Luck does not completely determine life outcomes, of course. Compared to other people in your town, you started worse but ended better (though this ignores genetic luck -- if you had smarter parents, that's also lucky). But note how tiny the difference is. You and your richer neighbors and the silicon valley elite all started out in the top 1% in the world, and ended up in the top 1% in the world, even if the order changed along the way

[schmengie]

i hope i never implied you were nuts and I am pretty sure I never implied Ben was either. I just dont think the leader of our Federal reserve bank should be thinking in terms of fairness (because the term is 100% dependent on the observer). At best fairness is a political concept best left to the people and their elected representatives.