I must say one thing however, before I turn to my critique of your article. At heart, I believe political discussion is a pointless waste of time. One of the reasons I’m emailing you, it to actually test this view – to see if I’m right. I believe political discussion is pointless, because as a rule, no one partaking in the discussion ever allows himself to be convinced! So all you get is a shouting match, a contest of who can express his opinion in the loudest, cheekiest, most self-righteous way.

Most of the time, people don’t take a position because they actually thought the issue through and decided that such and such is the best solution. No, people first choose a side, then they defend the argument. People assume a political identity: I am right wing, I am left wing, I am a Republican, a libertarian, a Socialist, a Christian, an anarchist, a what not. They will then proceed to defend all the positions they believe to match their team’s, to prove that they belong to that group, to earn that label.
Being an xyz, I am supposed to believe such and such, so I will repeat whatever the people from that group say. It is about joining a tribe, a team.

One’s political colour becomes as much part of one’s identity as one’s job, country, sports team, religious belief etc. And when one’s position is attacked, we defend our team and its opinions like we would defend ourselves. We actually defend our identity. And the attacks are often personal, both the attack itself and the defense to it. For many political discussions actually focus on the identity assumed, and the choice to side with one group, rather than the actual policy. “You are a horrible person for subscribing to this view, for taking that side! How can you think such a thing!?” In my view, this is what most political discussion boils down to.

Therefore, allowing oneself to be convinced in a political argument means losing face. It means agreeing with the opponent that you are, in fact, a horrible person for taking such and such political side.

Hence, I highly doubt whether the argument I am about to make will convince you, as you have already dubbed yourself a ‘progressive’, and, as I understand from your writings, an opponent of the Republican Party – or at least, whatever you believe it is that their view is. For agreeing with me could imply giving up that identity. And I have rarely seen anyone being convinced by another to give up a part of his identity.

However, I know you to be a reasonable person. Perhaps, in an arm chair discussion with a friend – not a political opponent, you may allow yourself to open up to other views, and perhaps to be convinced. Or, perhaps, you can prove to me I’m wrong: wrong in my criticism of your article, and wrong in my belief that in political discussion, people just won’t be convinced.

That said, here’s why I disagree with what you wrote in Atlas Deluded:

You start by saying that people who work hard doing menial jobs get paid the least. This is somehow proof that meritocracy is wrong or does not work. First of all, you equate menial jobs to working hard. If a wage for a certain job is low, it means society has little demand for it. If a certain job is highly wanted by society, people will be willing to pay a lot of money for it. Basic economics. If you do something for other people that they value a lot, they will pay a lot for it. If they not value it that much, people will pay less. That is the merit. So if you choose a job people don’t value, you don’t get a lot of money – and the other way around.
You do not get paid because you feel you worked hard, or you feel you are entitled to riches (we all do) – you get paid because others think your work was worth it.
Both a cleaning person and a corporate lawyer work hard – but the lawyer is paid more, because the people buying his service value it more.

Two people go to university: one gets a degree in engineering and designs bridges. He gets paid, because people need bridges. Another spends four years studying Ancient Babylonian. He gets an unemployment check. Why? People don’t have much need of people who know Ancient Babylonian. [I'm not kidding, there is a university in the Netherlands which offers a full Bachelor's and Master's in Ancient Babylonian]
Did the second person work hard studying ancient Babylonian? Perhaps he did – but that is irrelevant.

I see the same misguided view with my Chinese classmates here. They study for hours, days, weeks, little sleep. You know about this. Yet they fail to grasp the material. They don’t use the logic of the law, rather, they try to predict what the teacher wants to hear – or God knows what they are thinking. To quote my Tax Law professor, it doesn’t matter that you wrote a two page answer. If you just literally copy what the teacher said, but don’t give an answer to the question – you get zero points! Doesn’t matter if you spent hours, days studying. If you answer the question wrongly – no merit!
Of course these people complain how unfair it is – they worked so hard! But again, that does not matter.

Same thing I was told during my internship. If a client asks for an answer – he only wants that answer. Doesn’t matter if you spend five hours researching a topic that turns out to be unrelated to the question – if you don’t answer the question, your hard work isn’t worth anything!

I read a little story once that explains this view. There was once a village that did not have drinking water. Two villagers were asked to supply the town with water, whoever coudl supply the town with water, would be paid. The first man bought two buckets, took the long walk to the lake every day and brought two buckets of water. He worked hard to carry the heavy water buckets. He would sell the water for $20 a bucket. The other man left to the big city. After two months, the second man returned. He had taken a loan at the bank in the big city, and now he was building an aquaduct from the lake to the village. When it was done, plenty of water came into the city, the second man sold water for 10 cents a bucket, and was able to pay off the loan and make a profit.
Now, the first man may have worked ‘harder’ on his menial job of carrying buckets of water from the lake to the village, the aquaduct brings more water, cheaper water, and a stable supply water.

And that is merit.

The second man will now become rich, because he provided something many people want, to many people. The first man did not – even though he may have worked ‘harder’.

That brings me to my second point of critique. Of course the Atlas becomes great through other people. Does meritocracy include looking down upon those to whom you provide merit? One’s merit is earned through devoting oneself to provide a service of great value to a great number of people. One becomes the ‘Atlas’ by finding out how one can benefit society, and then applying one’s talent to that end. How should they be rewarded? Let people themselves decide! Whatever they are willing to pay for the service! Market price!
The Atlas shares his talent by putting it to work for other people, to serve other people’s needs.

Why did Herny Ford become so rich? He did something many people valued. He devised a way to make cars affordable to the general public. Is that not a sharing of talent? Is that merit not worth a reward? Or Steve Jobs? Or Bill Gates? Are they not rich, because people valued the service they provided? And aren’t people from the oil industry rich, because people need a lot of oil?

[ Now, what I do disagree with, is the self-enriching practices in the banking sector. The banking sector is by its essence a criminal industry, but that is another discussion]

If I find out a lot of people want a certain thing, I then venture to produce that thing, I make sure it is affordable for many people, I inform the people that I have produced for them what they want, at a price that they can afford and I then sell that thing to many people – I become rich! Is that so unfair?
If someone spends his time doing or producing something few people think is of value, or I do it inefficiently and thus expensively, or I have a good product or service, but I don’t make it available to many people – I won’t get that rich. Is that so unfair?

Or let’s say I am very good at solving commercial legal problems – I could get paid a lot for it. However, I don’t want to. I’d much rather be a dance instructor, even though I am a horrible dancer. There are only a few people who have the talent to perform this task; I am one of them, but I don’t want to do it. I decide to spend my time doing something that society values less, so I get paid less. Is that so unfair?

What I find tragic is that our education system does not recognize non-academic talent. This is a crying outrage. I cannot begin to imagine how much unhappiness is caused, how much opportunity to individuals and society is lost by trying to make everyone academics. It’s a disgrace. Many of the world’s billionaires are school drop-outs.

This does not mean meritocracy as a concept is wrong. It just means it is implemented wrongly.

The son of a friend of my mother loves fixing cars. Were he to get training in this and start his own business after working for a couple of years, he could do very well for himself. However, his mother insisted he stay in school to learn academic skills. This, I find a tragedy.

Now, as to college education. First of all, is it not likely that people from rich classes value education more than those of lower classes? I know of many people who, after high school, were tired of studying and just wanted to get a job to buy a scooter. They knew they could get a better job if they continued to study, but they did not care. Is that not their own choice? And if, later on in life, they do decide they want to study for a better job – they can still go to school. And many people do! My dad only went to uni when I was born and graduated when I was twelve. He makes more money now. Would he be richer now if he had gone to uni when he was 18? Of course. But that was his own choice. Opportunity cost.
University, especially in the US, is very expensive. I do think that people who want to get ahead in life materially should be given support if they cannot afford it. Or the price of the degree should be brought down – as we do in Europe. If you make an elite university very expensive, and don’t give financial support, of course you’ll only find people with rich parents there. Then again, these parents were willing to invest that money in their child’s education. In China, people save a lot of money and make great sacrifices to send their children to university.

There’s nothing wrong with paying people with more education more money. They invested their time and money to learn a skill that is useful to society. And they should be rewarded for it.
I had a teacher at university once who was also a strong advocate of solidarity. She claimed that our success was only for 10% due to our own effort. I couldn’t believe it. If one’s success was not at all related to one’s own effort, then why would I sit there listening to lectures, study and try to do my best on exams? That supposed 10% is everything!

Does meritocracy lead to materialism? I don’t know. I think all people place a certain value on material possessions. But all people value other things too. People’s values depend on those people themselves. I know rich people who place tremendous value on family, many rich people donate to society [hospitals, charities, universities], and many poor people are terribly materialistic. It depends on the person. Everyone is free to decide his or her own values, and besides, who are we to judge that?

And doesn’t all this materialism make the anti-movement only stronger? America is quite materialistic, but at the same time, New York is very rich in artists.
And isn’t the whole new-age Buddhism thing a massive hype?

Now, what I will agree on with you, is that circumstances may give some people a better position to make the best of their ability than others. It is a sad reality of life that for some people, the means to get ahead financially are more readily available than to others. Here, the government can be of use. All of society benefits when all people get access to opportunity. But, that is not an excuse to not do anything or blame someone else for one’s own failure. Too often I find that people look for all sorts of excuses to blame their problems on someone else. If you went to a poor school and you are unhappy with it, then go to a better one. More often than not, life’s problems are not problems of resources, but of resourcefulness. Yes, perhaps your school was bad, but you can still buy books and self-study. Go to night school or what not. But most of these people would spend their time drinking, bumming about, stealing, joining gangs or what not.

Does meritocracy create an unequal society? Isn’t society unequal already? Aren’t we all born unequal? I’m not a great football player, so should I feel bad I won’t be a football player? Or would it be better for me to look for something in myself that society does value? Does the government have to step in to make sure I can be a football player? But what if my friend does have the talent to be a great football player? But he isn’t very good at maths? Perhaps the government should get out of his way, don’t force him to study math, French and read 19th century literature?

And besides, isn’t this entire discussion very materialistic? What if most people don’t make that much money with their job – and they’re perfectly happy with it? Let those who value a lot of money, spend a lot of time studying, and slaving their life away in a corporate law firm. If someone doesn’t want to study, wants to get a simple job that doesn’t require must academic skills, and he earns enough to rent a small room, buy a scooter, drinks beer with his friends – and he’s perfectly ok with it?

If people act smug because they earn a lot of money, there really is no way to keep them from doing that. You can’t really control what goes on in people’s minds. Maybe Jim the tax lawyer is smug because he makes a lot of money, but his plumber looks down upon him, because Jim doesn’t drink beer like a man, plays football like a girl, has no abs and looks like a wimp.
Maybe Jim was bullied in school for those very reasons, and the reason he wanted to make a lot of money and become a tax lawyer, was so he could feel he has something to be smug about. People do these things, they think all sorts of things – what can you do about it? And what’s wrong with it?

Some people manage to use their talent to bring a lot of value to a lot of people – so they get paid a lot of money.
People who feel they aren’t making enough money with the use of their time and talent, should think of ways to better serve society. If you fail at something, you need to look at yourself and what you’ve done, and come up with a better way. Blaming other people for your failures and demanding that they pay you money because you are not successful, that’s not right. And it keeps people from coming up with better ways of how they can benefit society.

Does that mean that if you lose your job because of an economic cycle, or you were in an accident, it’s game over? No, in such cases, it is good to have a safety net. The government can supply it. But, it is also wise to make such a safety net for yourself.
It is a grave crime to rely upon others when you don’t really need to, or when you really shouldn’t. For not only do you take away the help from those who need it more, also, you deprive society of the help and benefit you could have provided it with. It is always best to be self-reliant, to try not to rely too much upon the charity of others – be it government or private citizens. If you temporarily really need help, it is no shame. But it is a shame when you bum about, living on other people’s expenses, while you could in fact have been adding value to others yourself.

Yes, those who suck up the product of another person’s hard work, while they could have been working themselves, providing service to people who need it, they are parasites.

I look forward to your response,

Steven

The references are:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2008.pdf

http://csis.org/files/publication/issues201001.pdf

http://www.epi.org/publication/data-income-gains-support-99ers/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html

I guess we will respectfully disagree. While I cannot comment on peoples’ intentions, the net effect of the earlier stimuli was mildly positive. Unfortunately, if the programs had been better designed, they would have been much more effective. I went into detail about my alternatives in a long series of articles starting at: http://www.et1964.com/2009/12/stimulus-or-recovery/.

As for unions, although sometimes they are unreasonable, I also see the demands of employers and the deterioration of wages, employment security and benefits as unreasonable. My ideas are explained in detail at: http://www.et1964.com/2011/03/the-battle-of-wisconsin/

The whole “socialism” comment is just name calling. It’s a way to smear people you disagree with. It’s almost like calling people Nazis or something else unpopular. In addition to being a demagogic attack, it’s not only factually untrue (look up the definition of Socialism).

I see different dangers — that the country will slowly decline as our education, infrastructure and other competitiveness-related capabilities decline. I fear that rising inequality and money politics may tear apart our democracy. I am also fearful that religious fanatics will use the power of the state to impose their values on me. The Christian God is not my god. While I respect the rights of others to believe as they see fit, I will not live under their tyranny.

My take is:
Its seems you are saying they made a mistake by not actually using the money like they promised, on the contrary I believe they have accomplished what they were after.

Many are doing what they were paid to do. Look at the unions and the days of rage protesters who pays their wages? Classic economic warfare that brings in a dictatorship by way of socialism correct?

Politically both sides are now corrupted with delusional thinking at the highest levels and are basically beyond repair unless we return to a Democratic Republic that we were designed to be.

Unless the USA me generation wakes up from the dead end nightmare called democracy that has historically proven to be a short lived anomaly that runs its course into a dictatorship about now. We are now in the cross-roads for the planet the US economy is the foundation stone that is about to be removed.

Hey most any true Bible thumping conservative saw this coming years ago:-)Eric Ronald Reagan told you the answer is not BIG Government the Problem is BIG Government.

In 1789, newly inaugurated President, George Washington, gave a prophetic warning at Federal Hall in New York City. He declared that America’s prosperity and protection were dependent upon its adherence to God.

Later, the political leaders of this young nation gathered at St. Paul’s Chapel to commit the nation’s future to God’s purposes. That Chapel is located at Ground Zero and survived 9/11 virtually unscathed.

http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm

Greece is facing a new bout of industrial unrest over an unexpected fresh round of austerity measures enacted to overcome scepticism by EU-IMF creditors about the country’s halting reform pace.Thousands of taxi owners opposed to a liberalisation of th…

Left Foot – Liberal Socialist Democrat; Right Foot – Conservative Fascist Republican; Marching toward the New World Order!
A well assimilated public regulated by a normalized global governance is the only hope for Sustainable Development.

1. On one hand, it is true that the US Tea Party and European Far-Right movements have different origins. It is true that many of the Tea Party’s ideas from the traditional US grassroots opposition to what they see is an overextended Federal government. It is also true that elements of the European Far-Right are often neo-fascists.
2. However, the US Tea Party also has its origins in darker places. Much of its rhetoric and ideology came from the paranoid John Birch society. (The society opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it violated states rights and was a communist plot, opposes the UN and obsesses about world government). Many in the Tea Party believe the old conspiracy theories and unfortunately many (but not most) are racist. Their views are also affected by the Christian Reconstructionism, which states that the United States should be a Christian nation and that non-believers should be stripped of their political rights.

3. The recent evidence of Tea-fueled government shows their agenda goes far beyond advocacy for small government. The attacks on unions, abortion rights, separation of church and state, their bigotry against Moslems, and firm embrace of pernicious ideas like Birtherism undermine the argument that the Tea Party is simply concerned about excessive Federal government power. They also have a double standard — Federal power is only “bad” when used for liberal ends that conservatives don’t like. Federal spending for the military is OK but not to help the disadvantaged. In the 1960′s the excuse of “states rights” was used to reject civil rights for blacks — and in the 1800′s it was used to justify slavery.

4. You make an important distinction between the neo-fascists such as Jobbik and Geert Wilders. This point is well-taken. Jobbik is revoltingly rotten, so there is little use discussing them. However, I understand the concern about having a liberal society flooded by extremist Moslems. The problem is that since most European countries make things worse because they refuse to see themselves as destinations for immigrants. While the United States assimilates virtually all (legal) immigrants, Europeans see immigrants as outsiders for generations. This distancing undermines assimilation and creates alienation that can fuel radicalism. The best way forward is for Europeans to really accept immigrants — and for immigrants to follow the rules of their new home. In other words, immigrants need to get citizenship and protection from discrimination but they must end practices (such as treatment of women) that are unacceptable in the West. As a committed social liberal I am also concerned about the spread of reactionary social values. However, I think the best way to prevent this is to have a social contract where newcomers are accepted and assimilated — but on the condition that they follow the rules and do not impose their religious and social values on society. If countries can really welcome immigrants, I believe the nasty ideological baggage will fade away and reduce the threat of a coming Eurabia.

The first and more obvious point is that it is not reasonable to compare the US Tea Party with the majority of European far-Right movements. The Tea Party is a recent radicalization of an American conservative tradition, and focuses on grassroots conservative opposition to federal interference. I say this not to defend all their views: you state, fairly, that its fiscal and economic policies might lead to increasing inequality and thus be socially divisive; in some incarnations, the Tea Party also wades into equally polarizing social issues, muddying the water as it does so with its obscurantist pseudo-scientific opinions. But there is never even a hint of racism; it has nothing in common with the more sinister European far Right which has its roots in a totalitarian past. The Tea Party is essentially bottom-up; the European neo-fascists are very much top-down, in favor of central control and in a very nasty way. The problem is that you are taking two utterly different meanings of the word “Right” and lumping them together as if they are the same. These two movements should not even be in the same article together!

The second and more subtle point is that you incorrectly associate Geert Wilders with the likes of Jobbik, Italian neo-fascists and the rest of the unsightly European nationalist parties. Far from being a reactionary himself, Wilders is essentially a single-issue politician with a very real concern about the effect of imported religious extremism on European traditional liberal thought and debate. This takes some explanation.

Unlike the USA, Europe is not a country founded on immigration — it is, of course, not a country at all, but a collection of diverse nations loosely held together by broad cultural similarity and partly overlapping interests — interests which frequently collide, with sometimes disastrous results.

There is no social conservative tradition in Europe (west of the Carpathians) as such. In contrast to the situation in the much more religious USA, the social conservative concept hardly exists at all. To fill the void, radical Islam is broadening its appeal to people with those tendencies. Wilders is drawing attention to this fact, and pointing out that it does not sit at all well with Dutch beliefs. The Netherlands is a bastion of liberal values. Even young men from relatively socially liberal Britain travel there to indulge their passion for two very specific legalized but regulated recreational activities.

Wilders actually follows in a long line of such politicians in the Netherlands who all share social and religious views with progressives. Pim Fortuyn was openly gay and was murdered in 2002 for his views on the illiberal tenets of Islam. Theo van Gogh was an atheist and anti-monarchist who was murdered in 2004 for opposing the advance of Islamic reactionary values. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was actually born into Islam but later converted to atheism and is a feminist and fervent advocate of women’s rights. She was forced to leave the Netherlands for the States in 2006 due to threats from radical Moslems.

Wilders is essentially fulfilling the same function in Europe as liberals and progressives are in the USA when they speak of the dangers of reactionary politics and such social conservative follies as the teaching of creationism in schools, absolutist policies on human reproduction and sexual activity, and restrictive regulations on scientific research.

Extremist Islam is the most reactionary force that currently exists in the world. Quite unlike the European far Right, Wilders and his ilk are simply warning against what they see as an imminent takeover by this religious force. If this ever happens, of course, the great irony is that social conservatives will be okay — they will, as Mark Steyn wittily puts it, “just grow a beard and take another couple wives”. It is the progressives, the gays, the peace-loving cannabis smokers who will find themselves treated “no different from Dick Cheney” (Steyn again). By vilifying Wilders, American and European liberals are unwittingly assisting that reactionary force.

The only secure means of defending against this tendency is to insist that no one has the right to control or restrict what you choose to do with your life: not society, not the State and certainly not God.

Americans (and I am one) really need to get over their superiority. I remember being taught that simply because we are born on this land mass (my words) we are somehow more special than the rest of the world. I have had many conversations with my sister who is a very conservative republican (I am the opposite) and she said that even American rapists and mass murderers are better than law abiding people who are not american. this kind of thinking will doom us. We need to look at what is wrong and fix it. We have the power to do amazing things if we just want to bad enough. Education and equality is a key component. Thank you for your article. May I pass it on?

1. If we use U6, the number is much higher. If it’s the difference between a reasonable 6% unemployment rate and the 15%, we’re talking around 15 million people. This will be my baseline.

2. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my proposals. That’s fine. What I dislike is using things about me personally in the debate. This is what I object to. My background does not matter. Either the arguments are good — or not. Keep focused on the issues — not the biography.

3. Your answer on the presence of foreign graduate students misses the mark in several important ways. One is that American schools do a bad job teaching science and math. In addition, these subjects are not seen as “cool” by many students who would rather study business. The number of vacancies in the technical fields is very high (despite good pay) because people are not equipped to do these jobs.

4. I know many people who came in the H1-B program. Their experiences are mixed. Some obtained their Green Cards fairly easily while others had a bad time. To deal with the “Green Card slavery” issues, I would immediately break the link between having a particular job and the application. If people can change jobs without penalty, it will dramatically lower the control employers have over them. Since there is evidence that H-1B lowers some wages in some areas, the prevailing wages rule should be aggressively enforced.

5. It’s nice to know that I am part of the problem. When everyone hates you from the right and the left, you must be doing something right. In any case, I am working on my proposals — which you will probably dismiss anyway as elitist claptrap. But others might see their value since they do address virtually every problem you mentioned.