Anyone who doesn't appreciate both PLUCK and LUCK is only looking at
part of the equation.
America has, in fact, moved hard toward Meritocracy.  But -- and this is
a huge one -- you don't necessarily find it on the Forbes list.  There
is an element of LUCK, even if only being in the right place at the
right time, to go that high.
Beyond the Forbes List, there are many ways in which almost pure LUCK is
involved in significant wealth.  Being a super-model, for example.
Though I think most people would be surprised by a lot of super-models.
Cindy Crawford was valedictorian of her high school.
Most people, of course, aren't in those stratified realms.  It is the
rest of us who tend to sort.
There is a huge philosophical problem with the concept of Merit in the
first place.  Rawls claims Merit doesn't exist.  Sowell seems to agree
at least in part, but I'm sure Sowell would also state that the benefits
of pretending it exists for society at large are enormous.
And if Merit does exist then exactly what is it measuring?  IQ?  Purity
of heart?  Or the ability to satisfy customers?  Functionally most
people seem to equate Merit with IQ though they say it would be better
if it were purity of heart.  Yet the type of Merit that lands you on the
Forbes list, or even just being a garden variety 'millionaire next door'
is more likely to be the 'serving customers' definition.
Differences due to merit, when they are perceived as such, generate far
more animosity than differences due to luck.  Luck can be forgiven.
Superior performance, often not.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of
Geege
> Schuman
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 4:44 PM
> To: R. A. Hettinga; Geege Schuman; Owen Byrne
> Cc: Gary Lawrence Murphy; Mr. FoRK; fork@spamassassin.taint.org; Digital Bearer
> Settlement List
> Subject: RE: Comrade Communism (was Re: Crony Capitalism (was RE: sed
> /s/United States/Roman Empire/g))
>
> First, misattribution.  I did not write the blurb below.  I made one
> statement about VP Cheney only, to wit, that he has a short memory.
>
> I couldn't agree with you more on this: "in short, then, economics is
not
> a
> zero sum game, property is not theft, the rich don't get rich off the
> backs
> of the poor, and redistributionist labor "theory" of value happy
horseshit
> is just that: horseshit, happy or otherwise," however, I resent being
> lumped
> in a zero-sum-zealot category for suggesting nothing more than that
rich
> and
> successful at face value is apropos of nothing and I am beginning to
> understand that people who immediately and so fiercely object to my ad
> hominem (re Cheney) align themselves weird sylogisms like "if rich
then
> deservedly" or "if rich then smarter."  Given that, I am also
beginning to
> understand why some people NEED to be rich.
>
> WRT to meritocracies - all hail, meritocracies!  WRT Harvard: over 90%
of
> 2002 graduates were cum laude +. INTERESTING curve.  Those eager to be
> measured got their wish; those unwashed shy folk who just live it
provide
> the balast.
>
> Speaking of Forbes, was reading about Peter Norton just today in an
old
> issue while waiting for my doctor.  Norton attributes his success to
LUCK.
> Imagine.
>
> Geege
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: R. A. Hettinga [mailto:rah@shipwright.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 10:01 PM
> To: Geege Schuman; Owen Byrne
> Cc: Gary Lawrence Murphy; Mr. FoRK; fork@spamassassin.taint.org; Digital Bearer
> Settlement List
> Subject: Comrade Communism (was Re: Crony Capitalism (was RE: sed
> /s/United States/Roman Empire/g))
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> At 11:15 AM -0400 on 9/22/02, Geege Schuman wrote:
>
>
> > Most of them seem to have Ivy League educations, or are Ivy League
> > dropouts suggesting to me that they weren't exactly poor to start
> > with.
>
> Actually, if I remember correctly from discussion of the list's
> composition in Forbes about five or six years ago, the *best* way to
> get on the Forbes 400 is to have *no* college at all. Can you say
> "Bootstraps", boys and girls? I knew you could...
>
> [Given that an undergraduate liberal arts degree from a state school,
> like, say, mine, :-), is nothing but stuff they should have taught
> you in a government-run "high" school, you'll probably get more of
> *those* on the Forbes 400 as well as time goes on. If we ever get
> around to having a good old fashioned government-collapsing
> transfer-payment depression (an economic version of this summer's
> government-forest conflagration, caused by the same kind of
> innumeracy that not clear-cutting enough forests did out west this
> summer :-)) that should motivate more than a few erst-slackers out
> there, including me, :-), to learn to actually feed themselves.]
>
>
> The *next* category on the Forbes 400 list is someone with a
> "terminal" professional degree, like an MBA, PhD, MD, etc., from the
> best school possible.
>
> Why? Because, as of about 1950, the *best* way to get into Harvard,
> for instance, is to be *smart*, not rich. Don't take my word for it,
> ask their admissions office. Look at the admissions stats over the
> years for proof.
>
> Meritocracy, American Style, was *invented* at the Ivy League after
> World War II. Even Stanford got the hint, :-), and, of course,
> Chicago taught them all how, right? :-). Practically *nobody* who
> goes to a top-20 American institution of higher learning can actually
> afford to go there these days. Unless, of course, their parents, who
> couldn't afford to go there themselves, got terminal degrees in the
> last 40 years or so. And their kids *still* had to get the grades,
> and "biased" (by intelligence :-)), test scores, to get in.
>
>
> The bizarre irony is that almost all of those people with "terminal"
> degrees, until they actually *own* something and *hire* people, or
> learn to *make* something for a living all day on a profit and loss
> basis, persist in the practically insane belief, like life after
> death, that economics is some kind of zero sum game, that dumb people
> who don't work hard for it make all the money, and, if someone *is*
> smart, works hard, and is rich, then they stole their wealth somehow.
>
> BTW, none of you guys out there holding the short end of this
> rhetorical stick can blame *me* for the fact that I'm using it to
> beat you severely all over your collective head and shoulders. You
> were, apparently, too dumb to grab the right end. *I* went to
> Missouri, and *I* don't have a degree in anything actually useful,
> much less a "terminal" one, which means *I*'m broker than anyone on
> this list -- it's just that *you*, of all people, lots with
> educations far surpassing my own, should just plain know better. The
> facts speak for themselves, if you just open your eyes and *look*.
> There are no epicycles, the universe does not orbit the earth, and
> economics is not a zero-sum game. The cost of anything, including
> ignorance and destitution, is the forgone alternative, in this case,
> intelligence and effort.
>
> [I will, however, admit to being educated *waay* past my level of
> competence, and, by the way *you* discuss economics, so have you,
> apparently.]
>
>
>
> BTW, if we ever actually *had* free markets in this country,
> *including* the abolition of redistributive income and death taxes,
> all those smart people in the Forbes 400 would have *more* money, and
> there would be *more* self-made people on that list. In addition,
> most of the people who *inherited* money on the list would have
> *much* less of it, not even relatively speaking. Finally, practically
> all of that "new" money would have come from economic efficiency and
> not "stolen" from someone else, investment bubbles or not.
>
> That efficiency is called "progress", for those of you in The
> People's Republics of Berkeley or Cambridge. It means more and better
> stuff, cheaper, over time -- a terrible, petit-bourgeois concept
> apparently not worthy of teaching by the educational elite, or you'd
> know about it by now. In economic terms, it's also called an increase
> in general welfare, and, no, Virginia, I'm not talking about
> extorting money from someone who works, and giving it to someone who
> doesn't in order to keep them from working and they can think of some
> politician as Santa Claus come election time...
>
>
> In short, then, economics is not a zero sum game, property is not
> theft, the rich don't get rich off the backs of the poor, and
> redistributionist labor "theory" of value happy horseshit is just
> that: horseshit, happy or otherwise.
>
> To believe otherwise, is -- quite literally, given the time Marx
> wrote Capital and the Manifesto -- romantic nonsense.
>
> Cheers,
> RAH
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 7.5
>
> iQA/AwUBPY511cPxH8jf3ohaEQLAsgCfZhsQMSvUy6GqJ5wgL52DwZKpIhMAnRuR
> YYboc+IcylP5TlKL58jpwEfu
> =z877
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> -----------------
> R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com>
> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
> "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
> [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
> experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
>
>