This is a short title, but I think that it might be one of the most important blogs that I have ever written.
Just what is "merit"? It is a complex thing as you will see. When I was in school, I paid attention and did my homework so that I could get the highest grades. I wanted to make my mother proud of me by getting on the honor roll. As judged by my fellow students, I deserved their admiration and I got that admiration by "merit". Over time, due to political correctness, more and more kids got onto the honor roll. It was because of grade inflation that we all know now exists. Many of the kids now on the honor roll do not have the "merit" to be there and we all know it. Is that "fair"? No!
What most of us want is for any system to be "fair". Do you agree with that? I think that "merit" is just another way to demonstrate fairness, but it goes further. Look at sports. We all want sports to be "fair" don't we. Would you want the players on our basketball and football teams to be chosen at random? I don't think so. One summer while I was in high school, I played in the local summer softball league. I tried out for a team where the coach was politically correct. Even though I was clearly better than many other players on the team, I did not get to play in the first two games while he allowed several kids who were much worse than me to play. I can't tell you how pissed off I was for the coaches unfairness. I clearly merited getting to play. When in the third game of the season, the coach finally offered to put me in, I told him that he could "stick it in his ass" and I took my mitt and walked off. A few days later, my father who was at the game, told me that he was very proud of me. Merit was the reason.
Now, I am going to switch to economics. Economic systems are not fixed. The economics model has changed over time and we have to recognize that. I have pointed this out before in my blogs. The biggest shift or trend is the shift to toward an economy driven by intellect. Years ago, when it was based more on one's physical abilities you could select and promote more on "random" selection. I have pointed out before that in the physical area, 90% of people could do the same physical task within +/- 10% or 15% of the mean. When it comes to an intellectual tasks the variance is much wider, where the top 10% of people can do an intellectual task 50 time that of the mean. Random selection for physical tasks was thus much fairer, than random selection for intellectual tasks. Is it clear that to be "fair" in the current and future economic system driven by intellect that we have to select on "merit" in order to be "fair"?
Now look at two different economic systems. Socialism and Capitalism. The basic difference is that selection, promotion and rewards are based differently. In socialism, the rewards are based on random selection assuming that all are equal or are nearly equal. Years ago when the economic model was base on physical ability, this was not too unfair, but what about now? Capitalism rewards us on the basis of "merit", not random selection. Isn't that much more "fair"? The trend in capitalism is away from capital. Having a stack of money is less important today than intellectual "merit". In a prior blog, I proposed that we change the name of capitalism to "meritism".
There is one more point that I would like to make. Given that the future is driven by intellect, what economic system will produce the biggest "pie"? It is "meritism". If we put together a company by picking employees randomly as with socialism it has to be clear that by selecting on "merit' the company would clearly be more prosperous. That means a bigger pie. The problem now becomes how to divide the pie. In the case of socialism, the pie is much smaller and thus no mater how it is divided, may will go hungry. In the case of meritism the pie is bigger and there is the potential that it be divided up so that no one goes hungry. Isn't that the kind of thing that we all should be focused on?
Back to sports. Would you pay good money to go see a football or basketball game where the players were selected randomly or a game where the players were selected on "merit". I rest my case!
PS--Check my prior blogs on economics where I pointed out that the "exploitation of our natural resources" is a very major part of our economy. To assure that its contribution to median family income does not go "down", we need tight controls on immigration. Much of our economy driven by value added labor is not competitive and thus has to be off set by the "exploitation of our natural resources".
PS--I was questioned about my "merit" economic system with the question, "Who is going to define merit?" The implication was that they saw the economy controlled by some "central" authority. This attitude is more common than you might think. Capitalism or "Meritism" is not a centrally controlled model. Decisions are "distributed" which is more of a proven optimization model. Thus, the application of "merit' is distributed. Profit may be an optimum model if "merit" is the driver rather than nepotism or racial consideration. No central authority defines "merit" we do it every day as we make our individual decisions.
Just what is "merit"? It is a complex thing as you will see. When I was in school, I paid attention and did my homework so that I could get the highest grades. I wanted to make my mother proud of me by getting on the honor roll. As judged by my fellow students, I deserved their admiration and I got that admiration by "merit". Over time, due to political correctness, more and more kids got onto the honor roll. It was because of grade inflation that we all know now exists. Many of the kids now on the honor roll do not have the "merit" to be there and we all know it. Is that "fair"? No!
What most of us want is for any system to be "fair". Do you agree with that? I think that "merit" is just another way to demonstrate fairness, but it goes further. Look at sports. We all want sports to be "fair" don't we. Would you want the players on our basketball and football teams to be chosen at random? I don't think so. One summer while I was in high school, I played in the local summer softball league. I tried out for a team where the coach was politically correct. Even though I was clearly better than many other players on the team, I did not get to play in the first two games while he allowed several kids who were much worse than me to play. I can't tell you how pissed off I was for the coaches unfairness. I clearly merited getting to play. When in the third game of the season, the coach finally offered to put me in, I told him that he could "stick it in his ass" and I took my mitt and walked off. A few days later, my father who was at the game, told me that he was very proud of me. Merit was the reason.
Now, I am going to switch to economics. Economic systems are not fixed. The economics model has changed over time and we have to recognize that. I have pointed this out before in my blogs. The biggest shift or trend is the shift to toward an economy driven by intellect. Years ago, when it was based more on one's physical abilities you could select and promote more on "random" selection. I have pointed out before that in the physical area, 90% of people could do the same physical task within +/- 10% or 15% of the mean. When it comes to an intellectual tasks the variance is much wider, where the top 10% of people can do an intellectual task 50 time that of the mean. Random selection for physical tasks was thus much fairer, than random selection for intellectual tasks. Is it clear that to be "fair" in the current and future economic system driven by intellect that we have to select on "merit" in order to be "fair"?
Now look at two different economic systems. Socialism and Capitalism. The basic difference is that selection, promotion and rewards are based differently. In socialism, the rewards are based on random selection assuming that all are equal or are nearly equal. Years ago when the economic model was base on physical ability, this was not too unfair, but what about now? Capitalism rewards us on the basis of "merit", not random selection. Isn't that much more "fair"? The trend in capitalism is away from capital. Having a stack of money is less important today than intellectual "merit". In a prior blog, I proposed that we change the name of capitalism to "meritism".
There is one more point that I would like to make. Given that the future is driven by intellect, what economic system will produce the biggest "pie"? It is "meritism". If we put together a company by picking employees randomly as with socialism it has to be clear that by selecting on "merit' the company would clearly be more prosperous. That means a bigger pie. The problem now becomes how to divide the pie. In the case of socialism, the pie is much smaller and thus no mater how it is divided, may will go hungry. In the case of meritism the pie is bigger and there is the potential that it be divided up so that no one goes hungry. Isn't that the kind of thing that we all should be focused on?
Back to sports. Would you pay good money to go see a football or basketball game where the players were selected randomly or a game where the players were selected on "merit". I rest my case!
PS--Check my prior blogs on economics where I pointed out that the "exploitation of our natural resources" is a very major part of our economy. To assure that its contribution to median family income does not go "down", we need tight controls on immigration. Much of our economy driven by value added labor is not competitive and thus has to be off set by the "exploitation of our natural resources".
PS--I was questioned about my "merit" economic system with the question, "Who is going to define merit?" The implication was that they saw the economy controlled by some "central" authority. This attitude is more common than you might think. Capitalism or "Meritism" is not a centrally controlled model. Decisions are "distributed" which is more of a proven optimization model. Thus, the application of "merit' is distributed. Profit may be an optimum model if "merit" is the driver rather than nepotism or racial consideration. No central authority defines "merit" we do it every day as we make our individual decisions.
