The Meritocracy Party

[Reck B]

Anyone heard of them?

http://www.meritocracy.org.uk/

Here's an extract I found particularly interesting;

Regression to the Mean: How the Super Rich Defy Nature

Taller than average parents tend to have children shorter than they are. Shorter than average parents tend to have children taller than they are. Genius parents tend to have less intelligent offspring. Stupid parents tend to have more intelligent children. Gamblers enjoying fantastic winning streaks tend, in the long run, to lose their winnings. Gamblers, on terrible losing streaks, would, if they were able to continue playing, win back most of their losses. Welcome to the great stabilising force of nature: regression to the mean. Without it, we could breed freak populations of giants and dwarves, humans with the intelligence of gods and others with the intelligence of goldfish. 'Lucky' gamblers might win the wealth of nations, and losers, if they could stay in the game, run up national debts. Without regression to the mean, stable society would disintegrate.

Wherever you see regression to the mean seemingly being subverted, you know trouble is near. There's one element of our society in which regression to the mean is defied to a dizzying degree: wealth. The rich just keep getting richer, and nothing ever reins them back in. Equally, there are billions of poor people on earth who will never acquire any meaningful wealth. How can such an unfair distribution of wealth have come about? How can it be so ruthlessly sustained? It seems to defy all logic. Yet there's nothing mysterious about it.

In any fair, unrigged system regression to the mean will occur. When regression to the mean is seen not to operate you have certain proof that mechanisms have been put in place to prevent a fair outcome. Capitalist democracy, with the family at its core (for 'family' read nepotism and cronyism), is the precise vehicle in the West used to perpetuate unfairness. Meritocracy is the antidote. In a meritocratic society, every family will enjoy its day in the sun. Regression to the mean guarantees it. There will be no more great dynasties wielding their power, wealth and influence for centuries. Don't you want to have your chance, based on your merit?

If wealth could be equated with height then most of us would be the size of ants, while the super rich would be as high as mountains. Do you think that's healthy? As an ant, you wouldn't even be able to contemplate the size of the super rich. And they wouldn't notice if they stood on you and crushed you to death. And, in your heart, aren't you already aware that you're invisible to the super rich? They couldn't care less about you. As far as they're concerned, you don't exist. Just as we only notice ants when they crawl over our hand on a hot day, so it is with the super rich and us.

Never forget that they didn't get where they are by talent. They are the beneficiaries of a rigged system. You, by playing along with it, perpetuate it. A word to the wise - wise up, suckers!

Imagine a super-rich person going into a luxury restaurant. No one looks at him. No one acknowledges him. No one takes his jacket. No one shows him to his seat. No one offers him a drink. No one gives him a menu. No one serves him any food. If no one does anything for him, his wealth is meaningless. Wealth is an illusion that you choose to reify i.e. to make it solid, tangible. Wealth is nothing more than an arrangement between people. The essence of this arrangement is that poor people choose to accept that they are deficient in this imaginary substance (money). They acknowledge that the wealthy can supply it to them and they eagerly pursue it because then they will become less 'deficient'. Yet the whole system is merely an elaborate set of transactions in a fantasy currency. The arrangement can be broken at any time if sufficient numbers choose to opt out. The ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes, the most famous of the Cynics, held wealth in contempt. In a world of Diogenes's, the illusion of wealth would dissolve.

But the beneficiaries of the money arrangement - the wealthy - do everything in their power to maintain the illusion. They are the Wizards of Oz, and they aren't going to let anyone see behind the curtain. If you rejected their arrangement, they would be no different from you. So, don't blame anyone else for your poverty and their wealth. If you choose to sign up to an arrangement that guarantees you a subservient role, what right do you have to complain? The wealthy are right in concluding that you're a loser and a failure because only an idiot signs up be a slave when, at any time, he can choose liberty instead.

You should accept the money arrangement only if you get a fair slice of the pie. It's well known that the vast majority of assets in any country are controlled by a tiny percentage of the population. Why not eat from a different pie, where you get more than a few crumbs. Vote for the Meritocracy Party.

[HPC001]

Nice assessment of the problem, wrong solutions. They don't address the actual priviledges that allow the wealthy to continue leeching off of the rest of us. The way politicians are elected, the usurious wealth destroying banking system, monopolisation of land and other natural resources (eg the airwaves), centralised education\healthcare that does the opposite of what it claims to do.

[Executive Sadman]

Do enough people really want social mobility to make it happen though?

Id contend that in the UK at least, life at the so called bottom (ie benefit dependancy) if you know how to work the system is far more comfortable than actually getting up at the crack of dawn, sitting in a cramped bus or congested road for an hour or two every day and getting some idiot called your boss treat you like sh1t everyday. All to pay for an overpriced rabbit hutch that will be paid for you should you decide not to work.

Aspiration is dead. And with most voters reliant on the state in some form or other, will probably stay that way.

[I-hate-scumlords]

They sound like communists, but a good start would be to get rid of all these nonsense titles such as HM The Queen, HM Prince/Princess, Lords Ladys, MBE's, OBE's etc etc.... Why the **** i should call some jock champagne socialist Sir Alex or a drug riddled self obsessed alcoholic Sir Elton is a mystery to me.

[Stars]

Aspiration is dead. And with most voters reliant on the state in some form or other, will probably stay that way.

The problem is the benefit system is a political result of the huge costs generated by having a system drenched in monopoly, rent and privilege, rather than something roughly approaching a production meritocracy (used in a loose very sense)

We can't deal with the benefit system until we deal with our other welfare system. It has all got a bit tangled

[HPC001]

The problem is the benefit system is a political result of the huge costs generated by having a system drenched in monopoly, rent and privilege, rather than something roughly approaching a production meritocracy (used in a loose very sense)

We can't deal with the benefit system until we deal with our other welfare system. It has all got a bit tangled

The benefit system for proles is like stealing their lunch and throwing back some crumbs (with a crapload of means-testing first). Don't tell me it's easy to get a roof over your head that way, because I found out the hard way it does no such thing.

Anyway we're clearly in agreement here, so carry on

Edited February 5, 2011 by HPC001

[JonoP]

Anyone heard of them?

http://www.meritocracy.org.uk/

Yet another bunch of NWO nutters. This should be in off topic.

[Bloo Loo]

"The wealthy are right in concluding that you're a loser and a failure because only an idiot signs up be a slave when, at any time, he can choose liberty instead."

where do I sign up for either?

[Patfig]

"The wealthy are right in concluding that you're a loser and a failure because only an idiot signs up be a slave when, at any time, he can choose liberty instead."

where do I sign up for either?

You might be Spartacus

[hedgefunded]

It's like reading the first five pages of Alex Jones' autobiography.

[Bloo Loo]

so the aim is to go as far as you can with the opportunities you are given.

you'll need 4 lifetime degrees just to write on their blog.

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

Errr.....weren't the big banks meritocracies? The financial sector makes the case they need to pay huge salaries and bonuses to attract the best brainpower.

But presumably the bankers that caused the banking crisis had been recruited with the aid of huge salaries and bonuses, so that theory is a bit suspect.

Democracy can come up with perverse decisions, like the current Torylition, where the Tories can only govern with the support of the Lib Dems, who have completely abandoned what they stood for and what their supporters voted for.

But a meritocracy would also come up with perverse decisions - choosing a politician on their past record and their intellectual prowess doesn't guarantee their ability to get it right in the future. E.g. Gordon Brown was a reasonably good chancellor but a disastrous prime minister whose decision to bail out the banks at the taxpayers' expense laid the way for the Torylition to blowtorch all the improvements Labour had made.

Wealth is relative. A stack of gold bullion on a desert island is of no use to you if you're stranded there with no means of attracting rescue.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Hyperduck Quack Quack

[Home_To_Roost]

The problem is, meritocracy doesn't really exist ( ). Nepotism, favouritism, and several other "isms" are too deep rooted in society for meritocracy to work. People will always give jobs to friends, relatives, and those who are similar, both in behaviour and physical appearance. In other words, people gain advantages based on unfair criteria ... it will never change

Edited February 6, 2011 by Home_To_Roost

[Executive Sadman]

The problem is, meritocracy doesn't really exist ( ). Nepotism, favouritism, and several other "isms" are too deep rooted in society for meritocracy to work. People will always give jobs to friends, relatives, and those who are similar, both in behaviour and physical appearance. In other words, people gain advantages based on unfair criteria ... it will never change

And anyway, when the system is a casino, what use is a 'meritocracy'

Only complete and utter destruction of the banks, the government, all systems and networks would even give meritocracy a fighting chance.

[Meat Puppet]

The problem is, meritocracy doesn't really exist ( ). Nepotism, favouritism, and several other "isms" are too deep rooted in society for meritocracy to work. People will always give jobs to friends, relatives, and those who are similar, both in behaviour and physical appearance. In other words, people gain advantages based on unfair criteria ... it will never change

In a globalised world, true meritocracy may be worse than none at all as it could lead to winner takes all situations. OK, the pie will get much bigger under a meritocracy but all the gains may accrue to the top 1% or whatever. Of course that has happened anyway under our rent seeking economic model.

No easy answers I'm afraid.

[Neptune]

And anyway, when the system is a casino, what use is a 'meritocracy'

It leads to deep unhapiness as well.

In aristocracies, and other unfair systems you deal with lack of position in society and failure by telling yourself you were not connected to the right people, born in the wrong end of town, they didnt like my face etc etc etc.

In a meritocracy if youre at the bottom of the shit heap (which most of us will be), its because its down to you, youre rubbish and you know it.

[Stars]

In a globalised world, true meritocracy may be worse than none at all as it could lead to winner takes all situations.

I don't see why. Is it your observation that merit is entirely held by a small clique?

If this actually how you feel, isn't it possible they have simply done a good job convincing you their privelige is irrelevant and not worth challenging?

[Meat Puppet]

I don't see why. Is it your observation that merit is entirely held by a small clique?

If this actually how you feel, isn't it possible they have simply done a good job convincing you their privelige is irrelevant and not worth challenging?

Well I did say that this was the situation in our current rent-seeking model, and I was replying to a post stating that a true meritocracy has never existed which I largely believe. I also said that meritocracy could lead to a similar result with huge wealth disparities.

I certainly have no desire to rationalise the status quo, just making a comment that meritocracy may not lead to a different result.

[shipbuilder]

In a meritocracy if youre at the bottom of the shit heap (which most of us will be), its because its down to you, youre rubbish and you know it.

This conclusion is entirely due to what you personally regard as merit.

Surely a meritocracy is simply where someone receives fair return for their labour. If, for each individual, that means a living wage for a job that person finds satisfying, then I think you will find most people happy with that and certainly wouldn't consider themselves 'rubbish'. The idea that we have a culture of jealousy is a nonsense perpetuated by rent seekers who want attention deflected away from their activities.

Personally, following a career change over the past few years, my current job pays half of what I used to earn, and I consider the move a roaring success and the best thing I've ever done.

Edited February 6, 2011 by shipbuilder

[Stars]

Whilst land and existing wealth may help guarantee one's position, the system clearly co-opts the brightest and most avaricious in the Land to the ranks.

Sure

The land gets a free pick of the brightest and the best because there is nowhere else to go and many of the brightest and the best, having nowhere else to go, work for the privilege rather than against it

I think the long political tract from George Orwell's 1984 deals with this idea somewhat

Many an Oxbridge graduate treads the greasy path to the City. It is that thin patina of meritocracy that makes the system so difficult to change.

It looks somewhat like a meritocracy because people are being chosen by merit, but a system that rewards one person for a virtue is not necessarily a meritocracy

My concept of a meritocracy would be every person receiving exactly the results of their actions. This is probably not the common understanding of the term, but i think it actually gets the closest to the core intent of the idea.

I agee with your thin patina of meritocracy point.

[Stars]

And I agree with you. So there.

Why is it considered 'fair' for those lucky enough to be very bright to allow them to join the ranks of exploiting those who don't really understand what is happening?

I don't think that is fair at all. It certainly isn't a meritocracy from my perspective.

[erranta]

Sure

The land gets a free pick of the brightest and the best because there is nowhere else to go and many of the brightest and the best, having nowhere else to go, work for the privilege rather than against it

I think the long political tract from George Orwell's 1984 deals with this idea somewhat

It looks somewhat like a meritocracy because people are being chosen by merit, but a system that rewards one person for a virtue is not necessarily a meritocracy

My concept of a meritocracy would be every person receiving exactly the results of their actions. This is probably not the common understanding of the term, but i think it actually gets the closest to the core intent of the idea.

I agee with your thin patina of meritocracy point.

You are being mislead!

Look what it is based/associated with >>> Meritocracy

"the basic tenant, moral, ... Islam is a meritocratic faith - where we build on consensus, not a clergy driven faith!"

The bastards who have brought the concept of this 'new party' into being will steer you any way they can from the morals/goals of Christianity without mentioning it!

They deliberately turned you away - so they can have your souls!

[LJAR]

Christ, that what almost unadulterated class war jealousy bile.

what a lovely lo they seem to be.

[erranta]

I don't see why. Is it your observation that merit is entirely held by a small clique?

If this actually how you feel, isn't it possible they have simply done a good job convincing you their privelige is irrelevant and not worth challenging?

They already have a secret/hidden University/Library/Scientific knowledge network on the Internet where you need to be on the correct IP system for browser to see the network + Password! (special wireless/network card?)

This was paid for by stolen money (Billions) from ordinary taxpaying proles around the World - who are denied access (so the establishment can then bring on 'stream' their version of 'merito-cratic' oligarchy)

[Stars]

You are being mislead!

Don't worry. I'm talking in general, broad terms about the concept of people being rewarded for their actions, not this particular party's version of this conbcept. I'm not a supporter of the meritocracy party