True Meritocracy

Jonatan

Economics is the study of how limited resources can be distributed to meet unlimited wants!

Communism would work, if and only if it was the resources, and not the wants that were unlimited. Unfortunately in reality it is the opposite way around.

NO - Communism as a mode of production serves to distribute income equally, it is precisely BECAUSE it is limited that central planning is deemed desirable to share out wealth and guarantee everyone a certain standard of living. If resources were unlimited then there may be proposals like communism but it is more likely that people would be generally more satisfied (some argue that if someone else's lot is better this never can happen) and there would be no need to devise a method to help the exploited lower orders.

Reply 22

Chubb

A meritocracy (we live in one now) is meant to be where individuals are given more power (in the form of money and possesions in most cases) on the bases of their merits (literal translation from Latin is power given on merit or something like that). However the problem with our current system is that people can simply inherit money, real estate and in some cases political power (The House of Lords, Royal Familey - though decling now). This undermines the very fabrique and fundamentals driving the meritocracy.

Haven't you contradicted yourself here? We live in a meritocracy but then later explain some systems existing in this country which is contrary to that principle? IMO we do not live in a meritocracy. Why on earth was IDS the leader of the Opposition for when others like Kenneth Clarke can do a MUCH better job at it? What about judicial appointments? They're bent as a 9-bob note. And it can be argued that it is more meritocratic if we let the people vote for PM and not the winning party.

Reply 23

Very few establishments/institutions are genuine meritocracies, many claim to be. The best example IMO would be big banks.

Reply 24

And I could criticise the lower chamber in Westminster that it's not as meritocratic as some people make out too. But you get the idea.

Reply 25

Llamas

What has been described is incredibly selfish. Linking quality of life (wealth, power et al) purely to ability (or more accurately, ability to aquire) is the pinnacle of selfishness. Should a disabled person have a poor quality of life because they arn't able to perform as well as a 'normal' person? Should people who are naturally of below average intelligence be damned to poverty?

That sounds like exploitation to me.

This kind of 'meritocracy' is a smart man's oligarchy, and doesn't benefit most people.

Reply 26

Dajo123

Amrad

The idea worked well in wartime England, im thinking about rationing etc..

Reply 27

I was going to come onto that point - even if you take away the financial benefits that some have from birth there are inherent differences in peoples abilities that are innate beyond their control. Really a true meritocracy like you suggest simply advocates a divine right of natural ability society, not too different from a divine right of kings system. I can think of loads more arguments in both directions, that's why I feel a mixed system is the best, and as time goes on the system will improve as people see best.

Reply 28

Dajo123

The idea worked well in wartime England, im thinking about rationing etc..

Because resources were so limited! Plus the psychological makeup of the nation was very different, wartime society cannot be compared to the 'prosperous' times we live in. And even though the rationing system worked well, it was still prone to massive corruption and exploitation.

Reply 29

Dajo123

Amrad

I know, stockings and chocolate were traded on the black market. But Britain was prosperous before the onset of war.

Reply 30

BazTheMoney

Jonatan

Heres the definition of a little thing called economics, you may ponder about it for a while:

Economics is the study of how limited resources can be distributed to meet unlimited wants!

Communism would work, if and only if it was the resources, and not the wants that were unlimited. Unfortunately in reality it is the opposite way around.

Not at all, if resources were unlimited there would be no need for communism; why would people bother if they could anything they want anyway? Unlimited resources would lead to anarchy and complete atomism; in short people, would be fully independent and do what they want.

As for your definition, in a sense (speaking microeconomically-ish) isn't that the case in everyday life? Very, very few people have the money to do what they want all the time, we all have restriction. Thus, we do try to stretch limited resources as far as they will go; and mostly, our desires are unattainable

Reply 31

I think education should be a meritocracy and everything else would follow. Base university admissions on potential and past performance *in context*.

Reply 32

Dajo123

fishpaste

I think education should be a meritocracy and everything else would follow. Base university admissions on potential and past performance *in context*.

I agree, bloody wise words!

Reply 33

Joey_Johns

The idea is totally floored. Land owners and the economically rich would find loop holes in this system so it is entirely pointless. And of course, how many people whould move abroad if the government stopped the loop holes?????

Parents have always provided for their children the best they can since the garden of Eden. Why do you think children take so long to mature?

Reply 34

Dajo123

I agree, bloody wise words!

Thanks!

Reply 35

fishpaste

I think education should be a meritocracy and everything else would follow. Base university admissions on potential and past performance *in context*.

But they don't. If I was an international student I could gain entry to Durham with ABC for law. Hardly meritocratic since you can turn down an English person who has ABB/AAB etc.

Reply 36

NDGAARONDI

But they don't. If I was an international student I could gain entry to Durham with ABC for law. Hardly meritocratic since you can turn down an English person who has ABB/AAB etc.

This isn't ideal, but I don't think it's a critical problem. It's not like a few decades back when your entry to oxbridge depended on your grasp of latin etc.

This might seem like a dumb question, but do internationals even take domestic student's places? I thought the government dictated how many students of each they could take.

Reply 37

fishpaste

This isn't ideal, but I don't think it's a critical problem.

Why?

Reply 38

NDGAARONDI

Why?

There are...bigger threats to meritocracy. Trying to compare the grades of a cruddy comprehensive applicant with those of the best grammar school's applicants.

Reply 39