Journal salimma's Journal: On meritocracy, intellectuals and capitalism 15
Ces posted a link to this report, written by Robert Nozick from Harvard, on his journal.
To briefly summarise, the anomalous degree of opposition to market capitalism among intellectuals, vis-a-vis non-intellectual of the same socio-economic status, is posited to result from the dashed expectations of the intellectual school children, due to the difference between the formal value system of schools, which is meritocratic and favours especially verbal finesse, and that of society at large, which is broadly meritocratic but has a different conception of merit, i.e. individuals are rewarded based on their usefulness in fulfilling market demands, not for their intellectualism.
It is a very interesting read, though the article is a condensed version and therefore left us without any concrete examples, since it dealt mainly with intellectuals in Western capitalist countries.
For instance:
- France, a country run by a ruling elite. High taxation rates, generous social welfare provisions. The French definitely cares little about the Anglo-American model of capitalism, so it would seem to fit into the model snugly.
- Singapore, on the other hand, is also very meritocratic, and actually is run by intellectuals, in a manner; the ruling party actively recruits the top students to bolster it ranks. Yet Singapore is economically very capitalistic, with subdued trade unions and low tax rates. There are strategic companies in government hands, on the other hand there is virtually no welfare state. Would this serve as a counter-example, or would it be mostly due to the intellectuals already controlling society, and thus having nothing against the system that well reward them?
What could possibly cause the divergence in economic policies of these two elite-run countries? Part of the reason might be historical: the current French meritocratic system owes its existence to a series of revolutions and counter-revolutions, in which the working class played a significant role. For a more recent parallel we might observe Chile, which despite having a socialist government still bans divorces and abortions, due to the debt in gratitude the ruling party feels it owes to the Catholic Church for its role in supporting anti-Pinochet demonstrations.
In Singapore, on the other hand, the ruling People's Action Party, after coming into power, had to face a threat to its rule by the Communists; this would quite probably account for its position to harden in favour of capitalism. Singapore, due to its history as an entre-port, probably could not adopt a significantly different economic model without jeopardising its economy in the short-term, and the mercantilistic populace would prefer a low-tax regime which would rule out providing for generous welfare benefits; it is to be noted though that education is subsidised up to university level, with the number of places at the various faculties determined by the government according to its projected future needs.
What are your thoughts on this issue, and how do you perceive intellectuals in your own country? In Indonesia, for instance, the country is too corrupt and tax revenue too low to contemplate a comprehensive social net, and intellectuals tend to be focused mostly on political issues, such as Javanese dominance, the merits of the unitary state vis-a-vis federalism; economic topics such as the role of the IMF tend to have political overtones, with the nationalist camp arguing against such foreign influence.
Interesting, especially the market fulfilling part (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the 'intellegencia' refuses to recognize the academic achievement of those outside of career pon
Re:Interesting, especially the market fulfilling p (Score:2)
An interesting point to make; I have read some scathing reports questioning the value of an MBA due to the fact that its instructors tend not to have business experiences themselves, but neve
Re:Interesting, especially the market fulfilling p (Score:2)
My MBA equivelant, as stated on my resume, is from an Army school that was built by the Warton/Harvard/Yale Business departments. When I looked at the UT MBA program my reaction was "I believe I did all of this in 1988 at the Army Aviation Center, at least the same thing as an MBA with a Trans/Log concentration, no thanks".
I also got a bit pissed at an interview for the program when the educrat had the nerve to ask me what kind of "real management experience" that I had.
Re:Interesting, especially the market fulfilling p (Score:2)
If I were to do an MBA it would have to be self-financed anyway, since nobody in my family believes in it. I must say I agree with your advice.
The only things one gets from an MBA (apart from a $100,000 bill) are business contacts; for some people (like George W. Bush) that might be beneficial.
Re:Interesting, especially the market fulfilling p (Score:2)
Today three are still good: Warton, Harvard and Yale. In that order. Forgot if GWB was Harvard MBA or HArvard undergrad, bit he got one at Harvard and one at Yale.
After completing my undergrad in 1994 I started at around the same salary as a UT MBA, or a UT CPA and had the second highest adjus
Re:Interesting, especially the market fulfilling p (Score:2)
He was at Yale then Harvard for his MBA. Wharton was the top business school when I did a check a few years ago, so yes, those three universities might run a tight ship still.
Does the University of Chicago run an MBA program as well? Considering their output of economists, their degrees should be quite reputable.
Re:Interesting, especially the market fulfilling p (Score:2)
I think they do and if so it should be first class as well.
Speaking of Economics, a young university, George Mason, seems to have a worthwhile Econ program, but not sure how well they stack up against Chicago.
Walter Williams, Economist, columnist and sometimes sit-in for Rush Limbaugh teaches at Mason.
Re:Interesting, especially the market fulfilling p (Score:2)
Alas, if I ever continue my studies in the States, I would probably be looking at State universities - much cheaper tuition. With my background in computer science it would probably be Berkeley (plus I heard northern California is great for skiing :p) - imagine sharing a campus with one of the breeding grounds of Unix - though I have a feeling I might not f
Re:Interesting, especially the market fulfilling p (Score:2)
Also, the San Francisco Bay Area is a magnificent oasis of political and social liberalism. There are plenty of people here with idiotic/selfish/backwards political leanings, but no more than everywhere else in the world. The rest of us, here by the bay, pretty much agre
Re:Interesting, especially the market fulfilling p (Score:2)
Now why would I want to go somewhere to stir trouble
Do you live in SF then? I might drop by :)
Re:Interesting, especially the market fulfilling p (Score:2)
Arrgh, did not preview and was missing a tag closing bracket.
About $11,000, compared to $25,000 and up in MIT, CalTech, etc, if I remember. Not as cheap is if one comes from California, but not too bad either.
Now why would I want to go somewhere to stir trouble :). In any case I probably
in the US (Score:1)
For the vast majority of the economy, there are more or less reasonable/objective methods to judge somebody's [worth|value|contribution]. Whether we always use the best methods is open to debate, of course.
For self-proclaimed intellectuals, the only standard is "do other self-proclaimed intellectuals recognize your membership?" As GMontag mentioned in his response, you can be a general with multiple Phds,and other "objective" c
Re:in the US (Score:2)
It depends on the definition, of course; the so-called 'intellectuals' that Nozick discussed are the wordsmiths; journalists, novelists, literary critics, etc.
And as GMontag mentioned, these people already have their contributions priced by the market; apart from the state-funded academics, of course - which is more common in Europe than in the States, I should think, due to the differences in higher education funding mode
Linux geeks (Score:3, Interesting)
But, funnily enough, while everyone eats food, the canteen staff don't think of themselves as the most important. While everyone walks on the floor, the janitor doesn't think he is the most important person on the company. But these "geeks" are outraged that the company doesn't worship them as they think they deserve. Indeed when the chill wind of economic reality blows through the office, these people often find that they've pissed off one person too many with their arrogance, and either they're passed over for raises at best or simply fired out of hand at worst.
The problem is the limited world-view of the geek. They typically have a great deal of very specialized knowledge (altho' not nearly as much as they think they do) but what they are unable to comprehend is that their knowledge is only applicable in a wider context. Those servers don't exist for their own sake, but to fulfill a business need, and that business need exists to support one part of the operation of one part of the company and so on. The geek thinks that having omnipotence in his little corner of the world, being superuser on some computer, translates into omniscience in every other field, because he is unable to understand how small his corner of the world really is.
That's why geeks resent suits; because they geeks realize, deep down, that business really is meritocratic, and that their "geek" skills have been measured and found wanting when it comes to what matters: tangible results when the dust settles. Give a geek a computer and a well-defined task and you will get a result, sure, but when it comes to getting resources and defining goals, the geeks are helplessly inadequate. Worse, they have invested so much ego (or "face") in geekiness, they can't change, they're too scared of the scorn of other geeks, too scared of that sinking feeling "I don't know what to do next". They're so used to knowing what to do on a computer, they can't handle the feeling, and they panic and freeze. Then they run and hide in shame.
Some geeks make the transition; they are confident enough in themselves as people to take a few risks with their own identity. These are usually the ones who have lives outside of computers. They seek out unfamiliar situations in which their skills are useless, and test not their existing knowledge, but their actual selves, their innate ability to adapt and overcome. They understand the "big picture" as well as the tiny details. Every time a suit comes to them with a "silly" computer question, they ask a "silly" business question back. Pretty soon they're asking smart business questions, and not long after that they are masters of their own careers and futures.
But most buy into that stupid ESR-style "hacker mystique" and they're trapped, forever the tools of those with the money and ideas, clinging desperately to their unwashed Linux t-shirts and self-conscious cynicsm, hating the "suits" yet never understanding why the "geeks" are at the bottom of the food chain. That's how it is here, the intellectuals are trapped by their own egos to conform to the expectations of their peers. The few that make the transition out of the ivory tower and into the world are generally very successful capitalists, because capitalism really does reward intelligence, so long as it is applied on real not imaginary problems.
Re:Linux geeks (Score:2)
Sounds very much like the Bastard Operator from Hell [ntk.net]; thankfully I have never actually encountered such people, in my short period as an intern with a large investment bank.