I half-agree. I’m actually starting to believe that factors like trade, industrial policy, and public regulation of economic rents and public goods (take the preceding concepts apolitically, for the moment, please) have more to do with our current economic crises than any notion of individual “merit”. That’s not to say there’s no such thing, merely that in particular, policies regarding trade, industry, and economic rent seem like much stiffer variables than the relatively loose factors of individual work-ethic or education, or even things like national work-hours.
For instance, a country that exports large amounts of capital-intensive goods while strongly regulating its financial sector (say, current day Australia or Germany) seems to be able to afford uneducated individuals, expensive social programs, or short work hours much more easily than a country that theoretically has higher per-hour productivity but suffers a trade deficit and has largely financialized its economy (say, current day America or the UK).
What we end up with is that America and the UK suffer massive income inequality, while Australia and Germany are more equal and stable—even though they’re all First World countries with their own top-level educational institutions, labor expertise, and companies. A theory which treats macroeconomic policy as a stiffer (more strongly predictive) variable than individual/company-level merit therefore seems more likely.
I’m actually starting to believe that factors like trade, industrial policy, and public regulation of economic rents and public goods … have more to do with our current economic crises than any notion of individual “merit”.
I don’t understand what do you mean—I can’t see any connection between “individual merit” (and by “merit” do you mean the productive value of a person?) and current economic crises.
seems to be able to afford uneducated individuals, expensive social programs, or short work hours much more easily
I don’t understand that either. It’s not that, say, Germany can afford a more generous welfare system than the US—after all per-capita GDP is higher in US than in Germany—it’s just that Germany chooses to reallocate more of the wealth produced in this way.
while Australia and Germany are more equal and stable
Equality isn’t a good yardstick—the old USSR had much more equality than any Western country. And I don’t see the stability you’re talking about. Stable in which sense?
I half-agree. I’m actually starting to believe that factors like trade, industrial policy, and public regulation of economic rents and public goods (take the preceding concepts apolitically, for the moment, please) have more to do with our current economic crises than any notion of individual “merit”. That’s not to say there’s no such thing, merely that in particular, policies regarding trade, industry, and economic rent seem like much stiffer variables than the relatively loose factors of individual work-ethic or education, or even things like national work-hours.
For instance, a country that exports large amounts of capital-intensive goods while strongly regulating its financial sector (say, current day Australia or Germany) seems to be able to afford uneducated individuals, expensive social programs, or short work hours much more easily than a country that theoretically has higher per-hour productivity but suffers a trade deficit and has largely financialized its economy (say, current day America or the UK).
What we end up with is that America and the UK suffer massive income inequality, while Australia and Germany are more equal and stable—even though they’re all First World countries with their own top-level educational institutions, labor expertise, and companies. A theory which treats macroeconomic policy as a stiffer (more strongly predictive) variable than individual/company-level merit therefore seems more likely.
I don’t understand what do you mean—I can’t see any connection between “individual merit” (and by “merit” do you mean the productive value of a person?) and current economic crises.
I don’t understand that either. It’s not that, say, Germany can afford a more generous welfare system than the US—after all per-capita GDP is higher in US than in Germany—it’s just that Germany chooses to reallocate more of the wealth produced in this way.
Equality isn’t a good yardstick—the old USSR had much more equality than any Western country. And I don’t see the stability you’re talking about. Stable in which sense?