Poor rich people

[vimothy]

This misses the point. of course one wants the best personal for the jobs, but that does not mean that the system is meritocratic, because people from disadvantaged backgrounds are not competing equally. the children of the wealthy have a headstart, no wonder they are doing better.

Yes, they are competing equally and that's the problem (from your perspective).

Moreover, in many professions (e.g. economics) there is no clearcut criteria of evaluation of merit.

RAE? Peer review? Policy makers paying attention?

 

[borderpolice]

The young children trope is an over-exageration and also neatly ignores the fact that poor people have lots of children presisely as a source of cheap labour - many of these children will be working any way, just working for less - or starving.

The reason that poor people have many children are (1) lack of access to contraceptives, (2) a dire need to have children to make old age more bearable.

As you watch economies globalise, you will see levels of child education rise (along with infant mortality, and various other measures), concommittant with rising expectations. Such a scenario is occuring right now in China (and India).

It's the other way round, as countries improve the education of their workforce, they become more interesting global corporations.

 

[vimothy]

The reason that poor people have many children are (1) lack of access to contraceptives, (2) a dire need to have children to make old age more bearable.

And also, (3) a dire need to increase the labour pool to till the land.

It's the other way round, as countries improve the education of their workforce, they become more interesting global corporations.

No it's not. You are suggesting that poor peasant subsistence farmers in China first improved the education of their children (how?) and only then were attractive to MNCs. An educated workforce would be less attatractive as a cheap, unskilled labour resource, would have higher expectations and would be better suited to a different role in the global economy.

 

[borderpolice]

Yes, they are competing equally and that's the problem (from your perspective).

They are competing equally in the same sense that a runner in a marathon who has 5 kms headstart competes equally with the others.

But the real problem is not the lack of equality (there can never be absolute equality). The real problem is in outcome: a purely capitalistic society will produce too few rich people and too many very poor folks, to have a high level of academic/medical standard in the first place, as demonstrated countless number of times in the 3rd world.

RAE? Peer review? Policy makers paying attention?

Hahahaha, that's funny. suddenly you want policy makers to evaluate? why not the market in it's alleged infinite wisdom?

 

[nomadologist]

Doctors are chosen according to merit, you loony, nothing to do with wealth, sex or social background - they pass exams and move up the ranks.

Are you fucking kidding? In the U.S., the wealthiest doctors are the ones who got into the top 10 medical schools, who are also the ones who got into the most prestigious undergrad institutions, who are also (by far in vast majority) the ones born into wealthy families with tons of the attending "privilege" that gets you into prep schools and SAT tutors' classes, etc.

 

[vimothy]

They are competing equally in the same sense that a runner in a marathon who has 5 kms headstart competes equally with the others.

Not so. They are both starting from the same place. You are annoyed because some people are, for whatever reason, better at running than other people. You think that's unfair.

But the real problem is not the lack of equality (there can never be absolute equality). The real problem is in outcome: a purely capitalistic society will produce too few rich people and too many very poor folks, to have a high level of academic/medical standard in the first place, as demonstrated countless number of times in the 3rd world.

What about the UK, America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada....?

Anyway, I can think of very few examples of market-capitalist states in the third world. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Hahahaha, that's funny. suddenly you want policy makers to evaluate? why not the market in it's alleged infinite wisdom?

Still flogging this dead horse. "Good markets require good governments" (Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works) - and vice-versa, of course.

 

[Gavin]

I want to see some examples of demands that are not censured by the state yet represent un-ambiguous social bads, such that anyone supplying them are actually clearly having a negative effect.

"Unambiguous" may be a bit too close to a platonic ideal (and what state is "THE state" anyway?), but I'll have a go (not that I think all these things should be illegal -- but these are all arguably social negatives):

Gambling. Tobacco. Pain killers and many other legal drugs. Michael Bay movies. Fast food. Guns (in the U.S.).

 

[vimothy]

Are you fucking kidding? In the U.S., the wealthiest doctors are the ones who got into the top 10 medical schools, who are also the ones who got into the most prestigious undergrad institutions, who are also (by far in vast majority) the ones born into wealthy families with tons of the attending "privilege" that gets you into prep schools and SAT tutors' classes, etc.

So what? They didn't pass or fail their exams according to who their parents are.

 

[borderpolice]

And also, (3) a dire need to increase the labour pool to till the land.

which land? the land that the poor don't own?

No it's not. You are suggesting that poor peasant subsistence farmers in China first improved the education of their children (how?) and only then were attractive to MNCs.

China has a government.

An educated workforce would be less attatractive as a cheap, unskilled labour resource, would have higher expectations and would be better suited to a different role in the global economy.

The whole point is to get out of the 'cheap labour' rut, because it's not a good place to be in.

 

[nomadologist]

So what? They didn't pass or fail their exams according to who their parents are.

As a matter of fact, yes they did. There have been NUMEROUS studies into the racial/class bias inherent in the standardized testing that you have to take in order to get into college in the U.S. A doctor's economic circumstances from DAY ONE of their life set them up so that they could take those tests and do better than someone who grew up in the ghetto with no parents at home (because they had to work multiple jobs just to get by) who went to an inner-city public school where there were routine shootings and beatings so that their teachers couldn't focus on them (with 40-50 students per classroom, how could they?)

I work with doctors everyday, and even THEY admit it takes a lot of advantages in life to be able to be a doctor. Not only do you have to pass the exams, in the U.S. you have to come up with anywhere from $20,000-$40,000 per year for 8-10 years (not including some living expenses for grad students). If your parents are poor and do not own property or have some sort of mortgage/amazing credit, you will not qualify for a loan, since you have no co-signor. So you'd have no way to finance college and therefore can't go, even if SOMEHOW you were born in the ghetto and still got a 2400 on your MCATS.

 

[vimothy]

which land? the land that the poor don't own?

That's irrelevant. Under subsistence conditions, more inputs equal more outputs.

China has a government.

If you think that the Chinese government was providing free education to poverty stricken millions in in-land provinces as a matter opf course, and which then sparked off the economic revolution that classical liberals have been claiming as their own, you're decieving yourself.

The whole point is to get out of the 'cheap labour' rut, because it's not a good place to be in.

And the only way you do that is by developing your economy:

Commodities - manufactures - services - (who knows?)

We did it, and they will to.

And actually, what you describe as the "cheap labour rut" is China's most valuable resource and the engine powering its transformation.

 

[IdleRich]

Hey Gavin - that quote you've attributed to me was said by Vimothy. I said the complete opposite.

 

[nomadologist]

And actually, what you describe as the "cheap labour rut" is China's most valuable resource and the engine powering its transformation.

Oh please--haven't you heard? The chorus of economists saying that China's "growth" is not going to be sustained, because it's basically too fast and too furious but built on sand (cheap labor)? Because I have.

 

[borderpolice]

Not so. They are both starting from the same place. You are annoyed because some people are, for whatever reason, better at running than other people. You think that's unfair.

some people are a bit better than others at running. there is some unfairness in this, but that is not the problem. The problem is that there is no sigificant difference in human in-built abilities, and all the massive differences that we do observe, are mostly the effect of unequal distribution of wealth. this has the effect that the majority of the human population does not reach their full potential, and that impedes our well-being. That ;s the problem.

I say that as somebody who hails from a very priviledged background, and who is one of the worlds leading researchers in a very competitive field. I would never in a million years have that job at a top university if my parents hadnt paid lots of money for my education. All the poor people i have met when i lived in the 3rd world could be in my position if they had had the same education as me.

Anyway, I can think of very few examples of market-capitalist states in the third world. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I have told you already many times upthread that the low-level economies in the 3rd world are unimpeded by government invention and are the nearest this planet has to free markets. This seems to be a big problem with your position, as you continually ignore it.

Still flogging this dead horse. "Good markets require good governments"

I agree with that, but markets dont bring about good governments, left unconstrained, they may subvert good governance.

 

[borderpolice]

As a matter of fact, yes they did. There have been NUMEROUS studies into the racial/class bias inherent in the standardized testing that you have to take in order to get into college in the U.S.

And this has been pointed out numerous times to Vim as well. (S)He ignores any data that doesn't fit the libertarian credo. I guess the technical term is the confirmation bias for one's own theories.

 

[nomadologist]

If you're going to use the running analogy, here's an anecdote from reality: I know a Rhodes Scholar who is independently wealthy. He's not good at running, but his father was a professor in Africa for some time and so he lived in Kenya. Apparently, in Kenya, there are some amazing runners. I'm not sure why (maybe it's a national sport or something), but many of the world's fastest, best Olympic runners have been from Kenya.

The problem is, these Kenyan runners have no access to America. This Rhodes Scholar I know spends all his time and wealth interceding on behalf of these kids, getting them into Ivy League schools on running scholarships, using his money to get them over so they can run and show their talent.

You can be the best runner in the world, but at SOME POINT if you have no resources/wealth, someone WITH RESOURCES/WEALTH will have to step in to help you use your running.

 

[nomadologist]

And this has been pointed out numerous times to Vim as well. (S)He ignores any data that doesn't fit the libertarian credo. I guess the technical term is the confirmation bias for one's own theories.

It's hilarious. I don't know a single doctor who would not admit it took a fair amount of privilege that he didn't "earn" to get him into med school and on a career track.

I mean, what kind of conservative doesn't acknowledge the power of "networking"??

 

[vimothy]

I have told you already many times upthread that the low-level economies in the 3rd world are unimpeded by government invention and are the nearest this planet has to free markets. This seems to be a big problem with your position, as you continually ignore it.

You told me that, but it's simply not true. I actually replied, saying that

economically free countries are the richest in the world. You mistake large extra-lagal economies in the third world for a lack of government regulations, hence greater economic freedom. In fact, the lack of economic freedom is the reason for the large extra-legal economies.​

If you had followed up my De Soto link, you would know this already. De Soto's research focuses on the under-capitalisation of the developing world (un-tapped assets in the trillions of dollars), and the massive amounts of government regulation and bureaucracy leading to the growth of large scale informal ecnomies and the fialure of the social contract. De Soto famously set up a one-person textile manufacturing workshop in Lima, offically. It took him months, crippling (for a poor business owner) outlay and an amount of bureaucratic steps numbering in the hundreds.

Are you going to link to some studies which support your assertion that third world mixed and command economies are actually paragons of classical liberal economic virtue?

 

[Slothrop]

"Unambiguous" may be a bit too close to a platonic ideal (and what state is "THE state" anyway?), but I'll have a go (not that I think all these things should be illegal -- but these are all arguably social negatives):

Gambling. Tobacco. Pain killers and many other legal drugs. Michael Bay movies. Fast food. Guns (in the U.S.).

Also: corporate tax evasion lawyers, the sort of advertising that tells people to stop being happy with what they've got and be miserable because they haven't got what's being advertised, stick thin models causing body-image problems, bogus natural healing, bogus non-natural healing (ritalin, anyone?), anything with external costs.

Conversely, anything with public benefits or long term benefits is going to be undervalued. Thre wasn't a great deal of corporate interest in funding Planck and Heisenberg at the time, but their work has basically made the vast majority of consumer electronics possible...

 

[nomadologist]

So Vimothy, who cosigns loans so kids in the ghetto who are good at science get to go to Med School?

You still haven't answered that question.