Me:
I just thought this and wondered if you had any response:
Of all of the basic misunderstandings that people have with regard to economic theory I think the most damaging one is the idea that capitalism = meritocracy. This is the fundamental precept of political thought that accounts for the beliefs of republicans and libertarians.
I don't know this for a fact, but I don't get the impression that mainstream economists would endorse the idea that less regulated capita necessarily yields a more meritocratic society ( or some measure of effective meritocracy, perhaps social mobility.) I'm do know that some thinkers make the broader point that economic freedom leads to a more productive society (Old Man friedman for instance). I also know that many people think and write about the sorts of policies that lead to a more meritocratic society (I'm sure that plenty of this exists in the lit. on education and higher education). But do you know if any economic thinkers bother to refute or empirically prove the implied libertarian claim that more economic "freedom" yields a more meritocratic society?
Is this argument actually made in terms of economic mobility? Increased income mobility does seem like a good proxy some ways, but shouldn't it be possible to measure it more directly (say by comparing inviduals with both high test scores and low income to those with high incomes and a range of test scores on the same test?)
This is based on my coming across a NIH study suggesting that countries with a more liberal economy (US and GB specifically) had significantly worse health outcomes across the board. (Decent summary here http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/07/health_in_the_u_s_and_other_rich_countries_we_pay_more_in_health_care_but.html?wpisrc=flyouts )
Also when I was looking for that graph I came across this depressing map: http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/
Comments