[Brotkrumen]

Funny thing is, the author probably is for a meritocracy. He just debunks the myth that we ever had one or that we have one today.

The prime predictor of financial success in life isn't merit or hard work, but still is what it always was: who your parents are.

[natalyarostova]

The idea that we "don't have a meritocracy" -- as though meritocracy is a binary switch, which either exists or doesn't, is a poor representation of reality.

Are the rich in the US more likely to have discovered, innovated, or created value, when compared to the rich in Russia? Or more despotic governments? I think so.

Does this mean the US is the platonic ideal of meritocracy? Probably not, rent-seeking does exist. Some rich have provided negative-value to the US.

I mean, when you drill deep enough, the entire concept of merit is pretty messy. There really isn't a clean way to isolate merit as a pure, elegant, factor. We are very much the product of our parents.

(There is another perspective as well, that success in part due to your parents isn't even bad or non-meritocratic. The concept of the family business, or an investment in the success of a lineage, was the typical way of viewing the world up until recently. A parent working hard in order to provide their child a higher chance of success doesn't have to violate meritocracy -- although this is a point of values).

[nraynaud]

I have recently come to a very inconfortable truth (I mean it was always there, but it hit my brain recently): we owe the Enlightenment to useless parasites. Nobility and monks whose free time allowed them to tinker and pursue intellectual curiosity.

[about_help]

And yet you use the phrase "useless parasites". Keep meditating!