Michael Hart comments on this article:

http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/nm026.html

More on Michael Hart:

http://samvak.tripod.com/busiweb29.html

http://samvak.tripod.com/busiweb39.html

Michael re: Meritocracy and Brain Drain:
"I would never want to belong to a club which would accept me as a member."

_I_ always said it this way:

"I would never want to belong to a club that would stoop so low as to accept
someone like me as a member."

However, there IS the kind of club that doesn't have any "membership."

"The difference between them lies in the membership criteria and in the way
that they are applied.

The meritocratic elite is an open club because it satisfies four conditions:

a. The rules of joining it and the criteria to be satisfied are publicly
known.

b. The application and ultimate membership procedures are uniform, equal to
all and open to public scrutiny and criticism (transparent).

c. The system alters its membership parameters in direct response to public
feedback and to the changing social and economic environment.

d. To belong to a meritocracy one needs to satisfy a series of demands."

Whether he (or she) satisfies them or not - is entirely up to him (her)."

I think you will find that this is hardly ever merely the case.

You are a PhD. . .didn't you go though something like "fraternity hazing"
along with the other "requirements?" All the ones _I_ know did.

"In France, for instance, the whole country is politically and economically
run by graduates of the Ecole Normale d'Administration (ENA). They are known
as the ENArques (=the royal dynasty of ENA graduates)."

So. . .we should add "ENArchy" to our list of ruling classes, eh?

;-)

In all of your cases, the power, the money, the recognition, is usually kept
in the hands of the very, very few. . .such as The New York 400.

"After all, making money indicates some merits, some inherent advantages.

To make money consistently, a person needs to be diligent, hard working, to
prevail over hardships, far sighted and a host of other -

universally acclaimed - properties. On the other hand, is it fair that
someone who made his fortune through corruption, inheritance, or utter
luck - be preferred to a poor genius?

That is a contentious issue. In the USA money talks. He who has money is
automatically assumed to be virtuous and meritorious. To maintain money
inherited is as difficult a task as to make it, the thinking goes."

This is perhaps an olde way of thinking about the US, the Ayn Rand way.

Today it is obvious that the rich are getting richer and the poor are
getting poorer, though legislation, deregulation, looking the other way,
etc., which are things Rand warned us about.

"The reason is that the best and the brightest - when shut out by the
members of the ruling elites - emigrate. In a country where one's job is
determined by his family connections or by influence peddling - those best
fit to do the job are likely to be disappointed, then disgusted and then to
leave the place altogether.

This is the phenomenon known as "Brain Drain". It is one of the biggest
migratory tidal waves in human history. Capable, well-trained, educated,
young people leave their oligarchic, arbitrary, countries and migrate to
more predictable meritocracies (mostly to be found in what is collectively
termed "The West").

Of course, these people have to not only realize they want better lives, but
also then to find out where to go for the opportunity, something _I_

started doing when still in college!!! HOWEVER! When I looked up the
emmigration figure for the US in the library, the book LITERALLY said that 0
US citizens emigrated to ANY other country. I got my own copy, just to prove
my point to others.

THEY don't want YOU/ME to know where we could go for a better deal!!!

[Of course I didn't believe it, since I grew up near Canada, and knew people
who emigrated to Vancouver, and even spent the summer with them.

"When they depart forever, they take with them this investment - and award
it, as a gift, to their new, much richer, host countries.

This is an absurd situation: the poor countries subsidize the rich.

This is colonialism of the worst kind. The mercantilist definition of a
colony was: a territory which exports raw materials and imports finished
products.

The Brain drain is exactly that: the poorer countries are exporting raw
brains and buying back the finished products masterminded by theses brains."

"Theses brains???" Cute. . but intentional???

However, I am sure you are aware that TWICE as many of US engineering
Masters and Doctoral degrees go to residents of other countries, who then
take this knowledge back home with them most of the time.

"This is an absurd situation: the poor countries subsidize the rich."

Isn't this the way it's always been???!!!???!!!

If the poor countries realize all that you have said they do here, [not
quoting the entire ending back to you], then why do they NOT realize that
eLibraries are the fastest, cheapest, most efficient way to pull themselves
up by their own bootstraps!!!???!!!

"Yet, surely the Internet is as accessible as baseball. Why did none of the
scientists involved in its creation become a multi-billionaire?"

Actually, I think Vint Cerf, "The Father of the Internet" did. . . .

"Because they are secretly hated by the multitudes."

Hated, or feared?

"People resent the elitism and the arcane nature of modern science.

This pent-up resentment translates into anti-intellectualism, Luddism, and
ostentatious displays of proud ignorance. People prefer the esoteric and
pseudo-sciences to the real and daunting thing.

Consumers perceive entertainment and entertainers as "good", "human", "like
us". We feel that there is no reason, in principle, why we can't become
instant celebrities. Conversely, there are numerous obstacles to becoming an
Einstein."

Ah yes, the crux of modern sitcoms:

"If _I_ had their opportunity, _I_ would do SO much better than
celebrities!"

"Additionally, modern technology has rendered intellectual property a public
good. Books, other texts, and scholarly papers are non-rivalrous (can be
consumed numerous time without diminishing or altering) and non-exclusive.
The concept of "original" or "one time phenomenon" vanishes with
reproducibility. After all, what is the difference between the first copy of
a treatise and the millionth one?"

Tell THAT to the collectors of first editions!!!

How about the zillionaire who buys the only other copy of his favorite stamp
only to BURN it!!!

"In the horror movie that our world had become, economic development policy
is decided by Bob Geldof, the US Presidency is entrusted to the B-movies
actor Ronald Reagan , our reading tastes are dictated by Oprah, and
California's future is steered by Arnold Schwarzenegger."

Of all these, I would probably choose Oprah.

Then again, Jesse The Gov, did OK in Minnestota.

;-)

BTW, am I replying so much you MUST file these away, perhaps never to again
see the light of your screen?

;-)