Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (1607)	6/11/2007 1:09:02 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

This is confusing, because it was your argument that was only concerned with outcome - the 2nd son being excluded. My argument said that the method, and the corresponding perceptions it drove in the society, did matter, even more than the outcome. Which is why I'm trying to pin you down to just look at one component at a time. I do indeed claim that the method does not have much effect. We are trying just to isolate the effect of static vs dynamic. The problem here is a claim that given A & B, if you always choose A, and discard B, you have a significantly different system than if you sometimes choose A and discard B and the rest of the time you choose B and discard A. Remember the problem is caused by the discarded ones (so claimed anyway!) Does it make any difference if the discarded one is always the B vs. a mix of A or B? Not that I can tell! This is a totally different question than asking if the outcome of the system as a result of choosing A or B for the chosen position is better. Suppose the choice is based on who can best manage wealth (the position being heir, this seems reasonable). Well clearly, if the better one suited for this is chosen, we can assume that wealth will be better managed. But this is not the question asked. The question is whether the rejected one does less damage to the system because he was rejected for cause vs. rejected by birthright. At least that is the question I'm trying to answer. I certainly agree with you that in the American economic system, the hope of mobility is very important. It is a great motivator. But something very similar can be said about the desires of every lottery ticket buyer. I dislike seeing our economic system drift towards a lottery system, even if there is a strong component of merit, but the reward system remains highly nonlinear.