Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe45M3MkglM&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]
We have been taught that meritocratic institutions and societies are fair. Putting aside the reality that no system, including our own, is really entirely meritocratic, meritocracies may be fairer and more efficient than some alternatives. But fair in an absolute sense? Think about it. A meritocracy is a system in which the people who are the luckiest in their health and genetic endowment; luckiest in terms of family support, encouragement, and, probably, income; luckiest in their educational and career opportunities; and luckiest in so many other ways difficult to enumeratethese are the folks who reap the largest rewards. The only way for even a putative meritocracy to hope to pass ethical muster, to be considered fair, is if those who are the luckiest in all of those respects also have the greatest responsibility to work hard, to contribute to the betterment of the world, and to share their luck with others.
Are you Michael Savage?


@anybody still thinking we can use the gold standard today. There isn't enough gold in the world to keep up with the productive capacity of today's global economy. Adherence to the gold standard is part of the reason the GD lingered so song. There couldn't be any expansionary monetary policy to stabilize the banking system, stimulate the economy, and monetize debt, so you saw higher costs of capital and labor and weak growth because the the Fed had to stick to 40% gold backing. The nations that threw the gold standard in the bushes earlier recovered quicker. Only fringe economists (Austrians) and :sadpaul: stans who want to knock us back into the 19th century support bringing back the gold standard.