Any discussion of so-called "meritocracy" requires that we specify a timeframe.
Short-frame meritocracy means that resources are allocated to people who will do the most with them now. Long-frame means that resources are given to people who will produce the most with them in the future (i.e. we invest in people whose short-term performance may be mediocre). Short-frame meritocracy is pragmatic and efficient in the context of a static time-frame, but doesn't produce growth or social justice in the long run. Resources (VC funding, jobs, educational opportunities) are allocated to those who don't need them. Long-frame meritocracy is fairer and more productive in the long run but much harder to implement because it requires a certain foresight.
Most business decisions are made in the context of short-frame meritocracy. People aren't hired based on what they might become in 5 years, but based on what they're likely to be doing in 3 months. Schools are supposed to take more of a long-term outlook, but they have no real incentive to do so, and plenty of incentives (alumni and parental contributions) to kowtow to society at large and rubber-stamp the preselected winners.
The truth is that iterated short-frame meritocracy is not much better than oligarchy. It's oligarchy with a tiny Brownian motion term thrown in, and the annealing rate is always calibrated so as not to threaten the overall shape of society.
For a historic analogue, one might consider that it was very easy for the peasants of medieval Europe to believe that the nobility were of superior "merit". Merit at the time was physical might (and this wasn't unreasonable, since it also conferred the ability to protect others). First, the nobles were better nourished and much larger. Second, they knew how to use weapons, because they were trained. Third, they could ride horses. Feudal Europe was, fundamentally, a meritocracy (of the short-frame variety) for some definition of "merit".
Short-frame meritocracy means that resources are allocated to people who will do the most with them now. Long-frame means that resources are given to people who will produce the most with them in the future (i.e. we invest in people whose short-term performance may be mediocre). Short-frame meritocracy is pragmatic and efficient in the context of a static time-frame, but doesn't produce growth or social justice in the long run. Resources (VC funding, jobs, educational opportunities) are allocated to those who don't need them. Long-frame meritocracy is fairer and more productive in the long run but much harder to implement because it requires a certain foresight.
Most business decisions are made in the context of short-frame meritocracy. People aren't hired based on what they might become in 5 years, but based on what they're likely to be doing in 3 months. Schools are supposed to take more of a long-term outlook, but they have no real incentive to do so, and plenty of incentives (alumni and parental contributions) to kowtow to society at large and rubber-stamp the preselected winners.
The truth is that iterated short-frame meritocracy is not much better than oligarchy. It's oligarchy with a tiny Brownian motion term thrown in, and the annealing rate is always calibrated so as not to threaten the overall shape of society.
For a historic analogue, one might consider that it was very easy for the peasants of medieval Europe to believe that the nobility were of superior "merit". Merit at the time was physical might (and this wasn't unreasonable, since it also conferred the ability to protect others). First, the nobles were better nourished and much larger. Second, they knew how to use weapons, because they were trained. Third, they could ride horses. Feudal Europe was, fundamentally, a meritocracy (of the short-frame variety) for some definition of "merit".