When one of the punditocracy's greatest living examples of the Peter Principle propounds the glories of meritocracy, it's probably safe to assume that he's made, oh, one or two errors.
I don't think that the case for meritocracy in this nation is so weak that it requires distortions and misrepresentations of fact and economic data to document its existence. But Brooks doesn't really care about that meritocracy, does he. Instead, he seems to be all about the type of "meritocracy" which eliminates taxes on wealth, and which caps taxes on income below the level at which the wealthy would notice them.
No comments:
Post a Comment