Review Done Through the DIT (Dual Interest Theory) Lens

Through the DIT lens used here to review and make sense of Sandel, both meritocracy and aristocracy --- as well as free-market liberalism and to some extent even egalitarian liberalism ---  are all systems putting inordinate attention to the self-interest of the few and not enough attention to the other (shared with the other)-interest of the many who do not make it to the top. DIT points to the key role of empathy, in both cognitive and affective forms, in tempering the more primal ego which is especially in play in the hubris at the top.

DIT points to strike balance in the jointly operant ego-based self-interest&empathy-based other-interest,  individual&common good, profane&sared, merit&grace --- the latter referring to what every individual shares with the other --- at every level on the meritocratic ladder. It reflects the common good shared among and with everyone, no matter where one is on the income and wealth ladder, without regard for the talent and effort (and fortune, fortuitous luck) in play. 

DIT uses the analytical machinery represented in Figures 1 and 2.  A society with full justice --- a “just society” as Sandel refers to it ---  must work at operating  on some path 0Z, illustrating the good “&” balance.

And, again, empathy-with the other plays a key role in finding path 0Z.  Individual good arises on path 0G; common good arises on path 0M; good balance in a just system is on path 0Z.  And, again, it cannot be emphasized enough:  Notice the two kinds of good are jointly operant and nonseparable.  One cannot put the two goods into separate accounts, nor does adding up the individual good lead to the common good, as SIT (Single Interest Theory) in mainstream Microeconomics claims. The common good is not simply the sum of the payoff in individual good; an interaction term is in play, making it possible for the sum to be greater than the sum of the parts.

Production Must Serve the Common Good

Also, thinking for the moment of the isocurves in Figure 1 as isoquants, then a person involved in the production process (anything that produces income) is producing both a money valued price P good on path 0G for the individual good and often what is described as a non-money value O good on path 0M for the common good. The price P good is in the domain of profane, as in materialism.  The value O is in the domain of the scared, as in the moral and ethical. So, said person could be producing a very high value O good, a moral and ethical good on path 0M, like a school teacher, while getting paid a very low price P for teaching school on path 0G. Reason?

Well, only quantitative product (perhaps counting how many students are in the classroom as basis for how much the teacher is paid, so it is about producing students on path 0G) counts in an individual good only market system. And, while producing students is price P good, the common good of having an educated population has a value O for which the teacher is not paid. So, the  the problem is, the payoff to the individual good at price P evolved on path 0G does not adequately represent the true value of the teaching to society on path 0M.  

And, the DIT point, using the schoolteacher example:  The price P, as in salaries and compensation for an elementary schoolteacher to serve the individual good would be higher on path 0Z, once the contribution to common good is better recognized and acknowledged.  The Market Forum  (Figure 1) will not in general pay the higher price P unless the Other Forum (Figure 2) is bringing value O into play in influencing the salaries and compensation level for schoolteachers. The problem is, meritocratic systems tend to see only price P and not value O.

Consumption Must Also be Influenced by the Common Good

Meritocratic systems especially put all attention to consumption and not enough to production. A meritocracy is a consumer society.  It claims the common good is served by summing up all the individual good coming from each person engaged in consumption. DIT counters the claim by pointing out that payoff in the common good represented on path 0M can only come with a bit of sacrifice in the pursuit of individual good on path 0G, landing on the better path 0Z.  So, the meritocratic idea of adding up the maximum payoff in the domain of consumption for individual good serves the common good, operating strictly on path 0G, is flawed.

DIT Also Sees the Key Role of Non-Money Valued Goods

And, while Figure 1 represents the market, as in a Market Forum dealing in goods that can be quantified and monetized, Figure 2 represents the many Other Forums present in a well functioning democracy that addresses things that cannot be easily quantified and in general cannot be monetized.  Some things are priceless.  Other Forums address the jointness in the money&non-money valued goods, as in the old pushpins&poetry problem in economic philosophy.

Here We Go

So, with the DIT lens now made a bit more clear and ready to go,  here we go.  And, for more on DIT in Metaeconomics, see the FAQ section on the Metaeconomics.info website.

And, a warning. The book has the style of:  Let me tell you what I am going to say; then I say it; and, oh, another way to say it is this, and, another way this, and…  over and over and over; and, then, the conclusion is what I have been saying over and over and over again.  It is tedious.  The book needed to be sent through an AI system with heavy editing.  But, again, consistent with the style, here we go. The review is also redundant, but hang with me.