Average Vs Excellence – Western Society’s Contradiction & Problem

“Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

In 1978 Deng Xiaoping led massive reforms. It moved from a planned economy to an open economy. It was communist, and socialist, but it become capitalist. Companies opened, trade boomed, it became more efficient, people became more productive, and wealthy. It was glorious to be rich. This saw a massive improvement in living standards.

I believe that western society has slowly been reforming too, but in the other direction, from a capitalist country, to a socialist country. It’s a democracy, tax rates have been rising from around 5-10% when it became wealthy, when it was in the building wealth stage, to around 40-50% now that is wealthy, and it is in an allocation of wealth stage.

This is because of democracy. I argue that democracy ultimately makes a country socialist.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.” – Alexander Fraser Tytler

In a capitalist system, everyone is self interested, it’s what makes it work. People seek a profit, they seek to do some activity that makes them better off and the mechanism to do this, is through trade, and production. they get rid of inefficiency and waste, which is not profitable. The core idea of self interest being good is that of self-interest.

The idea in capitalism that is often cited as making it work is the principle of self-interest, which Adam Smith, a Scottish economist and philosopher known as the father of modern economics, famously discussed in his seminal work, “The Wealth of Nations” (1776). Smith argued that individuals pursuing their own self-interest, in a free market, would work as if guided by an “invisible hand” to achieve the best overall results for society, including efficient allocation of resources, innovation, and wealth creation.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” – Adam Smith

Why is Self Interest Good?

Here’s why self-interest is considered good in a capitalist system:

1. Efficiency and Innovation: Self-interest drives individuals and businesses to innovate, reduce costs, and improve their products and services to gain a competitive edge. This competition leads to more choices for consumers and more efficient ways of producing goods and services.
2. Wealth Creation: When individuals pursue their own economic interests, they engage in activities that generate income and wealth, not just for themselves but also for others. This wealth generation can lead to higher standards of living and economic growth.
3. Resource Allocation: Capitalism relies on the price mechanism to allocate scarce resources efficiently. Prices in a free market are determined by supply and demand—reflecting the collective self-interest of buyers and sellers. This helps ensure that resources are used where they are most valued and where they can be most productive.
4. Incentives for Hard Work and Innovation: Self-interest provides a powerful incentive for people to work hard, be creative, and innovate, as they can directly benefit from their efforts. This leads to productivity gains and technological advancements that benefit society as a whole.
5. Personal Freedom: At its core, capitalism emphasizes personal freedom and choice. Individuals have the liberty to pursue their own interests, choose their line of work, and decide what to consume. This freedom is seen as essential for personal fulfillment and happiness.

This can create problems and it does need to be regulated, but I argue we have moved too far away from this capitalist system, and we need to move back towards it. I will expand on this in another article.

In a capitalist system, people should be focused 100% on their own work, and the economy as the way to generate wealth.

However, in a democratic socialist system, people are more focused on the system. The system is what allocates resources. The voters are self interested and rational and they want to get more of the overall pie, they vote for the party that is most likely to make them better off. The incentives are laid out in such a way that results in an increase in government spending, and a reallocation of resources from the wealthy to the not so wealthy.

“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” – Thomas Sowell

How does western society incentivise people to be normal?

It incentivises people to be average and normal, and not strive for excellence, it incentivises people to be free-riders.

Here are some instances where this acceptance can be seen:

1. Educational Systems: In some Western countries, educational systems emphasize inclusivity and ensuring that all students meet a certain level of competence, rather than pushing for exceptional performance. For example, grading curves or policies that limit failing students can sometimes result in a focus on getting everyone to a baseline level of knowledge rather than encouraging students to excel beyond the average.
2. Work-Life Balance: There is a growing emphasis on work-life balance, with many people valuing jobs that allow them time for personal activities and family over careers that demand long hours for higher pay and status. This shift reflects a societal value on living a balanced life rather than dedicating oneself entirely to career advancement.
3. Participation Trophies: The practice of giving participation trophies to children in sports and other competitions is often cited as an example of the acceptance of being average. This approach emphasizes participation, effort, and enjoyment of the activity over winning, which some critics argue diminishes the incentive to strive for excellence.
4. Social Media and Reality TV: The popularity of reality TV shows and social media platforms that celebrate everyday life and “average” people can also reflect an acceptance and even celebration of the ordinary. These media often highlight relatable, everyday experiences over extraordinary achievements, suggesting a societal interest in the normal and accessible rather than the exceptional.
5. Anti-Elitism Sentiments: In politics and culture, there can be a distrust of elites and experts, with some movements emphasizing the wisdom and value of the “average” person’s experiences and opinions. This anti-elitist sentiment can manifest in skepticism towards academic, scientific, and cultural authorities, advocating instead for the validity of common sense and everyday knowledge.
6. Consumer Culture: The vast array of products and services aimed at the mass market reflects an economic system that caters to the average consumer. While there are niche markets for luxury and high-performance products, the bulk of economic activity is geared towards meeting the needs and desires of the general population.
7. Universal Basic Services: The push for policies such as universal healthcare, education, and other basic services reflects a societal commitment to ensuring a baseline quality of life for everyone, regardless of their individual achievements or economic contributions. This focus on collective well-being over individual success can be seen as part of a broader acceptance of being average.

And Media

How does the media incentivise people to be normal?

The media plays a significant role in shaping societal norms and expectations, including the perception and valuation of being “normal” or average. Through various forms and content, the media can incentivize and reinforce the acceptance and even preference for normativity in several ways:

1. Celebration of Relatable Characters: Television shows, movies, and books often celebrate relatable, average characters who face everyday challenges. These characters’ stories are central, making viewers or readers feel seen and understood. By focusing on the ordinary aspects of life, such as family dynamics, friendship, and common workplace issues, the media underscores the value of normal experiences and the idea that one doesn’t have to be extraordinary to lead a fulfilling life.
2. Reality TV: Reality television is a significant factor in promoting the idea of being average as desirable or sufficient. Shows that focus on everyday activities, such as cooking, home improvement, or even just the daily lives of “ordinary” people, suggest that there’s something inherently valuable and entertaining about the average person’s experiences.
3. Social Media Trends: Social media platforms are filled with content that emphasizes relatability and the authenticity of normal life. Posts about mundane activities, “fails,” and the less glamorous sides of life can receive a lot of engagement, suggesting a collective appreciation for content that reflects average experiences. This can create a feedback loop where the more normal or relatable the content, the more it is rewarded with likes, shares, and comments.
4. Advertising: Many advertisements target the average consumer by promoting products that promise to solve everyday problems or enhance daily life in simple ways. By appealing to common concerns and desires, these ads reinforce the idea that being average is not only normal but also the primary audience for their products.
5. News Coverage: The focus on “human interest” stories in the news can also promote an acceptance of being normal. These stories often feature ordinary people doing slightly extraordinary things, suggesting that anyone has the potential to be newsworthy, thereby blurring the lines between being average and being exceptional.
6. Influencer Culture: While influencers might seem to represent an idealized lifestyle, many gain followers by sharing aspects of their lives that are remarkably ordinary or by discussing common challenges and how they navigate them. This approachability can make followers feel that being average is acceptable and that one doesn’t need to live an exceptional life to be worthy of attention or admiration.
7. Comedy and Satire: Media that utilizes comedy and satire often focuses on the absurdities of everyday life or the quirks of being average. By making light of the struggles and realities of normal life, such media forms can validate those experiences and make them a source of shared amusement and comfort.

I understand that most people are by definition average and normal. But I don’t accept societies acceptance of average and being normal. Being average and normal is fine, if they really do appreciate excellence, and they’ve tried their best, they’ve had their shot, and they’ve gone for it.

“The tragedy of life doesn’t lie in not reaching your goal. The tragedy lies in having no goals to reach.” – Benjamin E. Mays

“Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.” – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Being Normal When You Can be Excellent Means to be a Freerider

But being average and not trying and trying to make others average, that means to be a freerider, to freeride off other peoples hard work.

The inherent contradiction is that people who can be excellent but are normal, expect excellence from others. 

Who is going to build the iphones, or their house and run the country? Do average people want to live in average houses? Do they want to go to work in an average car? In an average train that has delays? Who is going to watch average people play football? or make the most excellent clothes? Do they want to have an average politician, that makes their country an average country? In political affairs, that means it is most likely to be subjugated by excellent countries. If they think they want average, then give them average, they would quickly change their mind.

Average people have no right to complain

Being Normal When You Can be Excellent Means to be a Freerider

There is a contradiction in society that people want to be average and normal and don’t seek excellence in their own lives, yet they expect excellence from others, they enjoy excellence on TV, and excellence in how trains are run, how planes are safe, and excellent holidays and everything else.

When things are average, they complain.

If you want to “enjoy” the benefits of an average life, but you do not accept average in the goods you consume, the political freedom and economic benefits you enjoy, then you have no right to complain. You are a freerider. If you want to enjoy a better system, or better goods, then do the work, make it better.

There is something wrong with being average and normal and not looking to improve. Being comfortable with being average and not appreciating or striving for excellence is a recipe for decline personally and for societal decline.

“The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Some examples:

• Politicians Pay
  • How much should Politician’s be paid? It’s said to be unfair when politicians receive high salaries. They should be equal. This should be distributed equally. But at the same time, people complain that politicians are incompetent. This is what they asked for. If you want to hire the best people, give them the best salaries, otherwise they will start companies or do something where they are going to get a market return on their time. If you want to pay them peanuts, you get monkeys.
• Educational Reforms:
  • The push for educational reforms often embodies this contradiction. Societies demand world-class educational outcomes and innovation but may balk at the costs associated with attracting top-tier educators or investing in cutting-edge facilities and resources. The debate around charter schools vs. public schools in some countries mirrors this, where the desire for exceptional education clashes with debates over funding and access.
  • It also can be seen in equality of opportunity. I wrote about that here. Do you want an average society with normal results? Eg., you don’t care about having trains on time, the latest iphones, or being subjugated by other countries? Then you need a meritocracy.
• Healthcare Systems: The quality of healthcare services is another area where expectations vs. reality often clash. People expect high-quality, prompt, and innovative healthcare services but may resist the taxes or insurance premiums necessary to fund such a system. The debate on universal healthcare in the United States is a prime example, where the desire for a high-quality system for all meets the reality of funding and resource allocation challenges.
• Infrastructure Development: Public demand for excellent infrastructure (roads, bridges, public transport) is often at odds with the willingness to fund these projects. High-speed rail projects in various countries, for example, represent ambitious goals for excellence in public transportation but face hurdles in public acceptance due to high costs and long development times.
• Immigration Policy: The desire for robust economies benefiting from skilled immigration, against the backdrop of debates over border control and the societal integration of immigrants. Excellence in economic growth and innovation often requires a more open stance on immigration, which may clash with concerns over national identity or resource allocation.

Advantages of a Purely Capitalist System

1. Innovation as a Natural Outcome of Competition: In a purely capitalist system, innovation isn’t just encouraged; it’s a necessity for survival. Companies and individuals are constantly in competition to provide better, cheaper, and more efficient products and services. This relentless pursuit of excellence drives technological advancements and breakthroughs that can revolutionize industries, improve quality of life, and propel economic growth. The rapid development of industries, from technology to pharmaceuticals, serves as testament to capitalism’s ability to spur innovation.
2. Rewarding Risk and Entrepreneurship: Capitalism inherently rewards those who take risks and innovate. Entrepreneurs are motivated by the potential for substantial rewards, which in turn fuels a culture of innovation and creativity. This system attracts the brightest minds who are eager to disrupt the status quo, leading to startup cultures that have given rise to tech giants and groundbreaking technologies. The possibility of achieving significant wealth encourages continuous investment in research and development, pushing the boundaries of what’s possible.
3. Efficient Allocation of Resources: The capitalist model ensures that resources are allocated to the most efficient and innovative projects through the mechanism of the free market. Investments flow into ventures that show promise and potential for growth, rather than being distributed by centralized planning which may not accurately respond to market needs. This efficient allocation of resources ensures that innovation is constantly fueled by financial and human capital.
4. Consumer Demand as a Driver of Innovation: In a capitalist economy, consumer demand dictates market trends and, consequently, areas of innovation. Companies must innovate to meet changing consumer preferences and stay ahead in competitive markets. This responsiveness to consumer needs ensures that innovation is not only continuous but also aligned with what people want and need, leading to products and services that significantly improve daily life and efficiency.
5. Global Competition Spurs Innovation: Capitalism on a global scale means that companies are not just competing locally but against the best in the world. This global competition forces companies to continuously innovate to maintain a competitive edge in the international market. The global exchange of ideas, talent, and technology further accelerates innovation, making economies more dynamic and resilient.

What’s wrong with socialism?

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

Critics of socialism often point to the following issues:

1. Inefficiency and Lack of Incentive: One of the main criticisms of socialism is that it can lead to inefficiencies in the economy. Without the profit motive as a driving force, critics argue that there is less incentive for individuals and businesses to innovate, work hard, or efficiently allocate resources. This can result in a lack of innovation, lower productivity, and potentially, a stagnating economy.
2. Bureaucracy and Centralized Control: Socialist systems often rely on government or collective decision-making to manage the economy, which can lead to excessive bureaucracy. The process of making economic decisions through centralized planning can be slow, cumbersome, and prone to errors. Critics argue that this can stifle individual initiative and lead to a situation where decisions that affect the market are made by those who may not have the necessary information or expertise.
3. Limited Personal Freedom: In striving for equality and collective welfare, socialist systems may place restrictions on individual freedoms, particularly in relation to economic activities. For example, limitations on private property rights and business opportunities can be seen as restricting personal freedom and individual choice.
4. Potential for Abuse of Power: The concentration of economic and political power in the hands of the state, which is common in many socialist models, can lead to abuses of power. Without checks and balances, government officials can become corrupt, prioritizing their interests over those of the public. This risk is exacerbated in systems where political and economic power is highly centralized.
5. Difficulties in Transition and Implementation: Transitioning from a capitalist to a socialist system (or implementing socialist policies in a capitalist economy) can be challenging and disruptive. It may involve significant changes to the legal and economic structure of a society, which can lead to uncertainty, resistance from those who benefit from the status quo, and economic instability during the transition period.
6. Innovation and Risk-Taking: Critics argue that socialism may dampen the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation because the rewards for success are not as directly tied to individual effort or risk-taking as they are in capitalist systems. In a system where profits are redistributed, there may be less motivation for individuals to start new businesses or for companies to invest in groundbreaking research and development.
7. Resource Allocation: While socialist systems aim for a more equitable distribution of resources, critics argue that central planning can lead to misallocation of resources. Decisions about what and how much to produce are made based on planned economic objectives, which may not accurately reflect consumer demand or the most efficient use of resources.

“The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.” – Milton Friedman

This topic covers multiple areas and thoughts and ideas just a first article on this topic, and it has some ideas that need to be expanded on.

Other Questions Or Issues:

• What are some specific examples to illustrate these points?
• Is this really the problem? It does need a balance between capitalism and democracy and socialism.
• What would a truly democratic system look like? Should we seek that?
• What are some principles that can work?
• Is democratic capitalism the answer? How can we know?
• What’s the solution? How to build a well run system that takes peoples incentives into account?

“The highest reward for a person’s toil is not what they get for it, but what they become by it.” – John Ruskin

Read More

Books

1. “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith
   • A foundational text for understanding capitalist principles, Smith’s work elaborates on the invisible hand of the market and the importance of self-interest in economic activities.
2. “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by Thomas Piketty
   • Piketty’s analysis of wealth and income inequality in capitalist societies offers a modern perspective on the distributional effects of capitalism and the potential drift towards more socialist policies.
3. “The Road to Serfdom” by Friedrich A. Hayek
   • Hayek argues against the dangers of planned economies and centralized power, advocating for free-market capitalism as the best route to preserve individual freedoms.
4. “Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty” by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson
   • This book explores how political and economic institutions influence economic success, touching on the themes of capitalism, socialism, and democracy.
5. “Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville
   • Tocqueville’s observations on American society in the 19th century provide invaluable insights into democracy’s strengths and potential weaknesses, including the tendency towards a welfare state.

Articles and Reports

6. The Economist
   • Regularly publishes articles on global economic trends, including analyses of capitalism, socialism, and democracy across the world.
7. “The Future of Capitalism: Facing the New Anxieties” by Paul Collier
   • Collier’s work, often summarized in articles and interviews, discusses the rifts tearing capitalist societies apart and suggests pragmatic solutions to address them.

Online Resources

8. Our World in Data
   • Provides data-driven insights on economic growth, inequality, and political systems, offering a factual basis to understand how different economic systems impact societies.
9. World Bank Blogs
   • Features expert commentary on global economic policies, including discussions on capitalism and socialism’s efficacy in various contexts.
10. TED Talks
    • Offers numerous insightful presentations by economists, entrepreneurs, and social scientists on capitalism, socialism, and the quest for societal well-being.

Journals

11. The Journal of Democracy
    • Publishes articles that examine the relationship between democracy and economic policies, including the interplay between democratic processes and social welfare systems.

More, more modern books

1. “Capital and Ideology” by Thomas Piketty (2020)
   • Piketty expands on his earlier work, exploring how economic systems and ideologies shape global history and influence inequality. He discusses the modern political discourse around socialism and capitalism, providing a comprehensive analysis of their impact on society.
2. “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power” by Shoshana Zuboff (2019)
   • This book examines the rise of Big Tech and how the exploitation of data represents a new form of capitalism. Zuboff’s work is crucial for understanding how modern capitalism is evolving and what it means for individual autonomy and democracy.
3. “The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It” by Robert B. Reich (2020)
   • Reich explores the current state of American capitalism, the power of big corporations, and the widening economic inequality. He argues for systemic changes to ensure capitalism works for the broader society, touching upon the themes of democracy and social welfare.
4. “People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent” by Joseph E. Stiglitz (2019)
   • Nobel laureate Stiglitz advocates for a “progressive capitalism” that addresses the failings of unchecked market forces. He discusses how to harness the benefits of capitalism to ensure economic growth, innovation, and social equity.
5. “Why We’re Polarized” by Ezra Klein (2020)
   • Klein examines the political and economic polarization in the United States, exploring its roots in human psychology, demographic changes, and the media landscape. While not exclusively about capitalism or socialism, it provides context for understanding how economic systems and policies influence, and are influenced by, societal divisions.
6. “Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism” by Anne Case and Angus Deaton (2020)
   • This book looks at the increasing death rates from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholism in the U.S. as symptoms of deeper economic and social issues within capitalist systems. The authors argue for significant reforms to address these challenges.
7. “Democracy May Not Exist, but We’ll Miss It When It’s Gone” by Astra Taylor (2019)
   • Taylor’s book is a philosophical exploration of democracy’s complexities and contradictions, touching on economic inequality and the tension between capitalism and democratic ideals.