CDZ Do you think society should reward you in accordance with your value and merit?

[usmbguest5318]

1. Do you think society should reward you in accordance with your value and merit? Yes or no?
   • Should the same approach you think society should use to reward you be used to reward everyone else? Yes or no? Why or why not?

Society, no. The market, yes.

And it's not a matter of what you think you should be rewarded nor what you think of your value or merit. It's how free people making voluntary decisions value you. It's the market that will determine your reward. What you think is irrelevant.

Is this not obvious? What am I missing?

What am I missing?

Given the scope of the matter, the brevity of your remarks makes it quite difficult to with certainty say.

I find it amusing that you use the phrase "brevity of your remarks" to (I'm guessing here) try to discount eflatminor's post, when your post, framing the topic, is no less brief. A broad topic calls for a broad response, IMHO.

Readers were supposed to find my comment amusing. I'm glad the jocular irony came through; that's not an easy thing to convey. So, thank you.

My reply to eflatminor entreats for a more thorough explanation from her/him so one (I, seeing as I replied to it) can tell whether one agrees with his/her analysis , thus whether indeed one finds the member has missed something.

 

[oldsoul]

1. Do you think society should reward you in accordance with your value and merit? Yes or no?
   • Should the same approach you think society should use to reward you be used to reward everyone else? Yes or no? Why or why not?

Society, no. The market, yes.

And it's not a matter of what you think you should be rewarded nor what you think of your value or merit. It's how free people making voluntary decisions value you. It's the market that will determine your reward. What you think is irrelevant.

Is this not obvious? What am I missing?

What am I missing?

Given the scope of the matter, the brevity of your remarks makes it quite difficult to with certainty say.

I find it amusing that you use the phrase "brevity of your remarks" to (I'm guessing here) try to discount eflatminor's post, when your post, framing the topic, is no less brief. A broad topic calls for a broad response, IMHO.

Readers were supposed to find my comment amusing. I'm glad the jocular irony came through; that's not an easy thing to convey. So, thank you.

My reply to eflatminor entreats for a more thorough explanation from her/him so one (I, seeing as I replied to it) can tell whether one agrees with his/her analysis , thus whether indeed one finds the member has missed something.

I do not see what needs to be elaborated on, nor does eflatminor, apparently. So, why don't you elaborate on what you need further information on. I really don't see what could possibly be unclear about their thoughts on the broad scope of the topic.

Additionally, I did not find it amusing the ironic sense. I found it amusing in the "you can't be that dumb" sense.

 

[usmbguest5318]

1. Do you think society should reward you in accordance with your value and merit? Yes or no?
   • Should the same approach you think society should use to reward you be used to reward everyone else? Yes or no? Why or why not?

Society, no. The market, yes.

And it's not a matter of what you think you should be rewarded nor what you think of your value or merit. It's how free people making voluntary decisions value you. It's the market that will determine your reward. What you think is irrelevant.

Is this not obvious? What am I missing?

What am I missing?

Given the scope of the matter, the brevity of your remarks makes it quite difficult to with certainty say.

Setting aside the ridiculousness of suggesting a brief retort is inherently flawed, why don't you explain exactly why my response has so displeased you.

I shall try by way of an historic example for which one can examine the facts and know the answer.

If one were asked, "Why did the Western Roman Empire fall?", one's responding by saying, "Because Alaric sacked Rome," and briefly explaining the battle, and then following one's explanation with, "Isn't that obvious? What am I missing?", places the informed reader in a position of having no choice but to agree with the fact and consequences of the Gothic assault on the Empire's capital, yet still answer the two questions with "no," and "lots." Alaric's efforts are more a back breaking straw than the seminal reason for The Fall.​

With the question in the above example, one can simply look them up. When it comes to explaining the philosophy underpinning one's own normative economics, none of us can research that.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with what you wrote, but it's also not clear to me that you've done anything other than, in your own way, say what amounts to "capitalism rewards people in accordance with their value and merit." That's more a statement of positive economics than normative economics, yet the questions I asked call for a response that explains why society ("the market" or "markets" if you prefer those terms) should reward you in accordance with your value and merit. Whether that happens or should under capitalism or any other "ism" isn't the question.

 

[oldsoul]

1. Do you think society should reward you in accordance with your value and merit? Yes or no?
   • Should the same approach you think society should use to reward you be used to reward everyone else? Yes or no? Why or why not?

Society, no. The market, yes.

And it's not a matter of what you think you should be rewarded nor what you think of your value or merit. It's how free people making voluntary decisions value you. It's the market that will determine your reward. What you think is irrelevant.

Is this not obvious? What am I missing?

What am I missing?

Given the scope of the matter, the brevity of your remarks makes it quite difficult to with certainty say.

Setting aside the ridiculousness of suggesting a brief retort is inherently flawed, why don't you explain exactly why my response has so displeased you.

I shall try by way of an historic example for which one can examine the facts and know the answer.

If one were asked, "Why did the Western Roman Empire fall?", one's responding by saying, "Because Alaric sacked Rome," and briefly explaining the battle, and then following one's explanation with, "Isn't that obvious? What am I missing?", places the informed reader in a position of having no choice but to agree with the fact and consequences of the Gothic assault on the Empire's capital, yet still answer the two questions with "no," and "lots." Alaric's efforts are more a back breaking straw than the seminal reason for The Fall.​

With the question in the above example, one can simply look them up. When it comes to explaining the philosophy underpinning one's own normative economics, none of us can research that.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with what you wrote, but it's also not clear to me that you've done anything other than, in your own way, say what amounts to "capitalism rewards people in accordance with their value and merit." That's more a statement of positive economics than normative economics, yet the questions I asked call for a response that explains why society ("the market" or "markets" if you prefer those terms) should reward you in accordance with your value and merit. Whether that happens or should under capitalism or any other "ism" isn't the question.

So, in other words, "why do you think it should be so?" Why the lengthy post? Is it to stroke your ego? Is it to "prove" you are smart? Why? Why must you over-complicate things? What you really wanted was an answer to the most basic of questions, "Why?" However, you couldn't simply state that, oh no, you have to somehow complicate things, I don't get that.

 

[eflatminor]

...the questions I asked call for a response that explains why society ("the market" or "markets" if you prefer those terms) should reward you in accordance with your value and merit. Whether that happens or should under capitalism or any other "ism" isn't the question.

Took a while to get there, but I see the problem now. After re-reading your OP, I should have taken your "should" seriously. Mea culpa.

If I could get a do over, of course society should reward you in accordance with your value and merit. The only alternative involves someone allocating value. That means a central planner. Pass on that. When your value is base upon that which you and other consenting adults are willing to agree, we avoid the mess of someone portioning out goods, services, your value or mine. It's fair that way.

 

[usmbguest5318]

...the questions I asked call for a response that explains why society ("the market" or "markets" if you prefer those terms) should reward you in accordance with your value and merit. Whether that happens or should under capitalism or any other "ism" isn't the question.

Took a while to get there, but I see the problem now. After re-reading your OP, I should have taken your "should" seriously. Mea culpa.

If I could get a do over, of course society should reward you in accordance with your value and merit. The only alternative involves someone allocating value. That means a central planner. Pass on that. When your value is base upon that which you and other consenting adults are willing to agree, we avoid the mess of someone portioning out goods, services, your value or mine. It's fair that way.

Yes, of course, you can have all the "do overs" you want.

After re-reading your OP, I should have taken your "should" seriously. Mea culpa.

Yes.

No problem. You understand now; that's the important part.