F
fakename
Guest
Just some ideas I’d like to bandy about for people’s general interest (or lack of interest):
(1) The Labor Theory of Value must be wrong because it implies Pelagianism -that is, that rewards between people are merited by only their works. To some extent though, people do merit what they labor for and so the LTV is correct.
(2) Rewards, even economical, are distributed according to Justice. And as there are different types of justice for different characters and classes, there are different distributions of rewards for different people.
(3) As such, all transactions are socially just however only if one defines justice as “giving people their due”. But since “due” is always standardized to a level of prudence, it follows that out of many economic arrangements only a few will be really ideally just. But equity is greater than justice so in some cases, it may be better to pay someone even though he didn’t deserve it.
(4) Insofar as it is the cause(s) that is credited with the reward, so it follows that the first, final and middle causes all have a claim on the product. So capital and labor and land and consumers all share some of the wealth depending (fluctuating with circumstances both psychological and external). But it seems that the lion’s share of wealth should always go the consumers or the capitalists and this depends on who is more the instrument of whom.
(5) So there are objective and subjective reasons to reward someone.
Well that’s it. I hope it provides some food for thought.
(1) The Labor Theory of Value must be wrong because it implies Pelagianism -that is, that rewards between people are merited by only their works. To some extent though, people do merit what they labor for and so the LTV is correct.
(2) Rewards, even economical, are distributed according to Justice. And as there are different types of justice for different characters and classes, there are different distributions of rewards for different people.
(3) As such, all transactions are socially just however only if one defines justice as “giving people their due”. But since “due” is always standardized to a level of prudence, it follows that out of many economic arrangements only a few will be really ideally just. But equity is greater than justice so in some cases, it may be better to pay someone even though he didn’t deserve it.
(4) Insofar as it is the cause(s) that is credited with the reward, so it follows that the first, final and middle causes all have a claim on the product. So capital and labor and land and consumers all share some of the wealth depending (fluctuating with circumstances both psychological and external). But it seems that the lion’s share of wealth should always go the consumers or the capitalists and this depends on who is more the instrument of whom.
(5) So there are objective and subjective reasons to reward someone.
Well that’s it. I hope it provides some food for thought.
