3 ms·
You are somewhat right: Americans do see people who give more to the society than they take as more worthy than ones who take more than they give. But the marke
by pandaman 3y ago
You are somewhat right: Americans do see people who give more to the society than they take as more worthy than ones who take more than they give. But the market is not a moral measure in itself but is the measure of the value one gives and takes from the society. If you give more than you take you accumulate wealth and vice versa, if you take more than give you are getting poorer.
- lapcat 3y ago> If you give more than you take you accumulate wealth This sounds like an oxymoron, but nonetheless you are right that it's a distinctively American credo.
- pandaman 3y agoAlice grows an apple and sells it to Bob for a dollar. Alice now has a dollar more because she gave her labor and services and the dollar is the value of these given. Bob took Alice's labor and services and Bob is now poorer a dollar because he has taken a dollar worth these. There is no moral judgment here and nothing is oxymoronic.
- lapcat 3y agoI have no desire for this giver/taker credo to be justified to me, so please don't bother. However, I would say that the example given is overly simplistic, almost childishly so, and ignores many critical details, such as how Alice acquired land and an apple tree, why Bob doesn't have land or an apple tree, how Bob got a dollar, etc. Not to mention that everyone needs to eat food, including Alice. (It's unlikely that Alice could survive on an all-apple diet.) Thus, if buying food makes you a "taker", then we're almost all takers. Certainly the wealthiest people in the world aren't farmers, and I'm pretty sure they don't grow their own food either.
- pandaman 3y agoIt's a simple explanation and not a justification. From your comment I figured you don't seem to understand but it appears you don't want to accept it, that's fine too.
- hermitcrab 3y agoSomeone who works 3 jobs for a pittance, while raising a family, is IMHO giving a lot more than they take, but will not accumulate wealth. Conversely you can become fabulously rich running a private equity company, while definitely taking more than you give.
- pandaman 3y agoIs someone digging trenches from dusk to dawn giving a lot to the society even if nobody asked for that and pays nothing for it? From the perspective of "hard work is always great" she or he does, from the perspective "the market determines what labor is worth to the society" - no, there is no benefit from that work even though the person gets tired much more than, say, somebody who writes code for a lot of money.
- hermitcrab 3y agoOk, so a private equity fund manager can easily make 100x what a nurse makes. Are you saying that this is because the fund manager contributes much more to society?
- pandaman 3y agoI believe you are now trying word games, with going from value to some undefined quantities. Evidently the society values the fund manager's contribution more than a nurse's. If it's "more" or "less" depends on whatever measure you are now thinking about outside the market value.