ATTITUDE to PRIZES carrying MATERIAL REWARD

[Prakash RP]

 

What do you think a true communist should do if they're offered a prestigious award such as the Nobel Prize ? And what's the rationale behind your stance on this issue ? How do you justify the fact that prizes carry cash ? 

To my way of thinking, I don't think money can measure the value of everything. Man made money to measure the value of commodities. And it happens to be only commodities that possess value. Money canNOT measure the value of non-commodities.because non-commodities, just because they're non-commodities, have got NO value. There're things, such as oxygen in the free air or daylight from the sun, which we don't have to pay for because they're really and truly valueless non-commodities. They're valueless really and absolutely yet NOT in the least valueless. In fact, such a thing, such as oxygen in the free air, happens to be valuable immeasurably― so much so that it outmatches even the costliest commodity. It happens to be so useful that we cannot dispense with it while the costliest commodity of the world happens to be dispensable outright― so much so that not only do millions worldwide do without it, they even don't need to know what it is. 

Goods and services bought and sold for money are commodities. But prizes are NOT bought NOR sold, RIGHT ? Prizes are won by their winners, and what I view as most intriguing is the fact that they bring an amount of cash to the winners. I do not know what economic logic justifies the fact that prizes bring material reward to their winners. 

Prizes are NOT commodities, and so they canNOT possess value a commodity is possessed of. Because a prize is, like a non-commodity, valueless totally, we canNOT exchange it for money.. Thus far, what a prize means appears clear as day. But as we take cognisance of the fact that prizes bring NOT only honour, recognition, and fame but lump sums as well, it turns a RIDDLE I'm unable to crack right now. 

Do prizes possess value ? What's the rationale behind the fact that prizes are associated with money ? What economic logic justifies the fact that prizes carry financial reward ? 

I wish communists would help find answers to these unanswered, as I view them, questions and thus help puzzle out the RIDDLE at issue.

[jondwhite]

Prizes are valuable if they have a commodity (e.g. money, something to put on your next job application) with them. I could award you the prize of "healthiest living poster on this forum", but it would have no value.

[Bijou Drains]

Prakash RP wrote:

 What do you think a true communist should do if they're offered a prestigious award such as the Nobel Prize ? And what's the rationale behind your stance on this issue ? How do you justify the fact that prizes carry cash ? To my way of thinking, I don't think money can measure the value of everything. Man made money to measure the value of commodities. And it happens to be only commodities that possess value. Money canNOT measure the value of non-commodities.because non-commodities, just because they're non-commodities, have got NO value. There're things, such as oxygen in the free air or daylight from the sun, which we don't have to pay for because they're really and truly valueless non-commodities. They're valueless really and absolutely yet NOT in the least valueless. In fact, such a thing, such as oxygen in the free air, happens to be valuable immeasurably― so much so that it outmatches even the costliest commodity. It happens to be so useful that we cannot dispense with it while the costliest commodity of the world happens to be dispensable outright― so much so that not only do millions worldwide do without it, they even don't need to know what it is. Goods and services bought and sold for money are commodities. But prizes are NOT bought NOR sold, RIGHT ? Prizes are won by their winners, and what I view as most intriguing is the fact that they bring an amount of cash to the winners. I do not know what economic logic justifies the fact that prizes bring material reward to their winners. Prizes are NOT commodities, and so they canNOT possess value a commodity is possessed of. Because a prize is, like a non-commodity, valueless totally, we canNOT exchange it for money.. Thus far, what a prize means appears clear as day. But as we take cognisance of the fact that prizes bring NOT only honour, recognition, and fame but lump sums as well, it turns a RIDDLE I'm unable to crack right now. Do prizes possess value ? What's the rationale behind the fact that prizes are associated with money ? What economic logic justifies the fact that prizes carry financial reward ? I wish communists would help find answers to these unanswered, as I view them, questions and thus help puzzle out the RIDDLE at issue.

I wouldn't worry too much, mate. I don't think your going to be troubling the Nobel Prize Committee any time soon!

[Anonymous]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I wouldn't worry too much, mate. I don't think your going to be troubling the Nobel Prize Committee any time soon!

Lol. He needs to stop shouting for a start. 

[Author]

Posts