I never said "fair" or "pragmatic" would be a matter of common sense. I said that income must be a fair consequence of added value. This is logical and constitutes an argument.

But income is not, as the political economy is currently configured, a fair consequence of added value. So you are making an assumption contrary to fact.

I called it pragmatic as opposed to giving "respectable" pensions to anyone, no matter their work history, because  the cost for the society seems to me to be huge. [My emphasis]

And that's where the gut comes into the picture. You could have researched this point. You could have found actual facts and figures. Those figures would have shown you that paying out even very respectable pensions does not impose an unbearably huge cost to society.

Instead, you allowed your gedankeneksperiment to contradict the results of a widely accepted real experiment. That could be called a lot of things, but "enlightened" isn't one of them.

Respectable public pensions do not cause fiscal crises. There are no military threats to the safety and prosperity of the people of Europe and North America. The cost of running a private clearing system - when you include the inevitable ransom money - far exceeds any reasonable estimate of the cost of running a public clearing system.

All of these are quite factual matters of public record. No amount of "pragmatism" or "rationality" can change this: You are entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.