Should everyone be paid based on merit/outcome? E.g. I go to the oncologist because cytometry tests show I have stage 4 lymphoma. We go through a years long treatment, at the end of which I may be a responder or a non-responder. A free marketeer *should* argue that the oncologist shouldn't be paid until an assessment of response can be made. Nonresponders shouldn't have to pay (or get a refund like you would buying, say, a blender off the internet). Responders have to foot the bill for the whole enterprise.
Obviously, there are plenty of other options, all of which are negotiated asymmetrically between the chronically fatigued cancer patient and the battery of multinational corporate lawyers driving Teslas. But the gist of the market is merit/outcome based. Right? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
