Remunerations Determined by Markets or Politics?

This is not quite correct.  Aristotle’s aim was not to define a “just price” but rather he was concerned with morality as it applied to exchange.  He though it was important to ensure that exchanges were proportionate and equitable.

For example, in his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle introduces commutative and distributive justice. Distributive justice concerns how goods are distributed in society while commutative justice focused on balancing exchanges.

He believed that fair exchanges were essential for social harmony and that people should engage in transactions that leave both parties satisfied, maintaining balance rather than exploitation. His approach to fairness meant that goods or services should not have wildly differing values within an exchange; instead, each good or service should “equalize” the relationship between buyer and seller, creating a sense of proportional justice.

Consider… Aristotle used a mathematical analogy: he suggested that exchanges should follow a proportional relationship.  For instance, if a builder provides a house to a shoemaker, the value of that house should correspond to the number of shoes that would “equalize” the exchange. This way, each party feels they’ve received fair compensation. This concept was further developed in his example of how different professions could relate to one another through trade, creating a web of balance in the marketplace.

From Ambrose/Augustine through Isidore and up to Aquinas tthey didn’t articulate a systematic theory of just price as Aquinas would, but their teachings shaped the moral landscape. Their writings stressed that Christian ethics demanded fairness, honesty, and charity in economic transactions, opposing usury and condemning exploitation, especially of the poor. This foundational emphasis on morality in exchange deeply influenced the Scholastic thinkers of the 12th and 13th centuries, particularly in the development of a more formalized theory of just price within the framework of canon law and economic thought.

Aquinas attempted to develop a theory of prices but failed.  He essentially posited what is basically the labor theory of value.  He also didnt seem to get the concept of opportunity cost.  This lead him to draw incorrect conclusions.

The discussion of usury is actually quite interesting in the Summa (for example question 78 in the second part of the second part).

“I answer that, To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. In order to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain things the use of which consists in their consumption: thus we consume wine when we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kin is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. On like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury.

On the other hand, there are things the use of which does not consist in their consumption: thus to use a house is to dwell in it, not to destroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be granted: for instance, one man may hand over to another the ownership of his house while reserving to himself the use of it for a time, or vice versa, he may grant the use of the house, while retaining the ownership. For this reason a man may lawfully make a charge for the use of his house, and, besides this, revendicate the house from the person to whom he has granted its use, as happens in renting and letting a house.

Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 5; Polit. i, 3) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange: and consequently the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or alienation whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as a man is bound to restore other ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury.”

Objection 5 is quite interesting as it seems to anticipate opportunity cost:

“Objection 5. Further, it does not seem to be in itself sinful to accept a price for doing what one is not bound to do. But one who has money is not bound in every case to lend it to his neighbor. Therefore it is lawful for him sometimes to accept a price for lending it.”

His reply to the objections shows he didnt consider opportunity cost nor borrowing for the sake of profit.

“Reply to Objection 5. He that is not bound to lend, may accept repayment for what he has done, but he must not exact more. Now he is repaid according to equality of justice if he is repaid as much as he lent. Wherefore if he exacts more for the usufruct of a thing which has no other use but the consumption of its substance, he exacts a price of something non-existent: and so his exaction is unjust.”

What the Salamanca school and the second scholastics did was develop the field of economics in order to better understand exchange and prices.  They then applied Scholastic morality to a more developed field of economics and concluded that voluntary exchange in a free market results in morally just prices.

UAE is a part of global economy par excellence. The Emirs don’t and can’t set remunerations.