As Adam Smith noted in "The Wealth of Nations":
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
But, Mr. Smith was speaking before the socialists created the welfare state!
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
1 comment:
Is it also "socialism" when already wealthy bankers and CEO's run their company into the ground, costing the taxpayers hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, but are then given millions in bonuses for "oustanding performance" (and allowed to keep their job)?....or is only "socialism" when the people say they are sick of the shell games, bailouts, legalized theft, and the obliteration of TRILLIONS of dollars in middle class assets?
Post a Comment