I differ with the authors on a point or two, and believe the following needs to be addressed. Adam Smith said it best: The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition, that they are going fast backwards. Smith was of course relating his observations related to the conduct of business for the wealth of nations, an archaic, nationalist ideology. The fact that Republicans champion those who have reduced the US economy to its current state, yet claim to be true patriots is among the most galling hypocrisies imaginable. Much has been said of Smiths laissez-faire position, and nearly all of it takes his position out of context. Smith opposed government support for and collusion with the corporations of his time, not labor policy. Government simply did not have a policy related to labor with the exception of supporting corporations in suppression of labors ability to organize for its benefit, or getting labor under control when it rioted. If we are ever to turn things around, Im convinced that all legislation that impedes labors ability to oppose management excess needs to be repealed, and the legislation that addresses management usurpation of labors right to negotiate be strongly enforced.
Posted on: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:46:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015