re: #66 Belafon

[Embedded content]

If I were on twitter, this old socialist would probably post something like this from Reddit:

Adam Smith believed in a minimum wage equal to twice what it would cost one working person to raise a family with two kids. Did you know that? do YOU know who Adam Smith REALLY was?

AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS.

By Adam Smith CHAPTER VIII. OF THE WAGES OF LABOUR. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm#2HCH0008 “A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that, one with another, they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself: But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an able-bodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above-mentioned, or many other, I shall not take upon me to determine. “

he also believed high rewards for labor were a sure sign of increasing national wealth. “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. “

he also believed in challenging monopolies and what we would call today “class warfare” from the same chapter:

“We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate.”

Of course, this socialist has actually read Smith. Most “free enterprise” asshats haven’t.