I was hunting for the exact location of "Prince's Tavern" in Manchester in 1833 when I stumbled upon an Economist article from March 30, 1844 addressing the "practical consequences" of reducing the length of the factory working day from 12 hours to 10. I am always fascinating by the profound and enduring hostility of a faction of employers -- amplified by their mouthpieces in academia and the press -- to the reduction of working time. I'm amazed how often their bile and zeal leads them to compound the error of biased, unfounded assumptions with boneheaded accounting mistakes.Sound like criticism of MMT today.
Sandwichman
3 comments:
So Sandwichman manages to find somemthing wrong with an article written in 1844 opposing a cut in working hours from 12 to 10 hours a day. No really much of an achievement that!
I reckon I could find something wrong with the arguments put by coal mine owners from the same period for being allowed to employ children in coal mines.
1844 still about 15 years before Darwin...
Sound like criticism of MMT today. Tom Hickey
As if:
1) INCREASED* privileges for the banks and, by extension for the rich, the most so-called "credit worthy" of what would be, even more so than now, the PUBLIC'S credit but for PRIVATE gain
AND
2) wage slavery to government to supplement wage slavery to the private sector for the victims of the banks and the rich
isn't worthy of scorn?
*unlimited deposit guarantees for free.
*unlimited, unsecured loans from the Central Bank at zero percent.
Post a Comment