>>I remember reading somewhere a passage that asserted that not adhering to guilds was exactly why the United States came to lead in the steel industry.
>>
>>I guess you could say the same of China today. ;-) The main beneficiaries are not the poor old farm boys who go without safety gear and training so that Mr Carnegie can get a bit richer.
>>
>>Not that I'm advocating fierce unionized attacks on owner profits: IMHO there has to be a balance that rewards workers fairly while delivering an attractive rate of return for whatever investment underpins the business. And sometimes when things get tough, both sides may need to give a little. We seem to have forgetten that, as evidenced by firms going out of business because of worker demands or bosses expecting to be paid mega-millions while workers get laid off.
>
>
>If there is a flaw in capitalism it is at the exteme edges of income. Therefore, considering a limitation on extreme income for both organized labour and business owners might be in order, but as soon as this idea is postulated, the further thought of limiting the lower end of income to prevent poverty becomes a part of the issue. And behold! Socialism is born. So, far there is no perfect system, so the best system should rule. Which one is best?