[dredmorbius]

But all too often the resources to pay a living wage exist but the market has been manipulated such that the labourer won't be able to claim that.

Which is a great deal of what Smith discusses.

And no, it's not welfare. It's balancing political power.

Because, "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power."

(Yeah, Smith again.)

[zeroname]

> But all too often the resources to pay a living wage exist but the market has been manipulated such that the labourer won't be able to claim that.

These are orthogonal. A fair market price simply isn't equal to the price that is required to sustain someone's living. A fair market price also is not equal to the price that could be paid (i.e. the "resources available").

The laborer whose price is raised to some arbitrary limit that is above the market rate will find demand for their labor disappear in equal measure.

[dredmorbius]

"A fair market"

... does not exist.

And the market, and economy, should serve the people. Not the people the market.

"POLITICAL œconomy, considered as a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator, proposes two distinct objects: first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services. It proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign."

Again: Smith.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/smith-an-inquiry-into-the...

[zeroname]

It's "fair (market) price", not "fair market".

> And the market, and economy, should serve the people. Not the people the market.

This is a meaningless slogan. The market is the people. Demand reflects what people need. Supply reflects what people have to offer. Prices reflect their agreement.

[dredmorbius]

At this point in the game you should simply admit that whatever it is you're arguing has absolutely nothing to do with Adam Smith.

Because it doesn't.