40 years after the publication of "An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith in the early 19th century, the rivalry between capitalists and landowners was at its height apex . Thomas Robert Malthus had lived through two conflicts: the industrial revolution and the landowners' control of Parliament. Malthus wrote an essay on population theory in which he challenged the English poor laws. On the other hand David Ricardo believed that the Malthusian position regarding Corn Laws was wrong as Ricardo believed that countries do not benefit from protectionist policies such as Corn Laws; however, they benefit from trade and globalization. In a protectionist society, profits fall while rents rise; for Ricardo this was a catastrophe. The wars England fought affected its food imports and the price of grain. This forced capitalists to pay higher bets and British goods became more efficient internationally. During the era of the Corn Laws, capitalists dominated the economy while landowners controlled parliament. Ricardo's iron law of wages states that wages must remain at a constant level "natural price of labor". Capitalists had to pay high wages to their workers; therefore, they found that it was easier to start importing grains. On the other hand, landowners resented imports because they depressed the prices and profits of their grains. Landowners controlled parliament; consequently, the Corn Laws passed in Parliament and remained in force until their elimination in 1846. “By 1815, with the long series of wars over, the Corn Laws became one of the most critical political issues facing the British Parliament face. The landowning class has used all its social, intellectual and political influence to obtain…half the paper…rarely, those that have the most value in return often have little or no use value. Nothing is more useful than water; but he will buy almost nothing; you can get almost nothing in exchange. A diamond, by contrast, has almost no use value; but often you can have a very large quantity of other goods in exchange. (Smith Pp.30) Furthermore, Ricardo resembles neoclassical theories in the sense that he believes that liberalizing the market for the forces of supply and demand to take control would benefit both consumers and producers and society as a whole; Ricardo was a supporter of free trade and wanted to abolish the Corn Laws. On the other hand, Malthus can be considered a protectionist in the modern era, as he wanted to protect the “status quo” and did not want to introduce any danger into the market..