The division of labour (specialisation of tasks) results in productivity gains.
Cameron's view:
Technology determines the division of labour and is the primary determinant of productivity gains. This requires capital investment, so capital investment is actually the key determinant of productivity. The entrepreneur who invests is the inferred beneficiary of the surplus productivity benefits.
My take on this:
One hundred years ago, a philosopher, Kropotkin, postulated that the ownership of technology by a ruling class allows the subjugation of labourers because of the need for bureaucratic coordination if the work is specialised, thus leading to entrenched inequality. Each technology is the result of generations of accumulated knowledge, and by right, ought to be available freely to all. Releasing technology to the masses could therefore spur revolution by allowing decentralised, local mutual collaboration, freeing labour from the domination of the ruling class.
If we consider this from today's perspective, the previous gains in productivity required expensive machinery and capital wealth. By contrast, the cumulative tools and knowledge of scientists, programmers, engineers, lawyers and academics are now freely available at our fingertips.
If we want to shed the shackles of inequality and are brave enough to imagine a better future for our children, it might be worth embracing these tools of the future while re-examining the wisdom of the past.
So if I understand correctly:
Adam Smith:
The division of labour (specialisation of tasks) results in productivity gains.
Cameron's view:
Technology determines the division of labour and is the primary determinant of productivity gains. This requires capital investment, so capital investment is actually the key determinant of productivity. The entrepreneur who invests is the inferred beneficiary of the surplus productivity benefits.
My take on this:
One hundred years ago, a philosopher, Kropotkin, postulated that the ownership of technology by a ruling class allows the subjugation of labourers because of the need for bureaucratic coordination if the work is specialised, thus leading to entrenched inequality. Each technology is the result of generations of accumulated knowledge, and by right, ought to be available freely to all. Releasing technology to the masses could therefore spur revolution by allowing decentralised, local mutual collaboration, freeing labour from the domination of the ruling class.
If we consider this from today's perspective, the previous gains in productivity required expensive machinery and capital wealth. By contrast, the cumulative tools and knowledge of scientists, programmers, engineers, lawyers and academics are now freely available at our fingertips.
If we want to shed the shackles of inequality and are brave enough to imagine a better future for our children, it might be worth embracing these tools of the future while re-examining the wisdom of the past.
Looks like I'll have to read some translations of Kropotkin now!