Addenda 3

There are two ways to find one's self more effectively wealthy than ever the case previous.

1) more work
2) more risk.

Work, as the primitive commodity, is clearly the most fundamental measurement of value.
But risk, as the willingness to provide work on speculation, may also be rewarded with an estimation of value.

One's work ought to provide for one's needs of preservation through nourishment and protection.
If one's labor is not immediately directed toward those tasks, it must be exchangeable for one or both of those needs.
When one's exchangeable labor is not sufficient to acquire nourishment and protection, one ought redirect their energy to more direct efforts of finding/raising food, or creating clothing and shelter.
If one can neither provide directly for their needs, or exchange their labor to provide for their needs, they will die unless propped up by family (genetic or political).
An economic society may be primarily measured by the indirectness of one's labor toward providing for one's needs.
A society in which all farm, weave, and build, is dissimilar to the society in which each role is filled by another person.
As to the superiority of one form or the other, I will not hastily judge.
Obviously, specialization can provide more for more with less. But, perhaps generalization can provide less, with the same, for all?

Risk is the willingness to labor in vain if there is a possibility that the labor may somehow not actually be in vain.
Risk tells the worker to work more as this may yield more nourishment or security.
Risk tells the worker to work differently as this may provide as much nourishment or security with less energy.
Risk tells the worker to part with what is known in exchange for the possibility that the unknown is superior.

Either Labor or Risk in isolation is senseless. One labors to nurture an apple tree for its fruit, thought there is the risk of loss by storm, beast, or plunder. One offers the tended apples for sale though there is the risk that the potatoes purchased are not good to eat.
Yet, one ought not tend a tree for boredom's sake alone. This is a hobby. It is a waste.
Neither ought one take his new potatoes and senselessly offer them for resale, this ultimately devalues the potato and thus the first exchange.

Addenda 2

There is labor which you are given.
There is labor which you steal.
There is labor which you enact.
There is labor which you buy.

One is given labor through inheritance, friendship, loyalty, parental nurture, governmental subsidy, or supernatural providence.
Some say it is all super natural providence, but they have not thought it through well enough.

One steals labor through manipulation, intimidation, taxation, or literal theft.
Some are skilled in squeezing others for a desired deed or non-deed through guilt or flattery.
Others use guns, or threats, or raised voices or fabrications of rank.
Some use the government. This is Socialism, Fascism, Marxism, Communism, etc. From the able to the needy.
Some just steal. A Watch, a necklace, a car.

One's self may be employed as the primary producer of one's economic output.
This has been more popular (necessary) in the past than it is today.
Still, the theoretical produce of one's mind and body are the essential gauges of human economic value.

But, one may find themselves in control of the labor of another when some other person places a definite value on their time.
So, if someone describes their self-perceived economic value in a way which corresponds to another's perception of the same, then the one may buy the labor of the other. This is the deepest economic kernel of employment.

So, which is best? A balanced portfolio of all but the second.

lame.

The only people who read this are scammers.

Addenda 1

Smith may well be correct that specialization is the secret to economic efficiency.
But let me argue that niche generalization is the secret to wealth.
Is not the conductor paid more than the violinist? Why?
Because the conductor can play the violin, oboe, and trumpet.
Perhaps not a "true proficient," but neither a slouch, and clearly the master.
The composer and orchestrator are even second to the conductor.
And further, the man who runs the symphony is greater.
For the man who can balance an orchestra, a dance troupe, a theater, and benefactors; he is greatest.

Who is worth more?
The man with the chain saw, or the man who knows which tree brings the most at market?
Neither.
The man who knows both and more is the one who can run the company profitably.
For one must know the material, the technique, the process, and the final product all at once to supply the good demanded.
A man must build an armoire before he can properly hew the log.

But, perhaps I must bow to Smith again.
Are not these monarchs of particular industrial management only another speciality?
Yes, for there is but one manager per company, and perhaps a few per category of business.

Yet, if a man could be the manager of many companies, is he still more specialized?
Him, we would call a mogul.
Yet, he is most specialized.
Though he is the Renaissance man.
Alas.