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.