 We're going to talk today about the division of labor and social order, the division of labor and social order. This is a timely topic. I don't know if you've been reading the papers, but there's a lot of social disorder that is going on. And one of the sources that certain parties in our society, if you want to call it that, see as a root of this disorder is the evil of capitalism. And this is not a brand new idea that capitalism is the root of conflict. What I want to do with this lecture is help us to see that far from creating conflict and social disorder, the market division of labor is one of the chief socially productive things that we can participate in. In fact, it's the root of society. And here we have two contrasting views. One is by Herb Thompson, a professor of economics in Australia. In a paper he wrote, a conflict in the social relations of capitalism. He says, rather than seeing conflict as an anomaly, it is concluded that conflict is an essential and inherent component of the social relations found in capitalism. So that's one way to look at it. Capitalism is socially destructive. It breeds conflict. Otherwise, bad news. And then, of course, there is a passage from someone you probably have heard of. Ludwig von Mises in his book Socialism writes, the greater productivity of work under the division of labor is a unifying influence. It leads men to regard each other as comrades in a joint struggle for welfare rather than as competitors in a struggle for existence. It makes friends out of enemies, peace out of war, society out of individuals. And so part of what we're going to be doing today is seeing, why is this the case? Now, to understand how the division of labor contributes to society and the social order, we need to first understand the nature of production. And you've been acquainted with this to a certain extent already. It's helpful just to remind ourselves that production is action, first and foremost. Production is action. And action is applying means according to ideas to achieve an end or to attain an end. So why do people act? To attain an end, that's what they want. Why do people brush their teeth because they want to achieve wider teeth and fresh breath? Why do producers produce? They produce to attain a product that they can sell for a profit. That's why producers produce. So to do so, to reap a profit, to maximize their profits, producers seek to economize just as consumers do. Consumers economize when they go to the grocery store. Producers economize as they engage in production. So we want to keep those basic fundamental principles of human action in mind as we go through our discussion about the division of labor and the social order. Now to begin, we want to think about the fact that producers are trying to produce to obtain a profit, psychic or economic either way. And so it's helpful to remember there are essentially two modes of production. Milton Shapiro talks about this in his Foundations of the Market Price System. He has a pretty good discussion about this. Two modes of production. He says, one is a direct use production. Direct use production is, as the name implies, there is a direct correspondence between what people want and what they produce. They produce goods so that they can use them. People grow a garden to eat the vegetables that they grow. People build a hut to live in. People raise a cow to milk to drink their own milk or to drink the cow's milk. People raise steers to slaughter and eat the steer. People make a few pieces of their own clothing to wear. In other words, there's a direct correspondence between what people produce and what they then consume. This would be a mode of production that is a self-sufficiency mode of production. People only consume what they produce. And so none of their production is exchanged in the market. None of their production is traded for any other thing to anybody else. And if we think about that mode of production, the places where those societies where that mode is relatively more prominent tend to be found in more poorer, less developed countries. It tends to be more primitive economies. Tends to be economies where there is more of a hand-to-mouth existence. So that's one mode of production. The other mode of production that we want to become familiar with is production for exchange. Or as the name implies, production not oriented towards the consumption of the producer himself or herself, but production for the market. The production is oriented towards what can be sold in the market. People produce goods not because they want to consume them, but people produce goods because they think they can trade them for something that they want even more. And this mode of production is production in the market division of labor. That's the mode of production we find in the market division of labor, which is our topic for today. And this is the primary mode of production in more developed, wealthier societies. In more developed, wealthier societies, we find production oriented towards the market. Why is that the case? Well, because there are great productive benefits from the market division of labor. And so before we get to that, understanding the benefits, however, we want to talk a little bit about, oh, what is the division of labor? What's the nature of the division of labor? And that's what we're going to talk about in turn two next. Now, the division of labor can be defined very nicely as specialization of production according to efficiency. Specialization of production according to efficiency. And in that definition, there are two very important words. One is specialization, and the other is efficiency. Specialization according to efficiency. So let's talk about specialization. When we say specialization, what do we mean by specialization? Specialization occurs when each person produces a particular good or a set of goods in excess of his own personal consumption. That's specializing. I do not usually go around lecturing economics for my own benefit. There are people that will tell you that I like hearing myself talk, and quite frankly, on occasion I do. But typically, I don't just walk around always lecturing on economics because I just like to lecture on economics. I'm not doing it for my own consumption. I lecture on economics for other people to earn income, then I can then spend that income on other goods that I desire. And so specialization means each person specializes or produces a particular good or a set of goods in excess of his personal consumption. I like to consider the case of James P. Snee. James P. Snee is the chairman and CEO of Hormel. Now, Hormel is a large, successful, long-lived food processing corporation, processed meat corporation. They are the producers of SPAM. You may have heard of SPAM. SPAM is in its fifth year of record-setting annual sales. For the last five successive years, they have sold more SPAM than the year before. And they're on track in 2020 to break the record again. It turns out that SPAM is an excellent recession food. Recessions are good for SPAM. And SPAM is good for the recession, I guess. But Sam Snee, overseeing Hormel, oversaw the production of approximately 94 million cans of SPAM last year. 94 million cans of SPAM. He did not do that because he wanted to eat 94 million cans of SPAM. In fact, it's probably good for him that he did not. If he ate 94 million cans of SPAM, he would probably not be with us. He would have died of a stroke. I don't know if you've had SPAM. It's relatively high in sodium content. His blood pressure would have shot through the roof. His veins would have probably, it would have been a mess. It would have been like the big fat man in Money Python's Amine of Life. It would be just disgusting. Thankfully, he did not do this. He produced 94 million cans of SPAM, approximately. Give or take a can. And he did that, why? Because he and his company could exchange it for money. He was selling SPAM to a lot of other people so he could get money in the market economy to do with as he saw fit. Now, at the same time that he was overseeing the production of SPAM for the benefits of millions, his consumptive ends are met by others. There are other people specializing in the production of other goods. And their excess supply was being offered in the market. And he was buying some of this excess supply. So he was buying food, clothing, shelter, creature comforts. I don't know what he buys. I mean, a smarty phone, bubblegum and cotton candy. I don't know. Well, whatever he wants to consume, he's buying it from other people who are specializing in producing those goods. And so in the market division of labor, producers produce for the market and they go into the market to consume what they want that's produced by other people who are also specializing. So that's specialization. Now, what, or who, I should say who, not what. Who produces what? Who produces what within the division of labor will be determined by efficiency, this term efficiency. Efficiency means in general getting the most you can out of a fixed amount of resources. Being the most productive you can with the same resource. If you can produce more with the same, you get more output with the same input, you're being more productive. And who produces what in the division of labor? Who decides they're gonna specialize in producing spam? Who decides who's gonna specialize in producing toothbrushes and toothpaste and economics lectures? That's determined according to efficiency in a market economy. The different tasks are taken up by the efficient producers. Now, economists generally call this principle of the division of labor. This principle actually applies to all factors of production. There's a division of capital goods according to efficiency. There's also a division of land according to efficiency. So it's not just the division of labor, it's the division of labor and the division of land and the division of capital goods according to efficiency. Now, Mises referred to the division of labor as the fundamental social phenomena. He says in human action, the fundamental social phenomenon is the division of labor and human cooperation. And I think he's right about this. And we could understand this, the Division of Labor as socially fundamental in two senses. One, we can say, look, it's been with us since the beginning of human history, as far as we can tell. In other words, it seems like it's something that is fundamentally human. The Division of Labor specialization something that's fundamentally human. It's what humans do, right? It'd be like if we had a Geico commercial, right? Say, well, why do humans engage in the Division of Labor? It's what humans do, right? That's what we do. As far back in human history, we go. We can look at the ancient history of the ancient Near East. We look at the history of ancient Mesopotamia. We look at the history of ancient Greece, the history of ancient Rome. We find recording of specialization in the Division of Labor. There's actually quite a good, but brief, but nevertheless good analysis of the Division of Labor by Plato in Plato's Republic. So it goes back for a long time. If we go back, for instance, to the early biblical literature, and you go back to the first family mentioned to Genesis, we find Cain and Abel identified by specific tasks, right? Abel was a keeper of sheep. Cain was a farmer, a tiller of the ground. The descendants of Cain were also identified by specific tasks, right? So you had Jable, who had cattle. He was a rancher, evidently. Jubal was a musician. And my own personal favorite, Tubal Cain, was a metalsmith, right? So he sounds like he probably had a heavy metal band or something, right? In fact, if you have a speed metal band, Tubal Cain would be a great band name, I think. But I'm not advocating that. I'm just saying if you had one, it might not be a bad. You could use that for free. I'm giving that away. But my point is, as far back in history as we want to go, we find evidence that people specialized, engaged in division of labor. Secondly, another reason why we could say that the division of labor is the fundamental social phenomena is that it is the great impetus for the formation of society. In other words, it's one of the main reasons why society occurs and society happens. People form societies, and they move societies in certain communities so they can integrate into that region's division of labor. You think about it, the main reason people move from one place to another is what? For a job, for a calling. So you could move some place to plug into that community's division of labor. And so it is the great impetus for society's forming. It's the reason why we don't all live as self-sufficient families, that people come together and participate in the division of labor and help one another out in that regard. Now one of the important insights that Mises makes in human action is that society then, society which is the result of the division of labor, society therefore is only possible because of the greater productivity of the division of labor and people's recognition of this fact. There are sort of two necessary conditions, if you will, for society to develop. One is the greater productivity of the division of labor, and secondly, people's recognition of this fact. I mean, the greater productivity of the division of labor, that's the benefit, that's the reason why it makes sense to participate in the division of labor. But then, I mean, suppose that's true, but suppose that nobody recognized that. Suppose that it is true that the division of labor is more productive, but nobody knows that, nobody sees it, nobody perceives that, there would then, of course, people wouldn't actually engage in the division of labor either. Because action is not just applying means to achieve ends, it's applying means according to ideas to achieve ends. Action is driven by people's understanding of linking means and ends, and so people understand, they recognize that the market division of labor is more productive than direct use production, and therefore, they have an incentive to participate in it, and as they do so, society is built and developed. So, why is it, and how do we know that the division of labor enhances productivity? Well, this is something that was not invented, or this is an idea that was not didn't originate with the Austrians, this is something that is generally understood amongst a host of economists. We're gonna be looking at a simple example to demonstrate this fact using our two friends, Groucho and Harpo, and they, in this little society, not quite a society yet, but this little historical, or a historical example, Groucho and Harpo both can produce mangoes and beef, and we find in the market division of labor that people find it in their interest to specialize in making those goods at which they are most efficient. And we said who produces what is determined by efficiency, and so we're gonna see, well, how does this play itself out? How does this play itself out? Well, consider the case of Groucho and Harpo. Groucho and Harpo are two people, both have some ability, some talent, some tool, some capital goods, some resources, and some time that could allow them to produce either mangoes or beef. And in this case, we can see that Groucho, if we look at their production possibilities, Groucho could produce, if he spent all of his land labor and capital goods in time producing mangoes, he could produce 300 mangoes in a given period of time. Or if he used all of his land labor and capital goods and time to produce beef, he could produce 600 pounds of beef in the same period of time. Harpo, on the other hand, if he spent all of his land labor and capital goods and time in this, whatever period we're talking about producing mangoes, he could produce 100 mangoes. Or if he specialized the other way and spent all of his land labor capital goods and his time producing beef, he could produce 400 pounds of beef. And so on the basis of these numbers, we could look at, say, relative efficiencies, right? Groucho can produce 300 mangoes or 600 pounds of beef per time period. Harpo can either produce 100 mangoes or 400 pounds of beef in the same time period. Now, if we look at this, then this data tell us that Groucho is what we could call more proficient, more proficient in the production of both goods. What economists often call absolute advantage. Proficiency is another word for absolute advantage. So if you look at, say, mangoes, for instance. Groucho, if he specializes in mango production, how many can he produce? 300. Harpo, if he specializes in mango production, how much can he produce? 100. So Groucho is better at mango production. Well, what about beef production? If Groucho specializes in beef production, he can produce 600 pounds of beef. Harpo, if he specializes in beef production, he produces 400 pounds of beef. Groucho wins again. And so Groucho is more proficient in producing both goods. Harpo is more proficient at producing, or is proficient at producing neither good. And this, by the way, we're gonna see then that the market division of labor is of great benefit, not only or even especially for the one who's most proficient, but the market division of labor is very helpful for the one who is the least proficient. Because we're gonna find out that Harpo is not doomed to poverty. He's not doomed to a hand-to-mouth existence, even though he is proficient in producing neither good. Because, remember, in the division of labor, people specialize according to efficiency. In other words, they specialize according to what economists often call comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is determined by who's proficient, or who's efficient in what? And the question then becomes, okay, who is efficient in the, who's the efficient producer of what? Who's the proficient, or who's the efficient producer of what good? And how do we know? Well, efficiency, comparative advantage is determined by the opportunity cost of production, the opportunity cost of production. And to cut to the chase, we'll just say that the person has a comparative advantage in the good at which he is the least opportunity cost producer. He is the low opportunity cost producer. And whatever good that a person has, the low opportunity cost of producing, that's where his comparative advantage lies. Now, remember, opportunity cost is the value of the foregone alternative, right? Now, here, we're not really talking about value yet. We're just talking about units. So it's the foregone alternative. So we look at mangoes. What's the opportunity cost of Groucho and Harpo to produce mangoes? Well, remember, if Groucho specializes in mango production, he can produce 300 mangoes. But to do that, he gives up the opportunity of producing 600 pounds of beef. So for every mango he produces, he gives up two pounds of beef. So his opportunity cost of producing mangoes is two pounds of beef. Harpo, on the other hand, for every, he can specialize and produce 100 mangoes, but to do that, he gives up the opportunity of producing 400 pounds of beef. So for every mango he produces, he gives up four pounds of beef. So his opportunity cost of producing mangoes is four, four beef. And so if you look at this case then, it costs Groucho two pounds of beef to produce mangoes. It costs Harpo four pounds of beef to produce mangoes. Who has a lower opportunity cost producing mangoes? Well, it'd be Groucho, right? Two is less than four, right? Even in the core, I think. Even in core math, even in outcomes-based education, I think two is still less than four, right? So Groucho is the opportunity cost winner. He is the one who's more efficient. He's the one that has the comparative advantage. Well, what about beef? To produce one pound of beef, if Groucho specializes in producing beef, he can produce 600 pounds of beef, but he has to give up the opportunity of producing 300 mangoes. So it costs him a half a mango for every pound of beef that he produces. Harpo, on the other hand, if he specializes in beef production, he can produce 400 pounds of beef, but he gives up the opportunity of producing 100 mangoes. So every pound of beef costs him one fourth of a mango. So in this case, who has a lower opportunity cost of producing beef? Well, it's Harpo, right? One fourth is less than one half, right? So Harpo is the winner, so to speak. And so while Groucho is proficient, while Groucho has an absolute advantage in producing both mangoes and beef, we find that Groucho has a comparative advantage in producing mangoes. He's efficient at producing mangoes. Harpo has a comparative advantage. He's efficient at producing beef. And so we see then who's more efficient than what? And we find that as Groucho and Harpo, and by extension everybody else, specialize in the production of the good at which they are most efficient, there are significant productive and also consumptive benefits from this specialization. So if you look at production, you wanna see, okay, how are their production benefits from specialization according to, and production according to efficiency? Well, we have two different scenarios here. Production for direct use and production according to efficiency. And production for direct use is a case where both Groucho and Harpo produce both mangoes and beef just for themselves, right? Because they're directly consuming the goods that they're producing. And in this case, they're dividing their time and the resources in half. Half of their time and resources are spent producing mangoes. The other half spent producing beef. And in this scenario then, going havesies, if you will, Groucho produces 150 mangoes and 300 pounds of beef. Harpo does the same thing. He divides his time and his resources in half. And so instead of specializing in producing 100 mangoes, he produces 50 mangoes with half of his resources and time. Instead of specializing in producing 400 pounds of beef, he produces 200 pounds of beef with half of his resources and time. And both the parties are producing the goods for their own direct consumption. Now, if you sum all their production up, if you just sort of take Groucho plus Harpo equals total, we sum them all up, we find that in total Groucho and Harpo together produce 200 mangoes and 500 pounds of beef. Now, if we compare that case to what happens in specialization, we find that there are benefits in production. In other words, two of them together, as they specialize, can produce more total mangoes and beef. And in this case, Harpo specializes completely in beef production. Harpo specializes completely in beef production. So he produces zero mangoes and 400 pounds of beef. Groucho partially specializes. He doesn't fully specialize in mango production, but he specializes spending three quarters of his time and his landlain recapital goods producing mangoes and only one quarter of his time in the resource of producing beef. And as he does this, he produces then 225 mangoes and 150 pounds of beef. And if you then sum up that production, we find that production of both goods increase. The production of mangoes increases from 200 to 225. Production of beef increases from 500 to 550. So we have a 25 mango increase in mango production and we have a 50 pound increase in beef production. So just by specializing, even relatively specializing, that doesn't have to be absolute but any form of pushing towards specialization according to efficiency, we find that total output increases. Total output increases because both parties are able to produce those goods at which they are the low cost producer. And so there are benefits in production. Now it's important to recognize that people, again, don't produce for production's sake. People produce in order to consume. People grow mangoes so somebody can eat mangoes, right? Mr. Snee produces spam so somebody can consume spam. And so what really shows the benefit of the Division of Labor is not only the production benefits but we have consumption benefits as well. The point is that both parties, both Groucho and Harpo, both the one who is the most proficient at everything and the one who is most proficient at nothing, both parties benefit in consumption from specialization and the Division of Labor. So Groucho and Harpo, let's say, they come to an agreement and of course this agreement is gonna be there. Some agreement to exchange has to be there for specialization to make sense but we'll talk about that in a little bit. But they come to agreement and say, well, okay, let's agree to trade mangoes for beef at a ratio of one mango for three pounds of beef at a one to three ratio. One to three ratio, one mango for three pounds of beef. So Harpo trades 180 pounds of beef to Groucho for 60 mangoes. Groucho trades 60 mangoes to Harpo for 180 pounds of beef. Well, if we do that, we can see then as they engage in production, remember Groucho produced 225 mangoes and 150 pounds of beef. Harpo produced zero mangoes and 400 pounds of beef. When the Groucho, he trades away 60 mangoes, right? So he's left with 165, 225 minus 60 is 165. And then he gets 180 pounds of beef in return. So added to the 150 pounds that he produced, he gets an additional 180, that leaves him with 330 pounds of beef that he can then consume. He's a big meat lover. That's the, when he goes to get a pizza, it's a meat lover's pizza. It's what's for dinner. Harpo, remember doesn't grow any mangoes, but when he trades away the beef, he receives 60 mangoes in return. He trades away 180 pounds of beef. So he produced 400, he traded away 180, that leaves 220. Left for him. Now, if you compare that to what they were doing for direct use, you will remember that Groucho, if they were gonna be producing, according to direct use production for their own use, Groucho was producing 150 mangoes, now he's able to consume 165. Groucho produced and consumed 300 pounds of beef, now he can consume 330. Harpo produced and consumed 50 mangoes, now he can consume 60. Harpo produced and consumed 200 pounds of beef, now he can consume 220. So we see then that not only are there productive gains, according to, if we participate in the Market Division of Labor, more importantly, there are consumption gains. Groucho is able to consume 15 more mangoes and 30 more pounds of beef than he would if he was producing for direct use production. Harpo is able to consume 10 more mangoes and 20 more pounds of beef than he would if he also participated in only direct use production. So specialization in the Market Division of Labor allows us both to produce and consume more than we could if we were left to only direct use self-sufficiency production. That's the benefit of the Division of Labor that Mises was talking about. That's the benefit that as people recognize this that gives them an incentive to participate in the Division of Labor and then as they do this, work to develop and form society. Now it's important, we should note that the improved productivity is not, shall we say, the result of specialization per se, right? In other words, if both parties specialize in producing goods that they're really bad at producing, that specialization per se won't necessarily make everybody better off, right? It's specialization according to efficiency, specialization according to efficiency. Well that in some sense begs the question then, well what accounts for the differences in the relative costs of production? What accounts for why certain people are more efficient at producing different goods? And the short answer is the variety we find in humans and in nature. The variety we find in humans and in nature, right? There are differences in the suitability of natural resources, for instance, that drives comparative advantage. There is not, for example, a lot of king crab production in the sandhills of western Nebraska. One reason there is not is there are no king crabs in western Nebraska. Why? Because there's no saltwater there. There are no bays, right? Chesapeake or otherwise, right? There are, there's no Alaska Bay. The natural resources are not there. What you do find is lots and lots of cattle. Why? Well one reason is because there are vast grassy range land, grassy ranges in the sandhills of Nebraska that are particularly suited for raising cattle and cattle production. So the differences in the suitability of natural resources is a big reason why different people are more efficient at producing different things. We could also say the differences in given capital endowments. Certain people in the sandhills, they have a lot of tools that are good at used for raising cattle. There's fences, there are trucks that are used to transport steers, there are pickups, there are quarter horses, right? There are auto gates that are things that you put in a road that cows don't like to walk on. So you don't have to have an actual physical gate that keeps the cows in the different pastures so we don't have property rights disputes over who owns what cow. But all of those things, again, if someone owns all of those things, that automatically would make them relatively more proficient at raising cattle if they knew what they were doing with those tools. On the other hand, you can imagine those people that have developed an affinity and a success at harvesting king crabs. They also probably have a set of capital goods that make them very suitable for doing that. Finally, of course, a third difference, a third reason that determines who is efficient at producing what would be the differences in the skill and desirability of labor, right? Some people are just, they're very good at animal husbandry, right? They just have a knack for raising cattle efficiently. They can kind of just tell if a steer is healthy, if it's not, if it's looking kind of peaked, we better get it treated. They just have a sense of how things run, but they wouldn't know a thing about trying to produce king crabs in Alaska. On the other hand, the king crab fisherman, very good at what he does, knows what he does, likes what he does, perhaps, wouldn't know a thing about being a cattle rancher in Nebraska. And so the difference in skill or desirability of labor helps determine efficiency. Even if someone says a natural athlete, right? A good example would be, he's been in the news recently, Michael Jordan. You may have heard of Michael Jordan. Recently, good basketball player. Great basketball player, right? Well, some people know this, not everybody knows this, but some people know that he also tried out for baseball, right? And I don't know, I'm not sure if you ever actually made it out of the minor leagues, not for very long time. Now, I know some people will like that. Well, I say, well, why did he quit that? He stopped that and went back to basketball. And people on that said, why did he do that? Well, because he was a horrible baseball player. Well, have you ever made it to the minor leagues? You don't get to the minor leagues by being a horrible baseball player, right? He was talented enough to play for a while, but the point was he was a lot better playing basketball, right? So his skill of playing basketball was way better than his skill of playing baseball. So the point is the differences in the skill and desirability of labor skills, the difference in the skill or desirability of the labor is one thing that will help somebody be more efficient than somebody else at doing a particular thing. Now, the example that we gave about who's producing mangoes and beef is an example of the, or is an illustration, I should say, of the Law of Association. The Law of Association is essentially the law that each factor of production is efficient in some line of production. Each factor of production is efficient in some line of production. It's, the Law of Association is a development and universalization of the law of comparative advantage by Mises. Mises was the one that coined, I think he coined the term or used it to significant effect the term law of association. And this is a more universal law because again, as I mentioned before, it applies not only to labor but also to land and capital goods. Each factor, each parcel of land, each capital good, each labor, unit of labor is utilized in the market division of labor is utilized according to efficiency. And as each factor is utilized according to efficiency, people will reap the most output for the resources utilized. Now, an important implication here then is that employment can be expanded indefinitely. That we don't really, in a market division of labor, we don't have to worry about people running out of things to do. Because no matter how much is produced, there, as long as people are able to specialize according to efficiency, there's always a niche for them to find a, there's a niche for them to occupy in adding to the total product of society that benefits not only themselves, but everybody else in society. The only time that that would not happen is if every inch of land was taken up by production and there's still people left over. If that's the case, if every square inch of land has been put to use and every capital has been put to use and there's still people left over, then we would be perhaps in a pickle. Those people would be in a pickle. But we're not there and we haven't been there. And so one implication of the benefits of specializing according to efficiency, the market division of labor, is that employment can be expanded indefinitely. Now, as people participate in the market division of labor, there are important social effects, right? And Mises stressed this as well, the social effects. So what are these social effects? Well, as people specialize in the production according to efficiency, the initial differences that contributed to comparative advantage become even more pronounced. For instance, specialization within the division of labor alters the geography as different people in different regions specialize in producing different goods. They tend to alter natural resources and alter, say, production facilities that make certain places even more suitable for production. If they begin investing in capital goods that are suitable for the tasks at which they are relatively more efficient, they become even more efficient in producing those things. The differences become more pronounced. Specialization also tends to increase the inequality in labor skills over time. As people spend more and more of their time doing the same task, they become more proficient in it. This is one of the reasons Adam Smith said that the division of labor leads to increased output. Because people specialize in particular tasks, they get better at it, right? Sometimes I tell a story about my dad. My dad worked for 20 years in the meat packing industry. And then he worked for another 23, 24 years as a successful barbecue retailer. So he sort of knew the processed meat industry from the beginning to the end, right? I guess from the ranch to the plate, if you wanna call it that. And when I was 12, he had to move from a beef plant in the middle of Nebraska to a pork producing plant in Western Iowa. And he goes into that new plant and he's a low man on the totem pole, almost. So there's, I don't know, 20 people maybe from that one plant that closed, they transferred to this new plant. And they were all in the bottom totem pole. And so of course they get the jobs that are not very good. And he got the job of being a tongue trimmer. And a tongue trimmer is exactly what you think it might be. His job was to trim the spit glands off of the pork tongue that comes down the shoot. And he was getting a tongue coming at him every 4.5 seconds. And he would stand there and he'd get the tongue and he would make a couple of snips, pull it over and make a couple of slips and throw the tongue into the tongue box and the spit glands go down the trash shoot. And that's what he did for eight hours a day. And he told me that when he first started the job, he wasn't that good at it and tongues would back up. He'd have tongue back up. And when it came time for the whistle to go to break, he would still have to work for an extra minute or two working through the tongue back up. Well, at some point, he got so good at it just by developing skills that he was able to never have tongue back up. He would go on break with everybody else. And then when the whistle sounded, he could come back maybe a minute or two later and there would be a pile of tongues sitting there waiting for him. But he was so good that he worked through that pile of tongues. And so by the end of the day, there was no tongue back up. And so that's just a little microcosm of this point that as people specialize in doing something, they become more proficient at that thing. And that then greatly increases the chance for specialization according to efficiency. And this increased proficiency, this increased productivity, I should say, resulting from the market division of labor is the key factor that allowed mankind to escape the Darwinian struggle for survival. It's no longer dog eat dog in a market division of labor because in the market division of labor, each person, each participant, both serves and is served by other people. Mr. Snee serves other people by producing spam and he is served by other people who provide him food, clothing, shelter and other consumer goods. So the market economy, and this is a common myth, the market economy does not produce or promote, shall we say, atomistic individualism. It doesn't force all of us to be a rock, an island who cares only for ourselves. The market economy, the market division of labor promotes community. It promotes society as people recognize that in a market economy, in some sense, we are in this together in the sense that we are producing for other people and other people are producing for us. And so there is an interest, we all have an incentive to maintain the institutions that allow the market division of labor to flourish. And that institution, of course, is a private property. We need private property because we need to be able to engage in exchange if we're gonna be able to specialize. And if we don't have private property, we can engage in voluntary exchange. If we can engage in voluntary exchange, then we have to produce only for ourselves. We can't produce for the market because there is no market. And so if we want to promote society that is formed as people recognize the benefits of specialization according to efficiency, the market division of labor, we need to embrace and defend and promote private property as a social institution. It's absolutely necessary. And I'm out of time, so we'll stop here. Thank you.