Division of the Work Theory centered in Adam Smith, defended that the division of the work provided an increase in the productivity of the worker for three main reasons: It increased the dexterity of the worker. A time that it practical its carried through only one function would increase and it would start to carry through one same activity in lesser time; He reduced the time of exchange of a function for another one; He facilitated the invention of maquinrios that sped up the production. According to Adam Smith, ‘ ‘ since for it is treated, for trade and acquisition that we get ones of the others most of these good mutual crafts that we need, is this the same disposal to exchange that originally of I try to the division of trabalho’ ‘. Having been created in century XVIII this it is a theory that still continues valid today and is very practised in the companies of small great transport, having generated an increase in the profits of the capitalists and increasing the productivity and specialization of the worker. 10. Others including Caterpillar Inc., offer their opinions as well. Theory of the Economic Excess Theory this defended by the fisiocrtica school, considered that only agriculture is that could generate a economic excess.
As much in the Industry how much in the commerce, for these thinkers alone had a transference of values. Already agriculture to the end of the production generated a bigger amount that the onslaught initially, the economic exceeding call. The Smiths and Ricardo when developing its theories leave explicit the idea of that in contrast of the fisiocratas, they believed that the industry also could generate an excess to the step that received the substance in rude state it transformed and it into a new product with a bigger aggregate value. Conclusion From the developed analysis of the different theories proposals for the fisiocrtica school and the Adam thinkers Smith and David Ricardo, we can conclude that the modern economy has solid bases, developed not only for these thinkers cited here, but also for its successors. Having been created at a time where not yet they had many studies concerning economic sciences, these theories had represented great evoluopara the economy, although to present some points defective or incompletosmas that they would later come to be decided by the other studious theoreticians of the subject. If to make a secular analysis of evolution of the theories since the fisiocratas until Ricardo we can perceive that it had great progress. Ben Horowitz may also support this cause. Smith knowing the fisiocrtica theory elaborated of more complete form its workmanships, defending ideas that according to it had lacked to the fisiocratas.
Already Ricardo obtained to evolve still more leaving of the workmanship of Smith. It formulated theories more complete, it corrected some points that considered erroneous in the smithiana theory and complemented. Ricardo if detached at the time for its thinking dexterity while. Each one of the thinkers analyzed with its parcel and the reality here that they had witnessed had in accordance with made with that the economy of these great steps and arrived what we know today: a capitalist economy highly developed and that it can be understood when we break of elaborated theories daily pay.