>> >He was among the first authors to recognize that knowledge, not labor and raw materials, would become the most important economic resource of advanced socie

>> >He was among the first authors to recognize that knowledge, not labor and raw materials, would become the most important economic resource of advanced societies. > Under what accounting system is that actually true? It's not that controversial idea anymore. See, for example [1] Contrary to economists from Adam Smith to Karl Marx to Thomas Piketty, our riches cannot be explained by the accumulation of capital, as the misleading word capitalism implies. The Great Enrichment did not come from piling brick on brick, or bachelor's degree on bachelor's degree, or bank balance on bank balance, but from piling idea on idea. The accumulation of capital was of course necessary. But so were a labor force and the existence of liquid water. Oxygen is necessary for a fire. Yet it would be unhelpful to explain the Chicago Fire of October 8–10, 1871, by the presence of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere. [1] "Bourgeois Equality", Deirdre McCloskey, https://reason.com/archives/2016/05/12/bourgeois-equality https://reason.com/archives/2016/05/12/bourgeois-equality