I think you did a good job at summing up what Bylund was wanting to communicate about multitasking. It is generally known and accepted that a crew can better accomplish a multilayered task than an individual. This is because different individuals have different skill sets which allows the individuals to specialize in their specific field. This was an aspect of Bylund's writing that I think you could have mentioned a bit more. The reason that this system you described is more efficient, is because specialization is able to happen which is what leads to efficiency.

It would be silly to hire a baker to produce nails.

The idea here is that usually, organizations will spend time and resources to find individuals who already have experience or established skill sets in the particular field that they're looking at. This is a point that Bylund discusses and a great business strategy that employers should adopt.

I think that something that you could have spent a little bit more time expanding on was Bylund's ideas on the separation between production and consumption. He basically explains how you can spend your entire life working in one particular industry and benefiting from a different one. For example, you could spend your whole life working for the fashion design industry, and never know a thing about car manufacturing, yet you can still purchase a car and benefit from the luxuries of owning a car. This is made possible by market cooperation. If everyone specializes in their certain industry and allows other to do that same, there is going to be balance and ultimately success in the overall market place.

I very much agree with you the Schumpeter's article was confusing and hard to follow. However, I think you did a really good job at putting creative deconstruction into an example. Your example about Apple made a lot of sense and I think that it is the perfect example of what Schumpeter was trying to define creative destruction as.

Creative destruction does not necessarily "destroy" existing products, it simply makes them valued at a lower price because there are better products on the market.

I think of everything you wrote, this was the most significant to me. Again, I had a hard time following Schumpeter's writing and even after studying it, I didn't gain a really good understanding of what creative deconstruction meant until reading your post. I think the idea that creative deconstruction simply meant things became less valuable and new things emerged, is the perfect way of understanding this concept. Schumpeter put it into words in a far more complicated way that was very difficult to understand, but I really enjoy the way you summarized it.

Overall, a really great post and very organized!