4 ms·

> However the majority of society still does “normal” things like construction, manufacturing, sales, etc. "Normal" is when you build schools, hospitals, commu

> However the majority of society still does “normal” things like construction, manufacturing, sales, etc. "Normal" is when you build schools, hospitals, community centers and affordable houses and you produce only several kinds of refrigerator for the whole world, streamlining their production and servicing. Not when you construct factories, warehouses, office skyscrapers and shopping areas where those same goods will be manufactured, stored, marketed and sold, by thousands of competing companies. That competition leads to a lot of wasted resources in exchange for product improvements of a questionable value, like, the availability of fridges in a variety of colours. > someone needs to maintain our physical infrastructure and keep the lights on Sure, but the strain on that infrastructure would be far less without the need for commuters to commute 2 hours to their job, in order to market the "best smart fridge" in an office. Everything is deeply interconnected, and we really need to reevaluate our goals and interests as a society.

seibelj 8y ago
You are coming from the socialist angle, which is a loaded word that will probably derail the conversation, but essentially you see the free market and competition as a waste of resources that harms society. The base argument is that we don’t need 80 brands of deodorant, and the fact we have so many is a colossal waste of resources, duplication, and moral failure of society. Whereas I see 80 brands of deodorant and think it’s a wonderful example of how hard entrepreneurs work to satisfy all manner of wants and needs, ultimately driving down the price of deodorant and giving me a range of options. A government bureaucrat managing the country’s only deodorant factory could never possibly match the range of options and preferences that the market has provided me. This is the fundamental difference in philosophy between real socialists (aka, not “keep the market but make healthcare free” milquetoast socialists but “make the private sector illegal” socialists) and free market advocates. I prefer a world that constantly competes to satisfy my needs, and all of the “waste” you see is just the process of satisfying everyone’s needs.
- cheerlessbog 8y ago
  > essentially you see the free market and competition as a waste of resources that harms society. GP made no general statement of this sort. Misrepresenting other perspectives is boring.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    > Not when you construct factories, warehouses, office skyscrapers and shopping areas where those same goods will be manufactured, stored, marketed and sold, by thousands of competing companies. That competition leads to a lot of wasted resources in exchange for product improvements of a questionable value, like, the availability of fridges in a variety of colours. [...] Everything is deeply interconnected, and we really need to reevaluate our goals and interests as a society. Parent poster said this plainly, I'm not sure how you could read it another way.
  - tepidandroid 8y ago
    GP unequivocally did make exactly that statement.
- petra 8y ago
  >> A government bureaucrat managing the country’s only deodorant factory could never possibly match the range of options and preferences that the market has provided me. There aren't only two options - the free market, or soviet russia. there are many more.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    I would argue that preventing an individual from creating a new deodorant (or any typical consumer product) because "there is already enough of them" is a defining philosophical difference - either you are for freedom, or you are for collective coercion. In my opinion, there are never enough deodorant brands. If a new entrant wants to make a new product, it will succeed or fail. It may compete on price or quality, it may drive out another brand, it may expand the market for deodorant by targeting a type of skin sensitivity that wasn't targeted before, it may do any number of things. But there will never be enough deodorants. There can always be room for one more, and to prevent an individual for trying to make another is the moment we go on the path to Soviet Russia.
    - ddingus 8y ago
      You do realize the moment we reform health care, living wages, housing, college, individuals all over the place will be starting shit, don't you? Look at the impact near free college, the GI bill had on tech. People all over the place started shit. It can and needs to happen again. That perfect deodorant is denied us because the person who could produce it is extremely likely to be trapped econonically. What you are getting is endless variations of the same shit from competing board rooms. What is worth what to you?
    - petra 8y ago
      >> either you are for freedom, or you are for collective coercion. Strong words. I'm somewhere in the middle. i'm not offering to send anybody to any Gulag. But taxing some useless products ? or structuring market competition towards real benefits and not bullshit ? sure.
    - Frondo 8y ago
- wool_gather 8y ago
  > I see 80 brands of deodorant [...] satisfy[ing] all manner of wants and needs I'm not exactly in favor of a command economy, but seriously, how many of these 80 types of deodorant -- or any comparable consumer product -- are fundamentally different from one another, as opposed to being distinguished only by their branding and marketing?
  - seibelj 8y ago
    It's not up to me or you to determine why there are so many brands of consumer products. There is not a moment after which we ban all further competition and new entrants. I hope competitors continue to innovate, so we have the best possible choice on a multitude of variables including price, quality, ingredients, etc.
nradov 8y ago
Central production planning and restriction of consumer choice has already been tried. It didn't work. I can't imagine why anyone would want to repeat the same mistake.

seibelj 8y ago

You are coming from the socialist angle, which is a loaded word that will probably derail the conversation, but essentially you see the free market and competition as a waste of resources that harms society. The base argument is that we don’t need 80 brands of deodorant, and the fact we have so many is a colossal waste of resources, duplication, and moral failure of society. Whereas I see 80 brands of deodorant and think it’s a wonderful example of how hard entrepreneurs work to satisfy all manner of wants and needs, ultimately driving down the price of deodorant and giving me a range of options. A government bureaucrat managing the country’s only deodorant factory could never possibly match the range of options and preferences that the market has provided me. This is the fundamental difference in philosophy between real socialists (aka, not “keep the market but make healthcare free” milquetoast socialists but “make the private sector illegal” socialists) and free market advocates. I prefer a world that constantly competes to satisfy my needs, and all of the “waste” you see is just the process of satisfying everyone’s needs.

cheerlessbog 8y ago
> essentially you see the free market and competition as a waste of resources that harms society. GP made no general statement of this sort. Misrepresenting other perspectives is boring.
- seibelj 8y ago
  > Not when you construct factories, warehouses, office skyscrapers and shopping areas where those same goods will be manufactured, stored, marketed and sold, by thousands of competing companies. That competition leads to a lot of wasted resources in exchange for product improvements of a questionable value, like, the availability of fridges in a variety of colours. [...] Everything is deeply interconnected, and we really need to reevaluate our goals and interests as a society. Parent poster said this plainly, I'm not sure how you could read it another way.
- tepidandroid 8y ago
  GP unequivocally did make exactly that statement.
petra 8y ago
>> A government bureaucrat managing the country’s only deodorant factory could never possibly match the range of options and preferences that the market has provided me. There aren't only two options - the free market, or soviet russia. there are many more.
- seibelj 8y ago
  I would argue that preventing an individual from creating a new deodorant (or any typical consumer product) because "there is already enough of them" is a defining philosophical difference - either you are for freedom, or you are for collective coercion. In my opinion, there are never enough deodorant brands. If a new entrant wants to make a new product, it will succeed or fail. It may compete on price or quality, it may drive out another brand, it may expand the market for deodorant by targeting a type of skin sensitivity that wasn't targeted before, it may do any number of things. But there will never be enough deodorants. There can always be room for one more, and to prevent an individual for trying to make another is the moment we go on the path to Soviet Russia.
  - ddingus 8y ago
    You do realize the moment we reform health care, living wages, housing, college, individuals all over the place will be starting shit, don't you? Look at the impact near free college, the GI bill had on tech. People all over the place started shit. It can and needs to happen again. That perfect deodorant is denied us because the person who could produce it is extremely likely to be trapped econonically. What you are getting is endless variations of the same shit from competing board rooms. What is worth what to you?
  - petra 8y ago
    >> either you are for freedom, or you are for collective coercion. Strong words. I'm somewhere in the middle. i'm not offering to send anybody to any Gulag. But taxing some useless products ? or structuring market competition towards real benefits and not bullshit ? sure.
  - Frondo 8y ago
wool_gather 8y ago
> I see 80 brands of deodorant [...] satisfy[ing] all manner of wants and needs I'm not exactly in favor of a command economy, but seriously, how many of these 80 types of deodorant -- or any comparable consumer product -- are fundamentally different from one another, as opposed to being distinguished only by their branding and marketing?
- seibelj 8y ago
  It's not up to me or you to determine why there are so many brands of consumer products. There is not a moment after which we ban all further competition and new entrants. I hope competitors continue to innovate, so we have the best possible choice on a multitude of variables including price, quality, ingredients, etc.

nradov 8y ago

Central production planning and restriction of consumer choice has already been tried. It didn't work. I can't imagine why anyone would want to repeat the same mistake.