3 ms·

It isn't some vast conspiracy, it is that specialization by definition does it better. Literal cottage industry couldn't compete. That is what being able to buy

It isn't some vast conspiracy, it is that specialization by definition does it better. Literal cottage industry couldn't compete. That is what being able to buy better tools and outcomes gets you, industrialization. Memetically people are still pissed off about the change centuries later.

phpisthebest 4y ago
Specialization for sure is part of the equation, but I dont think it is the full picture. Also to get to a dependency problem one does not have to claim a vast conspiracy, often created as unintended consequence of well meaning government programs, or policy shifts that create incentives for corporations to act in a manner that the result is a dependency instead of self reliance. In the context here specialization means people are not sustenance farming working 16 hours a day creating 100% of their food themselves, however the other extreme of this is total dependence of your food from outside of your region, and the ability to prep, cook, etc you food to others. There is a balance there, where by a person may not grow all of their food, but has a garden (even in indoor garden) to grow some things... Or buys from local farms, and learns how to cook their own meals instead of total dependence on prepared meals either from the store (i.e tv dinners etc) or from restaurants / fast food... I know a lot of people where more than 80% of their food intake is cooked prepared for them, and the 20% that is "from scratch" cooking is like bacon and eggs level cooking... That is with out getting into direct dependency on government...
SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
Sure. Until the MBA-ification made sure everything runs as lean as possible… and then everyone wonders where supply chain issues are getting worse.
yourapostasy 4y ago
> Memetically people are still pissed off about the change centuries later. Because specialization gave up autonomy, with zero corresponding accountability in return, so capital holders got most of the upside with none of the downside once positioned as too big to fail, and dependent stakeholders got short-term time resource benefits while their grandchildren onwards got exposed to oligopolistic pricing power, and externalities like fragile supply chain ramifications pushed upon them. Snarking like this in shallow analyses is exactly what Soros warned about with reflexivity.

phpisthebest 4y ago

Specialization for sure is part of the equation, but I dont think it is the full picture. Also to get to a dependency problem one does not have to claim a vast conspiracy, often created as unintended consequence of well meaning government programs, or policy shifts that create incentives for corporations to act in a manner that the result is a dependency instead of self reliance. In the context here specialization means people are not sustenance farming working 16 hours a day creating 100% of their food themselves, however the other extreme of this is total dependence of your food from outside of your region, and the ability to prep, cook, etc you food to others. There is a balance there, where by a person may not grow all of their food, but has a garden (even in indoor garden) to grow some things... Or buys from local farms, and learns how to cook their own meals instead of total dependence on prepared meals either from the store (i.e tv dinners etc) or from restaurants / fast food... I know a lot of people where more than 80% of their food intake is cooked prepared for them, and the 20% that is "from scratch" cooking is like bacon and eggs level cooking... That is with out getting into direct dependency on government...

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

Sure. Until the MBA-ification made sure everything runs as lean as possible… and then everyone wonders where supply chain issues are getting worse.

yourapostasy 4y ago

> Memetically people are still pissed off about the change centuries later. Because specialization gave up autonomy, with zero corresponding accountability in return, so capital holders got most of the upside with none of the downside once positioned as too big to fail, and dependent stakeholders got short-term time resource benefits while their grandchildren onwards got exposed to oligopolistic pricing power, and externalities like fragile supply chain ramifications pushed upon them. Snarking like this in shallow analyses is exactly what Soros warned about with reflexivity.