3 ms·

No. Centralization isn't needed to scale, it's just needed to exploit scale. Exploitation has become so commonplace it's replaced everything as the primary "des

No. Centralization isn't needed to scale, it's just needed to exploit scale. Exploitation has become so commonplace it's replaced everything as the primary "desirable metric". I'm writing this comment on a platform founded on the idea of exploitation being a desirable metric.

theamk 2y ago
Try giving everyone housing without centralized production of things like nails, screws, siding electrical wire... Decentralizization is fine sometimes, but a single huge nail factory is going to beat thousands backyard forges in (average/95th percentile) quality and especially in prices.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Yet somehow houses were still well built before the huge nail factory existed. Which means it is not required.
  - theamk 2y ago
    Sure, it's not required to build _some_ houses, but it's required for scale. Backyard forges are OK if you have few hundred million people, most of them in farming, with most families living in a house with a a single room. But you cannot build New York on without large factories.
- lucideer 2y ago
  This isn't true though. Neither in theory nor in practice. A broad set of individual product quality has consistently declined throughout the industrial era - not least, infamously, one of your own examples: nails. Many products have increased in quality due to factors unrelated to centralised production: new scientific research, intensive r&d, internal standardisation efforts - but centralised production tends instead to produce demonstrable reductions in individual quality. We're living in an age of unprecedented consumer waste due to this phenomenon. Planned obsolescence is a relatively recent term (& while it may not be real in terms of being intentional it's definitely true in terms of increases in obsolescence-rates).
  - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
    Are you suggesting there is no provider of high quality nails at industrial scale? That’s ridiculous. Many people just prefer to pay for cheap nails because they are good enough for the application, and that’s a good thing because this option did not previously exist. But the high end still exists and is higher quality than ever. Capitalism has problems, but providing low complexity commodity improvements at scale and quality is not one of them.
    - lucideer 2y ago
      > Are you suggesting there is no provider of high quality nails at industrial scale? Nails was one of the examples cited by the gp, which I found funny since there is one famous example of nails being lower quality by definition as a result of centralisation. That example isn't the case for all nails (nor for all the gps examples), but it is still an excellent, if isolated, example: cut nails. Most carpentry nails you buy today are wire nails. I don't know if it's possible to buy cut nails today from any large factories, but broadly speaking, manufacture of cut nails does not scale. The switch to wire was a detail of the manufacturing processes, not of consumer demand (nor quality assurance). Cut nails are still considered superior today. If you look at antique diagrams of nails available for purchase, you'll see 20 or 30 varieties, all with very distinctly different designs. Those designs have converged on a single design for all applications, not because it's a better design, but purely because it's a design that scales for manufacture. Flaws in the design are compensated for via material choice & worker skill. There's likely thousands of such cases in industry.
      - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
        > by definition This an empirical argument about nails. Are you just saying that to emphasize your confidence? > cut nails I just googled and there are literally dozens of brands of this product. Even so this preference appears to be a niche opinion of artisan woodworkers, not a failure mode of furniture and construction. > The switch to wire was a detail of the manufacturing processes, not of consumer demand Yes it is. They wanted to pay less for nails and the cheaper manufacturing served that need. If it mattered they would pay more. > but purely because it's a design that scales for manufacture. In other words, people like to reminisce about hand made goods. But when it comes to paying for them, they usually prefer the ones that work well at a fraction of the cost. You can’t claim that intricate items with fine details are not manufacturable at scale (see the iPhone?). So your cause and effect are backwards. Manufacturing did not dictate old methods became less prevelant. Consumers did. And once again, your claim that higher quality ones don’t exist is wrong too. I guarantee we can find a supplier of many varieties of decorative nails. They are just more expensive.

theamk 2y ago

Try giving everyone housing without centralized production of things like nails, screws, siding electrical wire... Decentralizization is fine sometimes, but a single huge nail factory is going to beat thousands backyard forges in (average/95th percentile) quality and especially in prices.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Yet somehow houses were still well built before the huge nail factory existed. Which means it is not required.
- theamk 2y ago
  Sure, it's not required to build _some_ houses, but it's required for scale. Backyard forges are OK if you have few hundred million people, most of them in farming, with most families living in a house with a a single room. But you cannot build New York on without large factories.
lucideer 2y ago
This isn't true though. Neither in theory nor in practice. A broad set of individual product quality has consistently declined throughout the industrial era - not least, infamously, one of your own examples: nails. Many products have increased in quality due to factors unrelated to centralised production: new scientific research, intensive r&d, internal standardisation efforts - but centralised production tends instead to produce demonstrable reductions in individual quality. We're living in an age of unprecedented consumer waste due to this phenomenon. Planned obsolescence is a relatively recent term (& while it may not be real in terms of being intentional it's definitely true in terms of increases in obsolescence-rates).
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  Are you suggesting there is no provider of high quality nails at industrial scale? That’s ridiculous. Many people just prefer to pay for cheap nails because they are good enough for the application, and that’s a good thing because this option did not previously exist. But the high end still exists and is higher quality than ever. Capitalism has problems, but providing low complexity commodity improvements at scale and quality is not one of them.
  - lucideer 2y ago
    > Are you suggesting there is no provider of high quality nails at industrial scale? Nails was one of the examples cited by the gp, which I found funny since there is one famous example of nails being lower quality by definition as a result of centralisation. That example isn't the case for all nails (nor for all the gps examples), but it is still an excellent, if isolated, example: cut nails. Most carpentry nails you buy today are wire nails. I don't know if it's possible to buy cut nails today from any large factories, but broadly speaking, manufacture of cut nails does not scale. The switch to wire was a detail of the manufacturing processes, not of consumer demand (nor quality assurance). Cut nails are still considered superior today. If you look at antique diagrams of nails available for purchase, you'll see 20 or 30 varieties, all with very distinctly different designs. Those designs have converged on a single design for all applications, not because it's a better design, but purely because it's a design that scales for manufacture. Flaws in the design are compensated for via material choice & worker skill. There's likely thousands of such cases in industry.
    - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
      > by definition This an empirical argument about nails. Are you just saying that to emphasize your confidence? > cut nails I just googled and there are literally dozens of brands of this product. Even so this preference appears to be a niche opinion of artisan woodworkers, not a failure mode of furniture and construction. > The switch to wire was a detail of the manufacturing processes, not of consumer demand Yes it is. They wanted to pay less for nails and the cheaper manufacturing served that need. If it mattered they would pay more. > but purely because it's a design that scales for manufacture. In other words, people like to reminisce about hand made goods. But when it comes to paying for them, they usually prefer the ones that work well at a fraction of the cost. You can’t claim that intricate items with fine details are not manufacturable at scale (see the iPhone?). So your cause and effect are backwards. Manufacturing did not dictate old methods became less prevelant. Consumers did. And once again, your claim that higher quality ones don’t exist is wrong too. I guarantee we can find a supplier of many varieties of decorative nails. They are just more expensive.