4 ms·

Small producers would benefit. Producers who produce solutions that are most compatible for a specific community would benefit from other solutions not being co

Small producers would benefit. Producers who produce solutions that are most compatible for a specific community would benefit from other solutions not being compatible. In such system, everyone would be a small producer. So everyone would benefit. It would be much harder to move cities or countries but that would be a good thing. Everyone would have a great work life. Everyone would have an advantage within their community over unknown foreign producers. Equality of opportunity would be maximized. The biggest problem in everyone's lives today is their job/career. People spend all their time working. So the system should be optimized to make workers' lives better, not consumers' lives. Capitalism already looks after consumers naturally. The government's job should be focused mostly on producers. It's not right that every aspect of the system looks after consumers when they don't necessarily produce much social value. A lot of their income nowadays is subsidized by money printing, not the result of past labor as the myth suggests.

gessha 1y ago
Giving people meaningless work like translating between one company’s “standard” to another’s is BS. For successful cooperation and trade you need standardized way of doing things. Languages are a form of standard way of communication. If it wasn’t for standard there won’t be civilization.
AlotOfReading 1y ago
A regional standard is still a standard, like the electrical sockets I already gave as an example. What you're advocating for is the absence of standards. Not having standards generally makes producing things harder because you now have to reverse engineer anything you want to be compatible with instead of just designing to the standard.
TFYS 1y ago
People and communities are not that different from each other, so I don't think the idea that each community would benefit from a customized local solution would work. You'd lose the benefit of economies of scale and add a lot of friction to economic activity for no good reason. The workers are also consumers, and would have to pay a lot more for everything because a huge amount of work would have to be duplicated everywhere in the economy, making things more expensive. Large scale is good, the problem is who owns the large scale solution. When it's owned privately, it's easy to abuse such a position of power and workers and consumers don't get the full benefits of scale. The solutions should be collectively owned and managed.

gessha 1y ago

Giving people meaningless work like translating between one company’s “standard” to another’s is BS. For successful cooperation and trade you need standardized way of doing things. Languages are a form of standard way of communication. If it wasn’t for standard there won’t be civilization.

AlotOfReading 1y ago

A regional standard is still a standard, like the electrical sockets I already gave as an example. What you're advocating for is the absence of standards. Not having standards generally makes producing things harder because you now have to reverse engineer anything you want to be compatible with instead of just designing to the standard.

TFYS 1y ago

People and communities are not that different from each other, so I don't think the idea that each community would benefit from a customized local solution would work. You'd lose the benefit of economies of scale and add a lot of friction to economic activity for no good reason. The workers are also consumers, and would have to pay a lot more for everything because a huge amount of work would have to be duplicated everywhere in the economy, making things more expensive. Large scale is good, the problem is who owns the large scale solution. When it's owned privately, it's easy to abuse such a position of power and workers and consumers don't get the full benefits of scale. The solutions should be collectively owned and managed.