[nine_k]

Centralization offers efficiency gains, else it won't happen. Your imaginary company in South Korea likely makes a million horseshoes employing only 1000 people, and the horseshoes are good quality, and the price is like 5% of the price of a handcrafted horseshoe. Many more people can afford horseshoes as a result.

[Joker_vD]

But think of the jobs! There used to be a million people involved in horseshoe-making, now there is only a thousand, and the rest of that million now has to do something else! And since there is literally nothing else for them to do, they'll have to die out :(

The most bizarre thing about the economical systems is that there indeed were cases where former workers of the industries that collapsed/disappeared indeed went the way of the dodo.

[nine_k]

It depends on the speed of change though. If a million-strong industry collapses overnight, it can lead to really painful social disturbances. If it winds down in 10 years, the transition can be much more smooth.

BTW see also https://www.edge.org/conversation/gin-television-and-cogniti...

[tonyedgecombe]

At the start of the last century the UK had a million people working in the coal mining industry. Now it is effectively zero.

That reduction happened over a long period but it wasn't without its problems. Even now there are old coal mining villages that have never really recovered economically.

[AlecSchueler]

Maybe the village hasn't recovered but what about the descendants of the miners who now work service jobs in London?

[tonyedgecombe]

It's the descendants that don't leave that cause all the problems.

[account42]

> Even now there are old coal mining villages that have never really recovered economically.

Are villages the correct unit to look at there though? Do individuals from these villages now have worse opportunities than they had before?

[marysol5]

Very much so, nothing was done to even give them opportunities to get work anywhere else either. And then on top of that the Tories destroyed everything else.

[inigyou]

This is an intentional policy choice btw. You could just legislate the horseshoe company pays 90% of each displaced blacksmith decreasing by 5% per year.

[Joker_vD]

And hey, almost a million blacksmiths displaced is a huge block of voters that any elected politician would be glad to capture! Although I struggle to recall any of the examples of something like this happening in the real-world history.

[inigyou]

Just shows how powerful capital interests are.

[bruce511]

I always find this line of thought interesting. Because it implies the manufacturer has all the power. But they don't. The consumer does.

Ultimately the manufacturer wins the horse-shoe battle because they are cheaper. And the consumers in the village prefer cheap shoes to locally made (expensive) ones.

Fundamentally consumers like cheap stuff. Manufacturing shifts happen because as soon as there's a cheaper output, you've won. Consumers will reliably switch to cheap. At the start there may be some brand loyalty, there may even be a quality difference, but both those erode quickly.

Lots of people promote the idea of buying locally, even if it's more expensive. But it's a hard message to sell, and a tough one to buy. I'm sorry for the blacksmith, but times are hard and I need my horses shod.

It's easy to blame capitalism or factory owners or foreign cheap labor or any other convenient political scapegoat. But the root of the problem is consumer preference for cheap (even if inferior) to the exclusion of everything else.

This is perhaps culturally most evident where the premise above is false. In the US for example food is low quality, but plentiful. In Europe food generally costs more, but is of a much higher standard. Portions are smaller. Quality is more important than quantity.

This is not by accident. Europe has deliberately fostered local food markets, local food production, and promoted a narrative around history and good production. Cheap food is available, but quality food has a strong foothold.

[lotsofpulp]

You should share your crystal ball that tells you the future so you can help leaders accurately predict changes in supply and demand curves so that they can make better policy choices.

[account42]

That's also a way to create a new royalty class.

[inigyou]

Many fewer people can afford horseshoes as a result because all the money is at the horseshoe company.

[wat10000]

The opposite is actually true in reality. More people can afford X than ever before, for nearly any X that doesn’t involve directly paying for someone else’s labor.

[Joker_vD]

Depends on the overarching economical policies. During the British rule, the Indian textile weavers went out of manufacturing business and had to switch to sustenance farming, and then perish during one of the many famines. And the Parliament legally forbade the public relief efforts, such as fundraisers to buy and send corn to the affected regions, explicitly citing the concerns that such efforts would skew the market forces and unbalance the trade.

[superxpro12]

That seems less an indictment of economies of scale, and more an indictment of british colonialism

[inigyou]

What doesn't involve paying for someone else's labor? You mean things that are pure profit?

[wat10000]

You’re missing the word “directly.”

More people can afford to buy a toilet than ever before. The same may not be true of affording a plumber to install it.