Everybody knows it's safer to live in the country, but that's not the argument he's making. He's saying it's also safer to live in any other city. I don't know if it's a great methodology though, going per sq mile.
I sometimes wonder whether that’s long-term truly the case. When I see various advanced aramid weaving processes and techniques designed and built in the US, I wonder if they had to scale a dizzying skills and operational mountain by themselves with the lack of a US domestic textile industry, or whether there isn’t much of a cross-fertilization in the entire journey from R&D through scale-out mass manufacturing.
I’m personally inclined to believe an innovation-oriented, Burkes’ian Connections-style society is only feasible when the Brownian motion of ideas occurs within a dense fabric of interplaying, fractally-complex industrial relationships between a massive number of different industries.
I’m not sure I see things the same way. I could definitely be wrong. I frequently am.
Define “strategic.”
If you mean a vital military asset, remember that clothing factories were an important industry during the wars (including the Revolutionary and Civil wars, in the US).
Military uniforms are critical. Ask any soldier. Just a couple of days ago, a friend that is an ex-marine, was telling me about the marvelous gear he had for winter exercises in Lake Tahoe. Watch any show about the siege at Stalingrad, to see what improper uniforms can mean.
If you mean a vital financial asset, then think about the economic vitality that is created by any industry. All the factories, brokers, marketers, transporters, etc. Lots of busy little ants. The garment industry is huge. My friend is extremely wealthy from a fairly small, undistinguished corner of it.
If we think of “fashion,” as a flighty, will o’ the wisp “hobby,” then consider the amazing amount of money sloshing around the world, from it. I’m not a fashionista, and the company that my friend owns isn’t really a high-fashion outfit. They do high-quality “every[wo]man” clothes, for reasonable costs. If you spent an hour, talking to him about the logistics of his operation, your jaw would hit the floor.
Many folks would argue that alcoholic beverages are an unnecessary, and possibly immoral, product, but, once again, we have an enormous industry around it. I have a couple of other friends and acquaintances that are fairly wealthy, from selling booze. Prohibition taught us a pretty big lesson.
Many folks would say that advertising, mobile games, and “vanity apps” are “not strategic,” but I’ll bet there’s a ton of folks here, that would take issue with that statement.
You want to increase depression, this is how you do it.
People need shit to do, and as much as we lie to ourselves that everyone is a budding artist who if only freed from the bounds of work would create the worlds next masterpiece - that is just not reality. Most people would actually sit around getting high/drunk, playing video games, watching porn and being miserable.
> companies can potentially produce 10 times as many products/services
How exactly is that a good thing? We already consume too much, now we will have 10x as much to consume? Unlikely that demand for "the things" goes up 10x, which means the value will drop.
Also, it matters what you consume. I e a lot of work is only necessary to support other workers or ‚bs work‘ like selling ppl things they don’t really need.
I'm rapidly losing faith in "a company can provide good products/services". Maybe it's just because I hyperfocus on the software sector, where this seems especially true, but it seems like worse products (those that prey on and value extract from the user) make more money.
Companies seem incentivized to produce worse products, while preying on our worst impulses.
Convenience you become a slave to, not owning anything, streaming everything.
Why make this game good when we can simply make it addictive? (Shout out to Diablo Immoral.)
Why make it healthy when people just want it to be tasty?
Why not remove these features and charge you to get them back?
Why not spy on and datamine our users? They won't care enough to stop us.
Why not plan obsolescence in our products? Every competitor will be forced to follow suit or make less money and be eliminated.
These measures truly make more money, and companies are actively incentivized to pursue them.
It really feels like the "Late Stage Capitalism" memes I've normally mentally discarded. Or the "money is the root of all evil" meme from the Bible. It truly is, it seems like.
When I read "companies can potentially produce 10 times as many products/services", my mind now turns that into "companies can potentially value extract from you with chintzy spyware 10 times as much as they do now!"... and I think, "Wait, the person phrased that as a good thing."
I feel like I've arrived at a pretty bleak existential outlook. :D
There IS hope, though: government regulation! Special mention to the EU and California and Massachusetts, which empower the people's will with privacy and right-to-repair laws that hold all this in check. I guess if I mask an idyllic application of that onto "companies can potentially produce 10 times as many products/services", I can sort of feel good about that premise again.
> despite the fact that their bill was basically Romneycare.
Romneycare was a plan built for one particular state, one of the main problems with the ACA was trying to replicate that state-based plan across 50 states that all have various systems.
