I misspoke. I meant to say "do not over-specialize".

> in the previous comment you wanted want the US to be served by others

No, read again with the whole context: what I said was that the focus should be on keeping the industry local, on a smaller scale and more worried about robustness than profitability. Then I said that "even if after that they are still being out-competed, it doesn't mean that they all is lost".

The point was that plenty of countries can be successful even if they are not 100% self-sufficient about key resources. I am not advocating the end of trade. I am advocating for smaller/stronger communities and stronger/more explicit interfaces between them.

> You should be supporting human rights not murdering innocents.

Please stop with this absurd rhetoric. Not only is BS, it could easily be turned on you ("So, you buy things from China? This means that you support the genocide of Uyghurs!")

> The current globalized world cannot just cannot function with your fantasy 150 people limit.

First, this "current globalized world" is precisely the thing that is so full of systemic issues that we should be working to avoid. In a less-globalized and not hyperconnected world, Covid would not even be a thing, so the whole "people died of Covid because they didn't have masks" is complete rhetorical bullshit .

Second, there is no limit on people. The only limit is about the size of a single corporation. I don't know what is so hard about it to understand. You keep mischaracterizing the argument to the point that it is making clear you are not interested in a good-faith conversation, which should be a signal that I am done here.

You say misspoke, I say you got confused with your own talking points.

> it doesn't mean that they all is lost"

I dont know if you understand capitalism but out competed companies eventually run out of money and get bought out by the more successful one. I think that is the context which you dont undestand.

> it could easily be turned on you

Its not rhetoric, I am being serious, I would love to buy things made locally but that is just not possible with your 150 people limit. You want things to be less efficient and more expensive.

> In a less-globalized and not hyperconnected world,

Again you sound like a politician who declares war on drugs, your ideas sound great on paper but the globalized genie is out now, its not going anywhere for a long time.

> Second, there is no limit on people.

You are getting confused again with your talking points, you are the one who is advocating for 150 people.

> I don't know what is so hard about it to understand.

and yet who are the one getting confused or "misspsoke"

The only thing I misspoke was that I said "over-generalize" when I meant "over-specialize". Everything else (I think) was okay.

> You want things to be less efficient and more expensive.

There is a difference between wanting things to be more expensive and accepting that this may happen as part of the trade-off being made. Specially so if the idea is that this type of policy could potentially eliminate the concentration of power on the hands of a few conglomerates and create an incentive for automation and to eliminate "bullshit jobs".

> I would love to buy things made locally but that is just not possible with your 150 people limit

Why? Go to any farmers market, is there any step on the production chain that requires 150 people? Do you think (e.g) a municipal ISP to serve 10-20k people can't be operated with less than 150 people? Can't we buy fabric and materials (from small scale producers) and have a small textile manufacturing co-op making clothes?

Also, consider that we are used to having products being completely assembled, but there is nothing stopping companies in a "human scale" economy to work as provider of components that get to be assembled by the final consumer. These components could be made by separate companies. So, instead of having "Google Assistant vs Amazon Echo vs Apple Siri", we would pick-and-choose different speakers, different software providers, different enclosures, etc. The hard work here would be one of coordination - i.e, all these companies and providers would benefit if they worked on a "AI speaker device" common standard - but once that is set in place it reduce the average company headcount. The same logic could be potentially applied to any big consumer industry: clothing, furniture, home appliances...

Finally, let's talk about the software industry. Take any big product from the big companies and you can bet that you can find a small ISV (with certainly less than 150 people) who can deliver and profitably operate an equivalent service. Even though Gmail and Outlook dominate the mass market, smaller email providers still exist and they haven't "ran out of money" and got bought out by the more successful ones. We don't need the big players to serve the population, we could have more of these ISVs acting independently (*). These ISVs would likely invest in opensource as a way to outsource as much as they can to keep their overhead low, which would lead to a even more pulverized industry.

> your ideas sound great on paper but the globalized genie is out now

Again, why? There is no magical force stopping us from preferring local products. There is nothing forcing us to consume indiscriminately. I get that "the system" is too big for any of us and that our individual actions will barely have any impact. But feeling apathetic is not a justification to just accept things as they are. You can not say "I would love to buy things locally" and blame "Capitalism" when you end up buying things at a big-box store.

(*) "Oh, but Gmail/Facebook/etc are free to the user, people won't be willing to pay for it!" Well, the argument could be that these people would either have to find a smaller provider willing to do the service for them (their employer, some non-commercial community, the tech savvy family member who wants to self-host?), or they would indeed have to learn about TANSTAAFL.