Its like the difference between a Patek Philippe and a Hublot. The Patek is an incredible display of craftsmanship and stupendously expensive because it takes multiple highly skilled watchmakers like a year to make one. The Hublot is expensive because owning it is expensive and that makes it cool. There is no technological advantage it has on a watch that is half the price. No watch enthusiast would ever buy a Hublot.
Yeah like the skilled craftsman is not the problem in the world of luxury products. The idea that an individual could afford something like that while someone else starves is another matter, but I think we could still have these products and support the labor that goes in to them without the rich lifestyle buyer side of it. The public commissioning and ownership of luxury products is an interesting area of consideration.
I think in a communist society, it might make sense to reward special personal achievements and such with goods like that, like awarding every college graduate a certain thing (jewlery etc) depending on their field of study. It might also make sense to allow for an exchange of such goods through a special market
Yeah regulated markets are a tool. China's "keep the big free the small" approach has a lot of positives, the way bulk energy markets are designed and regulated is another model that's used in practice, Allende's Cybersyn is interesting as well. Even if a government was to commission a watch or something, the idea is that will increase in value, similar to art commissioning or even architects to design buildings, it's not really an "expense" in that the value isn't retained and likely increases. You'd want to make sure your craftspeople are constantly producing because that's added value in to the economy. The aesthetics of the products themselves might take on a whole other quality if the craftsperson isn't bound to certain client's preferences.
Its like the difference between a Patek Philippe and a Hublot. The Patek is an incredible display of craftsmanship and stupendously expensive because it takes multiple highly skilled watchmakers like a year to make one. The Hublot is expensive because owning it is expensive and that makes it cool. There is no technological advantage it has on a watch that is half the price. No watch enthusiast would ever buy a Hublot.
Yeah like the skilled craftsman is not the problem in the world of luxury products. The idea that an individual could afford something like that while someone else starves is another matter, but I think we could still have these products and support the labor that goes in to them without the rich lifestyle buyer side of it. The public commissioning and ownership of luxury products is an interesting area of consideration.
I think in a communist society, it might make sense to reward special personal achievements and such with goods like that, like awarding every college graduate a certain thing (jewlery etc) depending on their field of study. It might also make sense to allow for an exchange of such goods through a special market
Yeah regulated markets are a tool. China's "keep the big free the small" approach has a lot of positives, the way bulk energy markets are designed and regulated is another model that's used in practice, Allende's Cybersyn is interesting as well. Even if a government was to commission a watch or something, the idea is that will increase in value, similar to art commissioning or even architects to design buildings, it's not really an "expense" in that the value isn't retained and likely increases. You'd want to make sure your craftspeople are constantly producing because that's added value in to the economy. The aesthetics of the products themselves might take on a whole other quality if the craftsperson isn't bound to certain client's preferences.