Both of you are missing the point. Soviets didn't have one sort of butter in the way west had its 20. You couldn't go to the store and buy however much of that shitty butter you needed when you needed it. You had to catch it when it's there and get in line before it runs out, or know someone who'd tip you off, or know someone who'd sell you from the back door. And then somewhere else (not where it was produced) they'd be dumping excess butter into the ditch because it went bad.

It really isn't something you want to find middle ground with. That's like looking for middle ground between wearing nail polish and having a gangrene.

I'm saying that market economies work best when there is real competition AND demand for products that provide better lifetime value and utility.

Corporate media drives culture towards positions that benefit it rather than society.

The demand part is cultural. Lowering barriers to entry to enable more competition is political.

Both are needed to change course for the west.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, I just find it funny that this discussion is happening in context of soviet planned economy, which had no market to speak of, no competition, complete politically moderated indirection between demand and production, and entrepreneurship being outlawed thus no concept of market entry.

Most of the food in the grocery store in the US is not produced abroad. Especially perishables like dairy which have import restrictions and would be too pricey to bring in from far away.

> Maybe we can correct (economic) future by simply insourcing some goods and therefore work and forget about the knowledge society boloney?

WE do insource some goods – where we have comparative advantage, or where the cost of trade negates the benefits of trading with someone who produces it at lower opportunity cost. Insourcing beyond that draws the production possibilities curve inward, making us (and our trade partners) poorer.

Generally, this is a losing deal. It is possible that there are incidental distributional advantages, so that it makes us poorer in aggregate but distributes returns in a way which reduces harms from the current distribution. But that’s not obviously generally the case, and in any case without clear and overwhelming evidence that this would be the effect I’d rather just attack distribution from a position of greater aggregate prosperity than start lopping off prosperity and hoping better distribution came out of it.

You'll be called a fascist if you develop this view.

communist