• volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Going by your cafe example, what if there was a Diner nearby that sold some coffee/tea on its menu. You have to convince the majority that your shop is a worthwhile investment with them never even tasting the product, and even if it is low cost enough that you would still make profit.

    That problem still takes place in capitalism. It’s just that, instead of having to convince people for funding, you risk going into bankruptcy when you try your business idea.

    What if there was a sub-par cafe with lazy employees already in town and you want to make a cafe that takes pride in its work. Would people want two cafes in the same town?

    Great, so you run you business in capitalism, and run the other cafe into bankruptcy because that’s wonderful for everyone, very efficient and humane. How about the local council decides that the other cafe is shit, and they give a warning to the place that they need to improve the quality of their work?

    It’s ultimately the taxpayers that are taking the risk on your product instead of the individual so they won’t want to pay for a service they won’t use or care for. Even if the minority of people can make it profitable.

    This can very easily be compensated by bigger, not so local, councils. Maybe specialized in more weird and experimental business ideas. Located in densely-populated ideas so that one of these weirder businesses can give cover to a high amount of population.

    Really, you seem to be coming up with increasingly-complicated problems on the implementation on the spot. My point is that all of these problems can be outsourced to direct democracy instead of “consumer democracy”, in a more efficient, fair, and risk-free way for everyone.