Anonymous
(ID: 2TXQBTyL)
6/26/2025, 3:12:25 AM
No.508745366
6/26/2025, 3:12:25 AM
No.508745366
>>508745007
>You don’t understand economies of scale
Economies of scale are mostly a fiction. As per-unit production costs decrease, distribution and logistics cost increase. Ralph Borsodi did some really fantastic analytic work on this if you’re interested; his wife wanted to can tomatoes at home because “it’s cheaper”, which he rolled his eyes at, because how the hell is one woman on a consumer stovetop gonna produce canned tomatoes more cost-effectively than a megalith like Campbells! Economies of Scale!
But if you do the math, it’s exponentially cheaper. Because Campbells can put shit in a can/jar cheaper than you, but all the OTHER costs of getting it to you are way higher. Campbells can’t teleport a factory to down the street from your house, run it at full capacity for JUUUST long enough to produce your town’s demand for canned tomatoes, and then teleport it somewhere else. Nobody talks about the diseconomies of scale, though.
>You don’t understand economies of scale
Economies of scale are mostly a fiction. As per-unit production costs decrease, distribution and logistics cost increase. Ralph Borsodi did some really fantastic analytic work on this if you’re interested; his wife wanted to can tomatoes at home because “it’s cheaper”, which he rolled his eyes at, because how the hell is one woman on a consumer stovetop gonna produce canned tomatoes more cost-effectively than a megalith like Campbells! Economies of Scale!
But if you do the math, it’s exponentially cheaper. Because Campbells can put shit in a can/jar cheaper than you, but all the OTHER costs of getting it to you are way higher. Campbells can’t teleport a factory to down the street from your house, run it at full capacity for JUUUST long enough to produce your town’s demand for canned tomatoes, and then teleport it somewhere else. Nobody talks about the diseconomies of scale, though.