My thinking wasn’t that it was more valuable, but differently valuable.
In a town where 100 people own 100 businesses, no one person owns all that they need. Each person must coordinate with others in order to get what they need. Further, those with businesses that produce something more valuable can raise prices (I’d expect this town to use money to exchange value) and you will see some people with great wealth while others have little. This is the world we live in today.
In a town where 100 people own one machine with an agreement to share the output of the machine, no one has to coordinate with the others in order to get what they need. Everyone has a common interest in keeping the machine functional, but no one person has any right to claim more of one thing over someone else. This arrangement isn’t in my mind more valuable, but it is different and I think very interesting. I am very interested in eliminating inequality of access when it comes to basic survival needs.
Also, the machine is fully automated. If you had a town with 100 fully automated businesses, that would totally count as “The Machine” to me. The modules don’t all have to be under one big housing to be considered part of the same system.
For me, the possibility of shared ownership and fully automated output create equality of access.
However I think early versions of these Machines will be more suited for caring for 5-10 people, so 1-3 families. And certainly it’s easier to imagine a few families coordinating to operate a machine than 100.