Re: what is economics for anyways????????

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 08:51:12 -0700, Dude <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/29/2026 6:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 7/29/26 2:16 PM, Wilson wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2026 5:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/26 2:08 PM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2026 3:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/28/26 10:02 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/27/2026 7:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/27/26 1:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2026 3:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 12:47:57 -0400, Wilson 
>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't even defined what you mean by "consumer 
>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency". How
>>>>>>>>>>>> about starting there? Because it sounds like made-up bogus 
>>>>>>>>>>>> progressive
>>>>>>>>>>>> collectivist nonsense that in the end only results in the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> reduction of
>>>>>>>>>>>> personal agency.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> most utility for least time and cost
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> this can be hard to define, but for digital systems this 
>>>>>>>>>> becomes much easier due to the precision of the objects being 
>>>>>>>>>> bought and sold.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the distribution costs of digital products is so negligible 
>>>>>>>>>> that we need to utilize govts to stop it from happening for 
>>>>>>>>>> free. when i pay for a digital product i'm not paying for 
>>>>>>>>>> distribution, i'm trying to pay for the creation of the 
>>>>>>>>>> product, something which the distribution platform has no 
>>>>>>>>>> participation within.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to turn around and have the distribution platform take a 30% 
>>>>>>>>>> cut, and then mostly distribute my subscription money away from 
>>>>>>>>>> the artists i actually listen to, and instead in accordance 
>>>>>>>>>> with massive digital rights contracts between the platform and 
>>>>>>>>>> major music publishers... is incredibly inefficient in regards 
>>>>>>>>>> to the transaction i'm trying to undertake: which is payback 
>>>>>>>>>> the artists for the creation of the music i listen to so that 
>>>>>>>>>> they create more of the music is _actually_ listen to...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to the ask my to have to buy and managed my digital library 
>>>>>>>>>> myself is asking me to bear a different cost: my time in 
>>>>>>>>>> setting that up and doing so. and ur not only asking me to 
>>>>>>>>>> _bear_ that cost, ur asking _everyone_ to redundantly _bear_ 
>>>>>>>>>> that cost on an individual level across society
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...which is just incredibly moronically inefficient as compared 
>>>>>>>>>> to having a single communal digital repository which provides 
>>>>>>>>>> _both_ an optimal interface into consumer, and optimal 
>>>>>>>>>> distribution back to the artists i _actually_ listen to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's not at all what I was thinking you had in mind.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In my business I deal with people in the real world space. What 
>>>>>>>>> set me off against the idea of "consumer efficiency" was a 
>>>>>>>>> system that decided what was acceptably efficient, placed in 
>>>>>>>>> between the seller and the customer. That would be a bad idea 
>>>>>>>>> for them and the provider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i have said this many times before: we should open the financial 
>>>>>>>> operations of all businesses, and let the consumers decide if the 
>>>>>>>> service is truly efficient for the price or not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Small businesses as well? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ofc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Requiring that sort of reporting (with the necessary legal 
>>>>>>> compliance oversight costs) will increase customer costs as well. 
>>>>>>> Doing that sort of thin is not automatic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> automated reports is not what i'm talking about, i'm talking about 
>>>>>> real time auditability where the entire business is run in an open 
>>>>>> manner that consumers can browse at their leisure
>>>>>>
>>>>>> info tech is exactly the kind of thing that solve. govt provides an 
>>>>>> efficient platform to run ur business from that has this automated 
>>>>>> real time auditability built in. businesses can choose to use 
>>>>>> it ... or fail due to the cost of trying to utilize other less 
>>>>>> efficient processes. that's fine. people with their head on 
>>>>>> straight (like not you) will figure this out
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the context of software and music I don't think you're 100% 
>>>>>>>>> wrong. But I'd want multiple digital communities to chose from. 
>>>>>>>>> They might all want to use the same interchangeable format but 
>>>>>>>>> no lock-in to a single provider. Choice incentivizes better 
>>>>>>>>> service and it drives innovation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> choice also has a massive cost: duplicated effort, which is the 
>>>>>>>> antithesis of efficiency when it comes to computing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> blindly calling for choice endlessly, is a thoughtless response 
>>>>>>>> that has no bearing on the truth of the matter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> having a communally owned solutions operated with the goal of 
>>>>>>>> fulfilling the needs of the consumers, instead of random-ass 
>>>>>>>> number go up, is going to be vastly superior economic paradigm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That will kill innovation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ur not capable of identifying innovation wilson, cause having info- 
>>>>>> tech companies compete to solve info-tech infrastructure is an 
>>>>>> anti- pattern that impedes upon idealized system, meaning they 
>>>>>> _cannot_ innovate toward optimal systems. having a slew of sub 
>>>>>> optimal solution is _not_ innovation wilson
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Word salad.
>>>>
>>>> literally every post u write dud
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For better or worse, through history we've never seen more 
>>>>> innovation than what an open market allows with private actors 
>>>>> seeing and meeting the needs of the people.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> except all the foundational research is done in academic/public 
>>>> sectors u moron,
>>>
>>> Bell Labs existed and similar does today.
>> 
>> cherry picking will never tell a narrative wilson
>> 
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ur again just cherry picking facts, cause u aren't engaged in a 
>>>> genuine pursuit of truth.
>>>>
>>>> heck the only reason we see any innovation in the private sector at 
>>>> all is the fact that capitalist ideologues continually push all 
>>>> production to the private sector to they can profit off after the 
>>>> foundation research is completely by the academic/public sector, 
>>>> because foundational research is _far_ too risks for profit huffing 
>>>> morons
>>>>
>>>> we bearly even _allow_ the public sector to compete in production, so 
>>>> who knows what kind of innovation we're leaving on the table cause 
>>>> profit huffing morons control all the consumer production
>>>>
>>>
>>> The public sector has an awful record of efficiency. Public grocery 
>>> stores for example, and that's gotta be one of the simplest things in 
>>> the world to run.
>>>
>> 
>> the us military runs public grocery stores just fine actually
>>
>The problem with grocery stores in the military is choices. Not much 
>variety of junk food on the shelves.
> >
>> not sure why local govts "can't" ... probably some combination of 
>> constant sabotage from retarded ideologues like urself, and the fact 
>> they usually take on places where private sector already failed
>> 
>One of the main reason government stores fail is theft.
>
>Public stores face high financial losses from inventory shrinkage, 
>spoilage, and retail theft without the flexible management tools used in 
>the private sector. Free food!
>
>Unlike major corporate chains, government stores lack the purchasing 
>power, supply chain logistics, and bulk discounts needed to keep food 
>prices low.
>
Ha, yet they remain quite low in my memory.
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away