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

On 7/30/2026 8:26 AM, Julian wrote:
> On 30/07/2026 15:29, Wilson wrote:
>> On 7/29/2026 5:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 17:23:19 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/2026 5:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 17:08:33 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, let's not think about the renaissance.  Hardly anybody knows
>>>>> about that anymore anyway.
>>>
>>> There was no such thing as big business at that time.  There was
>>> certainly no open market involved.
>>>
>>> through history we've never seen more innovation than what an open
>>> market... Yes, the renaissance was such a time, but it had nothing to
>>> do with open markets.  It was patronage of wealthy men.  Like popes
>>> and nobility who were able to scrounge wealth from feudalism.
>>>
>>>> private actors seeing and meeting the needs of the people.
>>>
>>> What they see and meet these days is their own need to make a profit.
>>> Needs of people has nothing to do with it.  It is true though, that
>>> with a little creative marketing you can sell refrigerators to eskimos
>>> these days.
>>>
>>>> The renaissance was partially funded by governments and rulers who
>>>> commissioned public works and used art for legitimacy and propaganda,
>>>> but most was paid for by private sector orgs.
>>>>
>>>> "Wealthy banking and trading families, most famously the Medici in
>>>> Florence, used commercial profits to commission art, architecture,
>>>> scholarship, and science. They supported artists (Donatello, 
>>>> Botticelli,
>>>> and Michelangelo early on), architects (Brunelleschi’s dome), and
>>>> libraries. Other families (Strozzi, etc.) and guilds (corporate bodies
>>>> of merchants/craftsmen) also commissioned major works, such as statues
>>>> for Orsanmichele. In Florence especially, private donors funded much
>>>> church construction and decoration by buying chapels and furnishings.
>>>> This commercial wealth and competition for status/prestige were big 
>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>> The Church was one of the largest overall patrons.
>>>
>>> Patronage   That is what was going on.  Not open markets meeting the
>>> needs of people  The pope commissioned the sistine chapel.  What need
>>> of people did that meet?  Did it help feed the poor?  Could the cost
>>> of that chapel been better used?
>>>
>>> If michaelangeo had not received that commission, would he not have
>>> used his abilities in some other way?  Sure he would.  He was an
>>> artist, artists do art one way or the other.
>>>
>>>> Popes commissioned
>>>> major projects in Rome like Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling, work
>>>> by Raphael, the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica, and Vatican
>>>> decorations. Funding came from Church revenues. Religious orders,
>>>> clergy, and confraternities were also active patrons of religious art
>>>> and architecture."
>>>
>>> And not at all from innovation that an open market allows.  Thanks for
>>> making my point.
>>
>> How did the Medici family during the renaissance make their money?
>>
>> "Primarily through banking (especially as papal bankers), combined 
>> with trade in wool, silk, and later alum, plus related manufacturing.
>> The family’s major rise began with Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici (c. 
>> 1360–1429). Earlier Medici had roots in the Mugello region north of 
>> Florence, with some involvement in land, commerce, and money-changing, 
>> but they were not among the top banking houses. Giovanni trained and 
>> worked under a successful cousin, Vieri di Cambio de’ Medici. He later 
>> took control of Roman operations and formally established the Medici 
>> Bank in Florence in 1397."
>>
>> More:
>> https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_401d4876-2185-4ae1-bfb8- 
>> ecd62a8e6f07
>>
>> They originally made their money primarily through financing 
>> merchants, which relied on trade. AKA the free market.
>>
>> So much of what Noah thinks he knows is simply wrong.
> 
> All the great UK monasteries and cathedrals were financed
> by trade... turning wool into gold.
 >
Something got cut out and the Subject was changed to "What is economics 
anyway"?

Apparently, Noah was mistaken.

The Renaissance was deeply connected to early market innovation, as 
wealthy, competing city-states, the rise of a powerful merchant class, 
and new financial tools like banking funded the era's great cultural and 
technological shifts.

And the Renaissance indirectly influenced the French Revolution by 
fostering humanism, questioning traditional authority, and reviving 
classical republican ideas, though the more immediate catalyst was the 
18th-century Enlightenment.