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

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:33:05 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 7/29/2026 5:23 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 17:12:39 -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:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> So I wonder about the unintended second-order effects of that sort of thing.
>> 
>> That's interesting.  Wilson would never worry his little head about
>> unintended stuff when business does things.
>> 
>>> If I understand the idea (probably not to your satisfaction) the
>>> potential customer could see what products were costing the business and
>>> what they are making per transaction.
>>>
>>> It seems likely any business that made a higher profit per customer
>>> would be criticized even if their products were less expensive.
>>>
>>> So I wonder, what would be the incentive for a business to improve in
>>> order to cut costs if all of that would need to be given back to the
>>> customer?
>> 
>> Because greed is the only reason business is willing to do anything.
>> 
>>> Why bother?
>> 
>> Because we might all be better off if people could find a different
>> way to be motivated.
>> 
>>> Why not just let things be as they've always been.
>> 
>> Ah yes, do nothing, do nothing, do nothing.
>> 
>>> That's one place I see a drag on innovation.
>> 
>> Because greed is the only motive you understand.
>
>People do things to benefit themselves. That is a natural incentive.

Some people do.  Other people have other motives.  The problem is that
people who seek to benefit themselves tend to gain power in society.
That needs to change.

>People like Noah want to remake humanity into a selfless tribal culture 
>that is not motivated by the drive for self-improvement.

I remember complaints about me thinking I can read minds.

>He sees no possible downside to that.

I see various alternatives and continue to look for new ones.
-- 
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