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

On 7/30/2026 10:21 AM, dart200 wrote:
> On 7/30/26 10:05 AM, Dude wrote:
>> On 7/30/2026 7:33 AM, Wilson 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.
>>>
>>> People like Noah want to remake humanity into a selfless tribal 
>>> culture that is not motivated by the drive for self-improvement.
>>>
>>> He sees no possible downside to that.
>>>
>> Obviously, Noah has a regressive attitude. Nick, on the other hand, is 
>> a radical regressive. YMMV.
>>
>> their platform calls for an end to the American constitutional 
>> republic and would be disastrous for the working class.
> 
> shut the fuck up and open the borders u exploitive moron
> 
You can't have open borders in a welfare state. Why?

You'd break the bank and everyone would starve.

Apparently, you've been reading too much libertarian propaganda. Some 
people are highly susceptible to suggestion.

Are you sure you've thought this through?

Open borders are harmful primarily because they cause severe strain on 
public infrastructure and social services, create major national 
security and law enforcement challenges, and destabilize economic and 
welfare systems.