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

On 7/30/26 1:36 PM, Dude wrote:
> 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.
> 

u don't need the "wElFaRe StAtE" when open markets bring prosperity for 
all, so what in the fuck is your point even???

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃