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

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 21:20:39 +0000, Creon <[email protected]> wrote:

>At Thu, 30 Jul 2026 12:42:07 -0400, Noah Sombrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:29:45 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>> 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.
>> 
>> We started here:
>> 
>> > 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.
>> 
>> I said, the renaissance.
>> You said, yeh, that is also "open market allows with private actors
>> seeing and meeting the needs of the people"
>> 
>> I say, it was no such thing.  It was the appearance of wealth from the
>> feudal system, and the pope's churches.  Do wealthy nobles and wealth
>> churches equal your "private actors"?  No, those simply were the
>> overlords of the time.  The little local cobbler, and carpenter, and
>> farmer always were and still are the source of the wealth of
>> overlords.
>> 
>> As always the concern of rich people is how to get richer, "needs of
>> people be damned"?  The commercial revolution
>> 
>> 1) made a place where rich people can put their wealth so it is harder
>> to steal - banks
>> 2) exploited and sell resources 
>> 
>> Again comes the need, how can rich people get richer?  The industrial
>> revolution.  And then the advertising revolution.
>> 
>> Why is advertising necessary?  Because basic needs of people are now
>> mostly met, so how can rich people continue to get richer?  By
>> convincing people they have a need for gizmos and gallipers that
>> industry can make.  There seems to be no end to that.  
>> 
>> 50 different kinds each of potato chips, and shampoos, and allergy
>> relief and pain relief, and cars, and trucks and airplanes.  All of
>> which you really do need, don't you, don't you, don't you?  You really
>> think this song is about you.  No it is not about you, it is about how
>> can rich people get richer.
>> 
>> It always was.  But it has never been about private actors seeing and
>> meeting the needs of the people.  Although, they certainly want you to
>> believe that.
>
>I am in agreement of what you are saying, but not all wealthy people
>start out with generational wealth.

Of course, but a thousand years ago when all there was only nobility
and the church and feudal tenants, people started figuring out how to
accumulate wealth.  And so here we are.

>Some people get "lucky", for varying values of luck.  For some, "luck"
>is "opportunity" + "action".
>
>Starting an ISP in 1994 was the smartest thing we ever did.  Now we are the
>exception, not the rule:  10Gbit/s residential fiber to the home.
>
>I'd be glad to tell you more, but I'm under the weather right now.
-- 
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