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

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 14:36:32 -0700, dart200
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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???

You know prosperity for all doesn't mean *for all*.  It means for me
and my pals.  If you aren't one of that group, you don't matter, are
not counted in any statistic whatever, and why are you still here, you
should be dead by now, hurry up.
-- 
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