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

On 7/30/26 4:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 7/29/26 2:12 PM, Wilson 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.
>>
>> 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.
> 
> yes
> 
>>
>> It seems likely any business that made a higher profit per customer 
>> would be criticized even if their products were less expensive.
> 
> i tip my barber like 50% because i like his work bro
> 
>>
>> 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? Why bother? Why not just let things be as they've always been.
> 
> because ur competitor will out compete you for business dumbass

if ur entire business is out in the open, it's much easier for someone 
who's willing to do the work cheaper to copy you for cheaper. there are 
endless people on this planet willing to do the work cheaper wilson, 
that's why u cling to coercive border protection like ur ill begotten 
wealth depends on it

> 
>>
>> That's one place I see a drag on innovation.
>>
> 
> u think literally any change is a drag on innovation because u don't 
> even know what innovation is. the word has been dragged thru the mud by 
> wall street blowhards trying to strike it rich
> 

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃