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

On 7/30/26 4:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> 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

u dont get it noah: why in the fuck is dud even complaining about 
needing a welfare state when the fucking open free markets is supposed 
to bring about prosperity for all???

> 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.

-- 
hi, i'm nick!
let's end war 🙃