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

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 18:55:42 -0700, dart200
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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

Somehow, I think that such employers would not miss a chance to get
employees who want to work for less.

>> 
>>>
>>> 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
>> 
-- 
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