3 ms·

Yes, the CEO of Netflix used that expression https://www.vox.com/2017/4/17/15334122/netflix-sleep-competitor-amazon-hbo https://www.vox.com/2017/4/17/15334122/n

by edent 6y ago

Yes, the CEO of Netflix used that expression https://www.vox.com/2017/4/17/15334122/netflix-sleep-competitor-amazon-hbo https://www.vox.com/2017/4/17/15334122/netflix-sleep-competi... It is, perhaps, one of the motivators behind self-driving cars. It gives people more time to watch movies or engage in productive work. Any time not spent consuming or creating is bad for the economy.

indigochill 6y ago
> Any time not spent consuming or creating is bad for the economy. Haha, this might be an economic "spherical cow". Realistically, we can't be consuming/creating all the time. People need downtime (you can't argue time spent sleeping is bad for the economy when people cease functioning when they get sleep-deprived enough).
- LadyCailin 6y ago
  Well, the other confounding factor is that the economy only cares about this quarter. Or, even more precisely, it only cares about the change in stock prices, not their absolute value. Every day, the stock price needs to continue to trend upwards, or it has no value, even if the company is itself immensely profitable or otherwise useful.
- indymike 6y ago
  Leisure time is consumed, too. The mattress industry would love to help you sleep better, etc...
agent008t 6y ago
Seems like it is often forgotten that the point of the economy is the wellbeing of the people. Say, during COVID, I think many people suddenly discovered that they do not need as much consumption as they thought they did. Replacing going out or shopping with a walk in the park was a pleasant change for some. And yet instead of learning something from the experience, people are pressured to return to their old consumption habits as if it is some sort of civic duty, because it is "good for the economy". It is the equivalent of breaking windows and fixing them up again to create an economic boom - it is bad for the economy and the people and is just a transfer of resources to a specific trade.
bonoboTP 6y ago
> Any time not spent consuming or creating is bad for the economy. This sounds horrific to me. Why would we want to avoid bad stuff "for the economy"? Is the economy some kind of god we have to serve by the ritual of media consumption? This view is only one step away from telling me I'm foregoing my patriotic duties by choosing to just make tea and sit in quiet or talk to people without going to the movies or doing something "structured". > "gives people more time to watch movies" Why do you immediately accociate to movies and productivity? How about give them more time to talk to their neighbors or their family or to contemplate their life or whatever else?
temac 6y ago
> Any time not spent consuming or creating is bad for the economy. This is a complete countersense toward the etymology of "economy" and I would even say toward its only possible natural goal. The concept of economy is about reaching goals with the least effort. And the selection of those goals can certainly not be "the economy", that would be circular, an attempt to optimize arbitrary conventions that is completely meaningless. So having a good economy is certainly not possible by the furious consumption of unneeded things. I couldn't care less about "the economy" if its goal has shifted toward the selection of our new masters. And that state of mind about "the economy" will certainly not favor neighbourhood stores but more probably megacorps and their (often very few) owners.

by edent 6y ago

indigochill 6y ago

> Any time not spent consuming or creating is bad for the economy. Haha, this might be an economic "spherical cow". Realistically, we can't be consuming/creating all the time. People need downtime (you can't argue time spent sleeping is bad for the economy when people cease functioning when they get sleep-deprived enough).

LadyCailin 6y ago
Well, the other confounding factor is that the economy only cares about this quarter. Or, even more precisely, it only cares about the change in stock prices, not their absolute value. Every day, the stock price needs to continue to trend upwards, or it has no value, even if the company is itself immensely profitable or otherwise useful.
indymike 6y ago
Leisure time is consumed, too. The mattress industry would love to help you sleep better, etc...

agent008t 6y ago

Seems like it is often forgotten that the point of the economy is the wellbeing of the people. Say, during COVID, I think many people suddenly discovered that they do not need as much consumption as they thought they did. Replacing going out or shopping with a walk in the park was a pleasant change for some. And yet instead of learning something from the experience, people are pressured to return to their old consumption habits as if it is some sort of civic duty, because it is "good for the economy". It is the equivalent of breaking windows and fixing them up again to create an economic boom - it is bad for the economy and the people and is just a transfer of resources to a specific trade.

bonoboTP 6y ago

> Any time not spent consuming or creating is bad for the economy. This sounds horrific to me. Why would we want to avoid bad stuff "for the economy"? Is the economy some kind of god we have to serve by the ritual of media consumption? This view is only one step away from telling me I'm foregoing my patriotic duties by choosing to just make tea and sit in quiet or talk to people without going to the movies or doing something "structured". > "gives people more time to watch movies" Why do you immediately accociate to movies and productivity? How about give them more time to talk to their neighbors or their family or to contemplate their life or whatever else?

temac 6y ago

> Any time not spent consuming or creating is bad for the economy. This is a complete countersense toward the etymology of "economy" and I would even say toward its only possible natural goal. The concept of economy is about reaching goals with the least effort. And the selection of those goals can certainly not be "the economy", that would be circular, an attempt to optimize arbitrary conventions that is completely meaningless. So having a good economy is certainly not possible by the furious consumption of unneeded things. I couldn't care less about "the economy" if its goal has shifted toward the selection of our new masters. And that state of mind about "the economy" will certainly not favor neighbourhood stores but more probably megacorps and their (often very few) owners.