Comments on: Measuring fun http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Lord http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-3288 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:43:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/#comment-3288 How perceptive of you. Your commentary is always sharp and on target. You are a real gift to the internet (seriously).

]]>
By: donna http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-3276 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:45:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/#comment-3276 Personally I found the Internet to be a lot more fun before money was involved in it at all. Letting commerce onto the Internet was a big mistake. It was way more fun when we techies had our own personal toy to play on. ;^)

]]>
By: Victor http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-3262 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:34:37 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/#comment-3262 Secretivec,

It is completely reasonable that some goods have higher consumer surpluses than others. Water, for example, has more than diamonds. The invention of a good with high consumer surplus but low price, like the polio vaccine or perhaps the internet, will raise happiness more than GDP.

]]>
By: Ironman http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-3261 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:29:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/#comment-3261 Felix wrote:

“Of course, determining whether the fun-to-GDP ratio is improving requires coming up with some independently quantifiable measure of aggregate fun, which seems pretty hard.

Wouldn’t aggregate time consumed by “fun” or recreational activities with respect to GDP be the ideal measure?

]]>
By: AndrewBW http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-3259 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:48:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/#comment-3259 Mark G. beat me to it. A comment always worth remembering when we talk about economics.

]]>
By: secretivek http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-3246 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:39:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/#comment-3246 Well, if I’m getting $20 worth of fun from using my internet connection, I ought to be willing to pay $20 to their ISP to be able to have that fun. But really, most people aren’t willing to pay that. So, revealed preferences say no. Now, I’m sure Tyler has some consumer surplus, but it’s the case with every good (in a market where price discrimination doesn’t work) that most consumers get *some* surplus.

So what, is he saying that the consumer surplus is somehow getting bigger?

]]>
By: Gene http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-3244 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:48:05 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/#comment-3244 I guess I’m skeptical of the correlation between being Green, which usually implies a hair shirt lifestyle and “fun” — driving your Prius anywhere versus driving a Ferrari, for example.

But I’d love to see some convincing examples in favor.

]]>
By: jonathan http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-3237 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:50:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/#comment-3237 There have been attempts to measure a more wholistic product, but let me mention an issue that’s kind of “fun.” Real studies show that people enjoy hobbies much more than TV. It’s not even close; TV tests as a low payback device that requires low up front investment versus hobbies (and interests) which tend to pay back 4 times as much but which require more up front. So if the net increases “fun,” then is it recovering what TV cost us?

Remember that middle class people used to own pianos. One can argue that TV brought more low grade “fun” to more people – though radio had done that earlier and radio allowed people to do something else while listening – but then how much penetration does the net have? So maybe the net will pay us with more fun, but it may have a 50 year deep hole to fill in.

]]>
By: VennData http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-3236 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:40:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/#comment-3236 I think he’s replaying Sanford’s idea of fiscal conservatism, with all this talk of fun (but gotta keep it in the country, right?)

]]>
By: The Epicurean Dealmaker http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/comment-page-1/#comment-3226 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:39:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/25/measuring-fun/#comment-3226 I would go further and say that the burden of proof is on Cowen and his fellow web enthusiasts to prove (or at least convincingly demonstrate) that the advent of the web has not simply displaced other, offline pursuits of fun with online ones. I, for one, have not noticed a net increase in my disposable leisure hours since the advent of the worldwide web. If anything, I spend more hours hunched in front of a glowing screen than I ever did 20 years ago. Is this progress? Is this fun? Is it even healthy?

]]>