I believe there are efficincies in the marketplace that are not captured in the financial data - everything in my daily life is much easier now that I have a smartphone in my pocket and everything is online. Maybe the fact that everything is more efficient means one can get more value with less - thus, making the daily consumer effectively better off although the capital is hurt. What does this mean for the economy in total? Everything except truly constrained things like land are utterly commoditized?
To elaborate - we measure the price of the big mac, but put no price a) finding the big mac b) finding the cheapest bigmac (both of a and b are easier, but there is no way for the McBurger chain to capture the value of this) c) discovering bigmacs are actually bad for you, abstaining from them and saving a ton in healthcare costs later on, and also living longer (thus, consuming and producing more over ones lifespan).
It makes sense to not measure those things because they don't increase our overall happiness or productivity.
You can't live off imgur cat pictures or spreadsheets about big mac nutrition. If that were the case the Western populations would be as happy as they were never before. People need a house, an occupation that gives meaning to their lives, the right to political participation and shape their everyday experiences. These things are currently under a lot of fire and it won't go away by appeasing the population with Netflix.
It's really not that much of a mystery, if a whole segment of the population is robbed of these opportunities it's going to get ugly.
"It makes sense to not measure those things because they don't increase our overall happiness or productivity."
I disagree. The accessibility of everything nowadays reduces the opportunities for frustration very often (i.e I don't need to queue at a bank at my lunch hour except in very special circumstances). Thus - more happiness.
"You can't live off imgur cat pictures or spreadsheets about big mac nutrition."
No, my comment was not about the internet alone. It was about the secondary effects accessibility of information has on daily life in the strictly physical domain.
"People need a house, an occupation that gives meaning to their lives, the right to political participation and shape their everyday experiences."
Yes, I agree. The human life is very shallow without the joy of self-expression. I was not suggesting smartphones connected to internet will replace life. My comment was about the fact how they reduce the tedious, non-productive segments of life.
