I’ve been a vocal supporter of NetFlix for the last year or so. I can name at least three people who have ended up subscribing to NetFlix only after I helped persuade them of the benefits (especially in this small town, where the nearest video rental place is 25 minutes away). I gave gift subscriptions to friends and family this past Christmas. And anyone who uses the word “Blockbuster” in front of me is usually engaged in a conversation about how silly they are for renting from those fuckers.
But it turns out that all the good will I’ve been showing Netflix is not being returned to me. Or to any of the other “heavy renters.”
It turns out that the more you use Netflix, the more they screw you.
In January of last year, Netflix revised its “terms of use” policy to include this line: “In determining priority for shipping and inventory allocation, we give priority to those members who receive the fewest DVDs through our service.” And Wired reports [link above] that “The statement specifically warns that heavy renters are more likely to encounter shipping delays and less likely to immediately be sent their top choices.” The Netflix CEO calls this a “fairness algorithm.”
Now, put in those terms, it sounds like the algorithm gives preferential treatment to the typical renter when both a typical and a heavy renter are trying to take out the same movie, which seems fair. Chances are the heavy renter needs less coddling by Netflix than a non-heavy renter, and so the service should be more worried about the satisfaction of the typical renter. I have no problem with that.
But…this “fairness algorithm” isn’t used simply when two people are trying to rent the same movie. It’s also used to slow down rentals. As it says in their terms of use, most renters will have the next movie in the queue set out the day Netflix recieves the previously rented movie, but heavy renters won’t get their next movie sent out for “at least one business day following the return of their previously viewed movie.” What’s more, the movie may be sent from a shipping center that is farther away than necessary in order to slow down the user’s viewing habits.
Something that does that should not be called a “fairness algorithm” because it’s not fair to anyone but Netflix’s investors.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand the reason for this. If everyone pays a flat fee, Netflix doesn’t make as much money on heavy renters as it does on more typical renters. From a purely monetary perspective, this is an interesting solution to a legitimate concern.
But it just seems wrong for a company to penalize its best customers. While there’s a good chance that heavy renters aren’t also advocates for the service, there’s also a chance that they are. I write a “.02 review” for every movie I rent; I usually end up recommending it to at least one friend; and I always write about the movie (with a link to Netflix) on my blog. It just doesn’t seem right for me to be penalized simply because I’m using Netflix as often as possible.
And as a commenter wrote on the Blogcritics.org article, “Netflix getting too tricky for its own good,” Netflix should probably do the reverse. Crystal writes
Netflix should send the most desired movies to the quick viewers first. They’ll watch them right away and send them back, and the slower viewers can get the movies in the same week. If you send the movies to the slow viewers first, they will keep them out longer, and the fast viewers will have to wait a week or more to get them. This method would help Netflix keep their costs down, by keeping the number of copies needed down to a minimum, rather than by reducing their postage costs, and it would provide the best customer service for everybody.
The solution that seems to make the most people happy is to drop the concept of “unlimited rentals” and cap the number at whatever is necessary for Netflix to retain its desired profit margins while not screwing customers like me. Tell me I got a cap of 15 movies a month (or whatever the number would be), and then send me those movies as fast as you can. Don’t tell me I get unlimited rentals and then tell me that you’re limiting me through some “fairness algorithm.”
Because that’s just not right.
53 Comments
I’ve been dissatisfied with Netflix since being throttled. Mostly it’s the disrespect that bugs me, yet I’ve stayed with them. What are the alternatives? I don’t trust Blockbuster. I’m looking now at greencine.
If I were a Netflix investor–I’m not, but I’ve considered it–I’d be pretty irate. The strength of the company is its reputation. Anybody else can offer a competing service. So they are being *way* too tricky for their own good.
The only advice I can offer for anyone else who feels like Kyle and our little Yak buddy, Fido, is as follows;
Never support anything other then a mom and pop operation (if given the choice). Think small. It’s easy for me because I’ve tried to run a small business before. It’s tough. You need the support of the little people. Little people can make a (get this) big difference. There are two local, rental stores in town. They are both owned by young people, like myself. These stores offer way more of a selection of independent and foreign films than you are likely to find on netshits. And here is the best part of being a regular customer at a small store that appreciates your business– They are all about hooking up a valued consumer. I’m talking free rentals and forget about a late fee if your only a day or two behind. Look around alternatives may be out there.
It’s all about the money. All you passionate people follow Leigh’s advice. but if you don’t get your rental sent in one business day, is it going to end? Kyle, especially you, you can always read a book or go for a walk…the movie will show up eventually…I guess I don’t see the big deal, when it comes it comes. I watch and then I send it back…
Of course it is all about the money, but that doesn’t mean that it should be.
I hear what Leigh is saying, but he lives in a small city, where the mom and pop operation is an option. Here in rural Vermont, our only options are 1) the one video store in town, which only carries popular movies (the ones I have no interest in), and 2) driving 25-30 minutes to Blockbuster. To my thinking, Netflix was the mom and pop operation when compared to Blockbuster.
The big deal is 1) that Netflix said unlimited rentals, but they didn’t mean it, 2) that they punish their best customers. The problem is that, because of the flat fee and because of the lack of a person to person relationship, it’s tough to explain how one customer is better than the other.
Perhaps Netflix should take into account the level of participation on the site. For example, Adam doesn’t rate anything he watches. All he uses the system for is to line up his queue. He doesn’t participate in the community of Netflix. In other words, he’s taking from Netflix — benefitting not only from their stock of movies, but also from their automated recommendations, which only work because of the community rating system — but he doesn’t give anything back. Perhaps it makes sense to throttle the service for that kind of user, but it doesn’t make sense to penalize the user who is an active member of the community.
Maybe I dont understand, it is unlimited rentals, how much you pay a month a like $9 flat fee, and how many movies do you get in one month, average? so even if you only get 4 movies a month, you make out. the average movie rental costs (either Mom and pop shops or Blockbuster) $4 - 5.00. I have net flicks (thanks Kyle for the xmas present) for another 10 days before I cancel. I have watched in the last 2 months at least 10 movies. thats roughly $50 bucks if I went to block buster…and I would have only paid roughly 18 bucks…so it is a deal….You should be happy with any amount movies you watched over what the average cost would be if you only rented via mom and pop or blockbuster…Does it say how long it takes for you ‘heavy users” to get your next rentals sent out to you? is it a day later? is it that big of a deal?
Hey man, I’m a college student without a TV (the service, not the box). That means I got a lot of downtime. Sometimes, you just really want to watch a movie. And since I was used to Netflix doing a one-day turnaround for me, I got used to always having a movie around. Apparently, I’m a heavy renter now, because it’s changed to about a three day turnaround. That means my downtime is even more down now. Is it a big deal? Is anyone dying? Is there pain and suffering? No. But I live in America, where not getting what you want when you want it means that something must be wrong. Simple as that :-)
and thats what is wrong with america… ;-)
Hey, don’t try to get me in trouble. I don’t rate movies not because I’m some kind of anti-social community hater. I just don’t feel the need to rate movies. To me, that’s work and not fun - watching movies is fun. In fact, if you want to know my opinion, just ask me. I’ll tell you.
And another thing, it is ridiculous to tell people to actively seek out mom and pop shops as opposed to corporate soul sucking enterprises. Like Kyle said, this is America, you are supposed to seek out the best products and services that you want and can financially afford.
If a mom and pop is superior to the corporate behemoth, go for it, by all means. But often times the corporate giant does things better and/or cheaper and therefore it is the way to go. While I might go to a small local shoe shop to buy my new balance sneakers because they offer better service, less crowded, etc…I would never buy locally made sneakers because I don’t think they would be as good and they would probably be more expensive…so I use a combination of the local shop to buy the behemoth product.
Adam said, “I just don’t feel the need to rate movies…” Right. And that’s why you should be punished by the system.
As for the mom and pop thing, that’s your right. But you’re a capitalist, where every action you take needs to be understood within your self interest. When you evolve your thinking into a more socialist understanding of the market, you’ll begin to recognize the common interest that is served by shopping at mom and pop rather than Wal-Mart.
Oh, and the argument for buying locally produced goods is something along the lines of this:
Keeping our local producers in business supports our local economy. Dollars spent close to home tend to stay close to home. Our local producers understand our community and work to provide what the community desires. The more we feel connected to the people who produce what we utilize, the better we preserve our regional heritage.
There’s probably more, but that’s one argument.
so you should be working with your local video store to start carrying more independent films (or modify your tastes to what they carry)…but instead you chose to sign up for netflix and watch what you want for cheap.
kyle is a Callahan….Kev Cal wrote the book of wanting things for cheap $…and when it doesn’t go his way he complains…kinda like my grandfather…Does this mean Kyle is more like Kev Cal in his old age?
waaaaaaaahhh it took an extra day to get my movie
waaaaaaahhhhhhh now i have popcorn and nothing to watch
waaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh looks like I am going to have to eat this whole bag of red twizzlers in front of my computer.
Why don’t you rent the movie from an online place like CinemaNow and watch it on your computer on your super cool new monitor? You could even try to hook up computer so that it plays on your tv. Stop bitching. The company needs to make money for their shareholders or they go out of business. It is either wait an extra day or find another place, because you can not have both. When Netflix went public, it stopped being about the customer.
I can’t even see how this is a big deal. I also do not rate videos. Who the hell am I? Who cares what I thought of the movie. Nobody knows me. As far as they are concerned, I could be completley insane. Also, what if I think a movie is great and someone reads my review, rents the movie for a big date, and the movie sucks, and that person does not get the girl, and then hunts me down like Steve Martin in “The Jerk” when he got his name in the phonebook?
Wow.
I didn’t realize it was a sign of poor sportsmanship for a customer to relay his opinion about the service he receives from a company.
As for Cinemanow, it doesn’t work on Macs. Luckily, they make something called BitTorrent.
And Adam, I agree with you. That’s probably what I should be doing.
Oh, and Shawn, that was Adam that wanted something cheap, not me.
Adam, you goof-ball, mom and pop operations are in most cases inexpensive. The reason other stores are cheaper is because of slave labor and something called a monopoly. Large companies can drive prices down in an effort to push out the little man. The little man can not afford to compete with low prices. And Home Depo products (for one example) are not better then the neighborhood lumber yard. This I know for a fact. Dude, watch Walmart The high Cost of Low Prices, or at least read Fast Food Nation before you try to get into an argument with me about why we should buy what is “easier” to buy. So don’t tell me that it’s, “ridiculous to tell people to actively seek out mom and pop shops”. Because It is actually an intelligent alternative to being swallowed up by crap ass companies that do not even offer health care to their working poor employees. I would also like to add that in my first comment I used words such as, “if given the choice”, and, “alternatives may be out there”. So I don’t think I was pushing anything at that point. I was merely suggesting.
Also (for anyone who hasn’t) check out the movie, The Corporation…and yes I am a whacked out liberal. But I’m the kind that drinks beer, eats meat and kicks ass.
The problem is blockbuster killed local movie stores. I do not think there is one left on the north shore. Home depot is a good place to buy name brand tools but their wood sucks and shit like that usually sucks.
I am not too sure mom and pop stores offer health ins either, but i would gladly rent shit from them as I hate blockbuster with every fiber in my body. Especially the one on boston street in lynn where 90% of the shit is scratched. Nothing worse then getting half way through a movie and having it stop/skip.
The only niche a mom and pop video store can exploit and stay in business is porn. Blockbuster aint got it, netflix ain’t got it nobody’s got it. See what corporate america has done to mom amd pop turned them into smut peddlers.
Especially the mom and pop stores selling porn of mom and pop.
Kinney one thing about Wall Mart, is they give new employees information on how to apply for health care through the state. The health care they offer is in many cases too expensive for the workers to afford. That means you are paying the heath care for an employee of a multi billion dollar corporation. That’ s crazy.
And yeah they’ve got porn at the mom and pop stores, that’s what I meant by, “a good selection of Foreign Films…”
Yeah I used to work for walmart(sams club). Might be the worst company to work for ever. The health Ins is a joke, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of big companies get tax help for health insurance including the one I eork for now. Gotta love corperate america.
i read fast food nation and enjoyed it. I’m also a liberal. I also understand capitalism and how the economy works. the success of capitalism (lest I remind you) is the reason why were are able to sit in comfy chairs, and type away on fancy computers using this thing called the internet. None of this would have happened without extreme capitalism (and all the evil that comes with it). You take the good with the bad. There aren’t many middle class people in the world with the type of technology and quality of life that we all enjoy becasue of exteme capitalistic nature of our society and support from our government. Kyle lives nowhere, I mean nowhere, yet has high speed internet and has a job that pays him good money that is located hundreds of miles away. And he complains about corporate america…he tried working for a sandwhich shop for one semester and hated it so much, he had to quit…without capitalism…he would be much more likely to be working at the sandwhich shop (and living in a dorm) without a car, without the ability to afford netflix (and complain about it) no 100% more likely, but in my view, certainly more likely.
so lets all just be happy with what we have, understand that a lot of evil has been done, is being done, and will continue to be done to get us what we want…even if it is indirectly.
and lastly, lets do the best job we can to keep corporations in some kind of line (thank god for eliot spitzer and the like) to keep at a minimum the damage the capitalism creates….it is this balance that has established us as a world power.
These days, it seems Europe has actually managed this balance between capitalism and corporate responsability (think the environment) better than the U.S. It will be interesting to see if this translates into a better society than the one we have here, or a safer one. Europe is tough, because deep down, they all hate each other and that powder keg is going to blow at some point….
Canada is also better at it…and they have no natural enemies…so really, Canada rules and we should all move there…just like Michael Moore says (see, I am a liberal)
Hey adam check out how many american companies are really owned by european corporations.(like stop and shop) The EU will work because as much as they hate each other they hate the US more. If they do not band together then they will be behind the US, china, india, and russia.
they won’t be behind China, India or Russia. You do realize those countries are woefully poor and have a very, very, very, very (can’e emphasize enough) long road ahead of them to even be considered on the same plane as the U.S, Europe, Japan, etc.
there are more opportunities in those countries for sure. But the opportunities is for the U.S and Europe to exploit those economies, they are not in any position to become equals to us.
Adam wrote, “The success of capitalism…is the reason why we are able to sit in comfy chairs and type away on fancy computers.” It is also the reason why farmers can’t use the seeds they want, because they once purchased Monsanto seeds, which change the entire field so that nothing will grow but Monsanto seeds. This, in turn, locks the farmer into buying Monsanto seeds, when their might be better and/or cheaper seeds on the market.
Capitalism, once it becomes global, exceeds the power of governments to regulate it. Unfettered capitalism can only bring out THE WORST in us. It’s predicated on the notion that it’s more important to think of yourself than of your neighbors. The problem is that one is not able to think of oneself unless one considers one’s neighbors.
How comfortable will our chairs be when the poor people of the world rise up? How comfortable were the chairs in the World Trade Center, and how fancy were their computers?
I know the whole human nature argument. But the thing about the “human” side of “human nature” is the ability to move above and beyond one’s nature. Just because we haven’t (and never truly will), doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying.
It’s the notion of the ideal as a model: it’s not an end result, but a model for behavior.
Your request to “be happy with what we have, understand that a lot of evil has been done, is being done, and will continue to be done to get us what we want…even if it is indirectly” is the very model of apathy.
Oh, and calling oneself a liberal does make oneself so. Liberalism is the notion that things can get better, but only if some sort of action is taken: progress is not a natural phenomenon. Liberalism is not simply agreeing that people would be better off if they were nice to each other.
Nor is it aligned with the notion that “exploitation” is the proper response to the opportunity for exploitation.
Call it utopian if you want, but it’s the idea that utopia, which literally means “no land,” is not a place we can reach, but it is a place we can strive for. The key is to strive. Not to sit back and watch.
And yes, I realize my own hypocricy here. But I’m hoping to become a teacher, which is, I think, the most realistic form of activism we have.
Adam the EU is more powerfull but take the individual countries and they are not(as in if they were not united). India and china would be more powerfull then say spain or latvia or hungary. And at some point in the future they would be ahead of france. If you do not think china at some point will not be more powerfull then france alone then you are nutty.
Shit india’s GDP is like three times that of france right now. India had a 7% growth rate while france had a 1.5%. (now I am sure being in the EU would have something to do with it but I am not to sure that india is that far away.) Is india poor yes is china poor yes but that what happens when you have a billion or so people living in your country.
My point was if the EU did not exhist and it was all countries for themselves over there they(individually) would drop below china russia and probably india when it came to setting the markets for the world. WHo can buy more shit france or china? So if that is the case then who holds the power? They may be poor but they have more buying power then any EU nation, and with that comes equal footing in the world markets.
The real question: How will Vermont’s seccession effect the balance of power?
Oh, and Adam wrote, “Kyle lives nowhere, I mean nowhere, yet has high speed internet and has a job that pays him good money that is located hundreds of miles away. And he complains about corporate america…”
Damn right I do.
I complain about it because it is stronger now than it has ever been.
Yes, we’ve benefitted from capitalism, but you know what: the South used to benefit from slavery. All those comfortable chairs in all those plantations. All of it possible only because of the evil going on in the fields. But why would a Southern White Man complain about it or try to stop it, especially when it benefitted him so much.
The complaint there, as well as here, is not one of “I’m not happy,” but rather, “That’s not moral.”
People get smarter. They begin to understand the mistakes they’ve made in the past. Yes, capitalism worked wonders, but it’s also predicated on much evil. The goal is to keep the wonders and lose the evil. Is it possible? I don’t know. But does that mean we shouldn’t try?
Complaining about Corporate America (for me, anyway) is not the same as saying corporations should all go away. Instead, it is saying that corporations shouldn’t hold all the power over America and its values, nor should they only value the dollar. Corporations are citizens (as the documentary, The Corporation, made clear), with most of the rights of citizens. As citizens, shouldn’t their actions be judged on a system that is above and beyond the bottom line?
People own these(public)corporations and the only thing they care about is money, so that is all the corporation cares about. On the other hand not all these corporations are bad, or should I say that they all do some good in the world. Most understand that there is a moral and ethical obligation for them to give back. All we focus on is the bad because that is all we care about. Bill gates is evil but he has done more for global health then most governments, wal mart is evil but has donated a billion dollars since the mid 90’s for education.(but they are really really evil i do not care if they find a cure for cancer)
You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.
The republic of vermont. hahahahahahahahah that gets me everytime. I wish the US would let them do it just for like a year.
Too many things to reply to, but I’ll give it a try.
From what I can gather in the beginning of Kyle’s post was that capitalism in it’s truest sense rises above the government’s ability to control it. True. And he continues that unregulated capitalism is one terrible thing. Also true.
(I guess my point is, who ever said unregulated capitalism was anything but dangerous) It’s not what we have now, and hopefully it will never be. Does that mean its broken? No. Does that mean we have to find a new system? No. It just means we have to keep pushing for corporate responability. I don’t think anyone has any real issues with that statement (except maybe our vp). However, pushing for corporate responsability is not the same as lashing out at giant corporations, does not mean seeking only locally produced goods and/or locally provided services. I think that is short sighted and a very easy/lazy/stoner argument to make. Like Justin said, it’s easy to look at the bad and lash out and to verbalize your liberalness by scorning corporate america, but isn’t it more intelligent to recognize all of the good that they are doing, the this ridiculously powerful economy that they are fueling and all the benefits that we receive because of it. Instead of whining because “they are stronger now than they have ever been” Damn right they are and we are damn lucky they are. The only reason we don’t have thousands of terrorists setting off bombs in every mall, bus and building in the U.S is because our taxes fund most of their lifestyles and/or our military is so well funded.
I’m not apathetic about today’s society, I actively try to see both sides and to see the benefits that our model has produced. I do not think that I am liberal simply because I say I’m liberal, not do I think that one has to be progressive to be liberal. Progressive is a cool idea which attempts to chance societal norms and to essentially reverse engineer some of the more archaic systems that we have in place. I’m cool with that. I don’t actively support it, not am I that interested in making small contributions to such change (and neither are most progressives) Most progressives are progressive until it stops serving their self interest (for instance kyle stating on many occasions his adamance that he would never attende a traditional school or take traditional exams. Until he thought about getting a degree in computer gaming, at which point it was traditional all the way. That’s life. I accept that. I am liberal because I am openminded and because I try my damndest not to let one set of beliefs obscure my world-view. I try to learn both sides of every argument and choose my side based on the better argument. I am not a progressive, I am more of a traditionalist - trying to do my best within the system and to support those attempting to better the system (not through complaining and denouncing) but rather through understanding.
Now for Mr. Kinney,
The following EU countries, as stand alones, are among the most economically poweful in the world: England, Germany, Switzerlan, The Netherlands, France.
you are right that Spain, latvia and hungary and the like are poor countries…and that by being in the EU they are given more strength, but I’ve been to Spain and I’ve been to India and on India’s best day (I don’t care how fast they are growing or what their GDP is) it can’t hold Spain’s jock…the poor people of Spain live like kings compared to the poor/middle class/upper middle class of India. In fact there is no middle class in india really, its just the uber-rich and the poor. That’s how you know they are still third world. In order to be a world power (economically) you have to have (this isn’t the only reason, but its one) an established middle class that has legitamite wealth. There will always be rich and there always be poor but its that middle class that defines the health of an economy. Europe has an established wealthy middle class that has access to technology. 3-4 star hotels in India don’t always have power, can’t accept credit cards and sometimes have no hot water. Thats the reality.
lets not even talk about plumbing. I have friends who have been living in Asia for the past two years. They have been everywhere (you name the asian country) and they said no matter where they went, it was HARD. Aside from Japan which truly does have a super-economy, asia still has a long way to go. Do they have the potential to accomplish this in a matter of a decade. yes they do. That is more a function of technology than anything else. I believe that in this day and age, a country can rapidly ascend from the third world to the first world almost overnight. China has this potential and so does India. It will certainly be dramatic…
The biggest thing facing Europe right now is their ability to co-exist as an EU. I’m biased because I just finished a great book on WWII (called The Winds of War) but the chances of Europe not having another major war seem slim.
To look at our capitalist system today is to see that there are real issues with its effect on the poor and on the natural world. Let’s consider those a fact for the moment, shall we?
Now, if that is the system today, one thing we’ll want to do in the future is to struggle to prevent capitalism from having such a negative impact on their lives, right? Some ways to do that: labor unions, healthcare, environmental protections, etc.
All of those things are, for the most part, controlled either at the state level or in the private sector, by which I mean, if the state doesn’t do it, then the private sector has the choice on whether to do it.
The problem is that - in the global economy - the states that require environmental safeguards, that allow labor unions, and that demand some sort of healthcare system for its people are “too expensive” for corporations to set up shop there.
Now, you can say this hypothetical state has controlled capitalism, but it also doesn’t have anyone doing business there.
What actually happens is that all of the “third world” states are falling all over themselves to say “Exploit us! Exploit us!” in order to get the corporations in the door. They are giving corporations tax breaks, violently putting down any sort of labor movement, ignoring environmental ethics, and laughing at even the mention of healthcare.
The result is you have a state where the corporations are in control. The laws are not made for the benefit of the people, but rather, they are made for the benefit of the corporations. And if, by some providence, the people do become empowered, the moment they rise up and demand the things they rightfully deserve, the corporations walk away.
That is unfettered capitalism. The state does not have any power over them. And unfortunately, that is pretty much the truth of today’s global system.
As I said before, I am not against corporations. I am against the amount of power that corporations hold.
If forcing corporations to become responsible social citizens is something that can be done under the name capitalism, then I’m all for keeping the name capitalism.
But the problem, as I see it, is that the argument for capitalism is the argument against social/state restrictions. At its root, it is the argument that the self-interest is more important than the common interest, and that the common interest should just get the hell out of the way. So when people get up and start talking to people about freedom and free market and all the other capitalist keywords, what they are talking about is the very opposite of social responsibility.
Is it any wonder that the greatest capitalist nation in history consists of people who barely know the names of their neighbors? Of course not. Because capitalism focuses all the attention on the self. The only time we notice the neigbors is when they come onto our property — which is nothing but an extension of our selves into the world.
Moving on: Adam wrote: “pushing for corporate responsibility is not the same as lashing out at giant corporations.”
To which I respond with two things. First, it depends upon your definition of responsibility. As I understand it, corporations are legally responsible to their investors. They are required by law to return as much profit as possible. The problem with this is obvious: increasing one’s own profit is not the action of a responsibile social citizen.
Which leads me to my second point. This whole discussion began because I was pissed at Netflix for mistreating its “better customers,” who I defined as those heavy renters who also participated in the social aspect of the Netflix service. The reason I was pissed was because Netflix is doing this to increase their profits (not to save money, but to make more money). I thought such actions demonstrated a certain sense of irresponsibility, where the latter is defined, in this example, as not providing the corporation’s customers with as much good will as the customers are willing to provide the corporation.
And so in response, I took the only action that I really can take: I posted something on my blog. I let my feelings about the situation be known. Aside from walking away from their business, there isn’t much else I can do.
But walking away is not the mature thing either. It’s akin to taking the ball and going home. It’s a poor way to end a relationship. I’d rather try to correct the corporation, show it where it screwed up, and then hopefully move on to a solution (read my last paragraph in the post; it’s not walking away, but rather, finding a compromise). Whether such an action will have any effect, I have no idea.
The hope, I think, is that this post, in conjunction with all the other blog posts about the subject, create enough attention on the subject that Netflix has to respond. When everyone talks about the power of the blogosphere, that’s what they mean. Individuals writing down their concerns on their own blogs, which, in aggregate, is a large mass of people registering their “vote” on a given situation (of course, the blogosphere is not a single entity, but we don’t need to go there).
In short, Adam, what I’m saying is that, regardless of what you call the system we’re leaving or the one we’re hope to move toward, the system needs to change. You agree, of course, which is why you said we have to keep pushing for corporate responsibility. But we seem to disagree on the name. Because to me, “capitalism” embodies all that is horrible in human nature. It is the self for the self. When social responsibility enters into the equation, it is no longer capitalism.
Of course, social responsibility in a capitalist market can be a discerning feature for consumers to use to select who they do business with. But the problem is that, in today’s America, the corporations own all of the social communication methods. They own the TV stations, the newspaper, the radio stations, the billboards, the sky above the beach, etc. And so all these different ways of talking to each other, of discussing who is socially responsible and who is not, are controlled by the very corporations that society should be critiquing. And since people don’t talk to their neighbors anymore, who else are they going to get their information about the corporations from? If social responsibility is a discerning feature that consumers to use in their purchasing decision, who is telling them which corporations are socially responsible? Answer: The corporations.
I am not anti-corporation.
I am anti-their-power.
Oh…and I’m not going to a traditional school. And it never was traditional all the way. Going to game school would have been learning a trade. And I would expect to take nothing more from it than that. If that’s traditional, then fine. But when I’m talking about a basic, liberal arts education, we’re not talking trade. We’re talking enlightenment. And enlightenment, by definition, is opposed to tradition.
And my question to you, Adam. You wrote: “I am liberal because I am open-minded and because I try my damndest not to let one set of beliefs obscure my world-view. I try to learn both sides of every argument and choose my side based on the better argument.” My question is: what determines the better argument? Does the question of “morally better” ever enter into the equation for you, or is better simply that which serves your own self-interest?
And to Justin: Why all the concern about a competition between the countries? Why must one country care about whether it “drops below China” according to some seemingly-arbitrary heirarchical categorization of nation states?
Mr champion you are missing my point, china and india would be world pwoers not because of how their people live, but by how much power they have over the markets.
Also for the third time I am talking if these countries(spain germany ect) were not part of the EU. They are part of it so their economic stability now has no merit on the conversation. Alone most these countries would not have more power then china or india but because they are united they do.
The main point was this IF the european countries were not in a union they would be passed by china and india in the near future. That was it not if laos has plumbing or if india can keep the power on.
Kyle this started out by me saying the EU would stay together so they(the individual european countries) would not drop down on the pecking order behind china india and russia. And it is a big deal for the european countries to drop down behind other countries.
That reminds me, Justin. You (really, everyone) should read a book called The Lucifer Principle. Here’s a quote from the Amazon review:
Oh, and Adam, see where it says in the review above that “evil is a by-product of nature’s strategy to move the world to greater heights of organization and power as national or religious groups follow ideologies that trigger lofty ideals as well as base cruelty.”
That’s a little bit of what I’m talking about in my long ass comment #32. Capitalism has triggered some lofty ideals (by giving us the luxury to have the time and the comfort to think about them), as well as some base cruelties (by framing our lives as “the self for the self”).
And now Nature’s strategy to move to greater heights is the move to socialism. Think about it in a cell-based way. If every cell in your body only fended for itself, then you — the higher level of nature’s organization and power — couldn’t exist. Your cells — the good ones anyway — are socialist.
(Of course, there is such a thing as an immmune system, with its homeland security agents, the white blood cells; but that’s because nature understands the destructive side of more power)
What I’m saying is that now that we’ve reached such a high level of power and organization (as life-forms), we may need to go the way of the cells to get any higher: we need to cooperate, not compete.
And for that argument, see Robert Wright’s NonZero: The Logic of Human Destiny. The obligatory quote:
And that’s it from your friendly bookseller, Fluid Imagination.
By the way, if you ever purchase any of the books I recommend here on Fluid Imagination, try to do it through the link I provide. It has some code in that gives me a kick-back of a few percentage points of the sale. If you’re gonna buy the book anyway, why not help support Fluid Imagination while you’re doing it?
I was going to write yesterday how we as humans are evil because that is how we survived and evolved. Only the most evil monkey would make it to where we are today. Kyle with socialism you need trust and that will not happen in this world.
And remember when kyle just wanted us to read, now its about percentage points. I smell a boycott
Socialism “will not happen in this world” if you look at it as an end-result. In that sense, it is a utopia. As is the concept of freedom. Freedom is not something you arrive at. It’s a way you live your life.
You live with freedom.
You live with socialism.
As I said above, you have to understand all these ideals not as end-results, but as methods of behavior.
And we did not survive “because” of our evil actions. We survived “because” of an entire complex of actions. One of them was “slavery.” But then we learned better, and now we do our best to not let slavary occur. It’s still there of course, and not just in the explicit form of sex slavery or child carpet slaves in India, but also in the more implicit form of heritable debt-bondage (see this review of “Disposable People” for a larger context). But generally speaking, we’ve learned that slavery is no good, and we try to root it out when we can.
The fact that evil actions worked in the past is not a good enough reason to let them continue into the future. We should know better by now.
I am talking a little further back then the last 3000 years. We are evil because evolution, survival of the fittest, made us that way. Can we change? Sure we can and we have changed but its still there deep down. Just like why we need to eat fatty foods. It got hard wired in us to survive. Killing and being evil was hard wired in us and it will take a long time of knowing we do not need to kill other people to survive for this to stop.
What the hell did this have to do with netflix again?
I guess I am not the only one who thinks India will be a superpower.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11571348/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/
just a part of it:
A much-cited 2003 study by Goldman Sachs projects that over the next 50 years, India will be the fastest-growing of the world’s major economies (largely because its work force will not age as fast as the others). The report calculates that in 10 years India’s economy will be larger than Italy’s and in 15 years will have overtaken Britain’s. By 2040 it will boast the world’s third largest economy. By 2050 it will be five times the size of Japan’s and its per capita income will have risen to 35 times its current level
Having a large economy can be a function of population level but does not necessarily translate to an adequate distribution of wealth. China has huge economy, but the vast majority of their people are still extremely poor. In my view (I could be wrong) but a superpower would have to be not only a large economy but must have the distribution (back to my middle class argument) that spreads the wealth among the masses.
If you notice in the paragraph that you copied (I didn’t read the link), it says their per capita income will grow by 35 times, but if you think about where they are now (most Indian laborers make about 75 cents a day working), that brings them still short of 30 dollars a day…not that much and certainly still very poor and not even close to laborers in existing world powers (approximately 50 dollars a day and up).
If we are judging only by population and growth rate, then India will certainly be dominant for the next 100 years. However, if we are judging by quality of life and distribution of wealth…they will still be far behind.
I know that the middle class does actually exist here in the United States, but according to a FactCheck.org article on one of Kerry’s campaign speeches, the middle class is shrinking (where the definition of middle class is households that make between $25k and $75k).
Read the whole article for the analysis, but if you’re like Adam and don’t want to actually read the links that people use here to support their arguments, here is the basic info.:
(The article was written for the 2004 election, so things may have changed)
The point of all this? Adam said that we should udge by quality of life and distribution of wealth. Fine. By the quality of life and distribution of wealth measure, America is getting worse.
Now, I don’t really care where that puts us on the scoreboard of global economics (who’s winning, who’s losing, who’s ranked where), but I do care that “this ridiculously powerful economy” is not the economy of the American people as a whole, but the economy of the rich Americans. It’s only ridiculously powerful if you can afford it. And more and more people cannot. Including the shrinking middle class.
One of the main reasons china and india look poor is because they have way too many people. Triple the US population and we would be in the same boat. Russia was considered a superpower and their people were not rich by any means. I was talking mainly being a superpower in terms of the world market. In that case china is already there and india will be.
As background for the economic argument of my senior study paper, I just started reading The Rise of the Creative Class, and here’s a little excerpt that seems to fit into this latter stage of the discussion:
He then brings up homeland security restrictions on immigration, foreign students, and scientific information (stem cells anyone?). He also brings up squandering millions of dollars on sports stadiums when it could go into neighborhood revitalization projects.
He sums up:
Wait I thought new line cinema did the lord of the rings movies? I know the movies were shot there but what the hell does that have to do with anything?
Also sports are a multi-billion dollar industry somehow i doubt the state or city loses money in these deals.
The quote came from the preface to the paperback edition. I’m currently on page three. In other words, I don’t know the argument to fully support the quote. If you’re interested (if only from a preconceived antagonistic perspective), click on the link and buy the book. I bought it used from Amazon for like six bucks.
Having said that, almost the entire crew of LOTR was from New Zealand. The people who made it were, for the most part, New Zealanders. Sure, New Line (or whoever) was the studio, but it was a New Zealand movie. The book also says to take a look at where most movies are filmed nowadays. Not in the U.S., but in Canada.
As for the sports stadium argument, check out an article called “Political Football,” hosted at MIT. It was written when the Patriots were talking about moving to Hartford. The relevant passage:
But again, if you want the argument, read the book, which comes with a shitload of statistics. The writer is not an armchair philosopher, creating ideas out of thin air; he’s actually done his homework.
Well kraft paid for the stadium out of pocket but thats besides the point.
How do the red sox not make money for boston? Each player pays taxes plus each visiting player pays taxes on the games he played in massachusetts. Not to mention all the other crap that comes with people buying shit, hotels and surrounding bars parking garages.They mention the lowly beer slingers but not the 70-80 million dollars the athletes have to pay taxes on.
Who’s arguing in favor of wiping out sports? And who’s arguing that sports teams don’t make money? Not me, and not anyone else.
All I was saying (or rather, quoting) is that cities and states have better things to do with their tax dollars than build NEW sports stadiums.
If cities and states do not pay for new stadiums then most of the times they would not get built, if they do not get built then they will leave to other places that will pay for them. I just do not see how sports teams do not make money back for the cities they are in.
Remember simcity, building a stadium always helped.
Again, I don’t know why you’re so fixated on the sports thing…
[to say all that I am able on it is to quote someone else:
]
…when the major point of the quote from The Rise of the Creative Class was to suggest that the countries one should perhaps be concerned with (if one’s concern is the scoreboard of global domination) are not the manufacturing powerhouses of India and China, but the smaller European countries that are attracting the creative class, which is the class of people that put the pedal to the metal on the economy; imagine the next Microsoft or Google being created by the creative professionals of Ireland or Sweden or New Zealand. The digital revolution means that, once the “product” is developed, it doesn’t even need to be “produced.” It can simply be copied from computer to computer over the Internet. The manufacturing forces of China and India don’t even need to be included in the chain of production.
Of course, we’ll always need shoes and shirts. But on this I think Adam may be right. We don’t have to worry about the manufacturing countries. Or at least, not until they become “creative” countries as well.
But this assumes that the argument of the book (and again, I am only on page 3) is a solid one. Its reputation suggests that it is. But there’s no need to trust reputation when I can read it myself.
I agree with the creative thing…
our middle class is shrinking because of the failure of our executive branch…however, its gigantic size to begin with represents the collective success of our previous executive branch. Our “poverty line” by the way, would be conisered middle class in much of the world, if not upper middle class.
our economy fluctuates, always has, always will, its silly to question capitlism during a recession or even a depression.
sports are good for economies, so is all popular forms of entertainment, there is almost no downside. Entertainment equals fun, people like to have fun, people want to be where the entertainment is, more people go there for school, get smart, get good jobs (or start companies), buy more food, beer, stuff, everyone is happy (except politicians who think that by talking about taxes, they will win more votes and thus re-election)
do you think politicians actually care about the tax implications of sports stadiums. Puhlease, they are just taking a side so that they can get the votes from the elderly who don’t want to pay more taxes, and also they are trying to get the sports owners to pay them off…thats all.
its corruption, but luckily our corruption in the US is much less than other places.
Adam wrote, “It’s silly to question capitlism during a recession or even a depression.”
I agree, because it blunts the question, since the responder can always say, “It’s just a recession or depression.”
Capitalism needs to be questioned when its beneficieries are flying high. Because what comes after capitalism, what improves capitalism, can only be conceived by those who have the luxury to conceive it.
Capitalism is the economic system of the self. But unless there is a self to begin with, there is no other that one can ethically relate to.
Well, we’ve sure as hell got the self. So let’s bring on those ethics.
Hold on. The clinton administration created a giant middle class that was based on a gigantic bubble that burst when the bush administration took over. So if the middle class was bloated wouldnlt you excpect the middle class to shrink? And why would that be the current administrations fault? Wouldnt it just be part of the economic cycle?
The people who make over 75,000 have decreased between the years 2000-2003 also but I would excpect that has to do with the tech bubble bursting and a couple planes flying into a couple towers in the economic center of the united states. But I guess that bush’s fault too.
Kyle that book “The Rise of the Creative Class” was published in 2002 which means that the major points were researched around 2000 or even before. So really he was basing most of his ideas on the tech boom and this might of skewed his numbers.
India has 190,000 engineering students graduate every year I think the US has like 60,000. Why do you think india will just be a place to send your products to get made like china? I think india can be both, china could be too but their government probably will not let it be.
One Trackback
[...] (which can always dissolve into a debate about capitalism, but we don’t need to go there again) [...]