Author: Art Diamond

“20 Years in a Labor Camp for ‘Practicing Capitalism'”

(p. 23) “Just talk to any Chinese who lived through that time,” a middle-aged man whose father spent nearly 20 years in a labor camp for “practicing capitalism” tells the radio reporter Rob Schmitz, in “Street of Eternal Happiness,” his new book about some of the ordinary people he encounters in his Shanghai neighborhood. “We all have the same stories.”

For the full review, see:
ADAM ROSE. “‘Shanghai Confidential.” The New York Times Book Review (Sun., MAY 15, 2016): 23.
(Note: the online version of the review has the date MAY 13, 2016, and has the title “‘Street of Eternal Happiness,’ by Rob Schmitz’.”)

The book under review, is:
Schmitz, Rob. Street of Eternal Happiness: Big City Dreams Along a Shanghai Road. New York: Crown, 2016.

Self-Driving Cars Would Help Older Adults Continue to Live at Home

(p. B4) Single, childless and 68, Steven Gold has begun to think about future mobility and independence. Although in good health, he can foresee a time when he won’t be a confident driver, if he can drive at all. While he hopes to continue to live in his suburban Detroit home, he wonders how he will be able to get to places like his doctor’s office and the supermarket if his driving becomes impaired.
For Mr. Gold and other older adults, self-driving cars might be a solution.
The number of United States residents age 70 and older is projected to increase to 53.7 million in 2030, from 30.9 million in 2014, according to the Institute for Highway Safety. Nearly 16 million people 65 and older live in communities where public transportation is poor or nonexistent. That number is expected to grow rapidly as baby boomers remain outside of cities.
“The aging of the population converging with autonomous vehicles might close the coming mobility gap for an aging society,” said Joseph Coughlin, the director of the Massachusetts Institute for Technology AgeLab in Cambridge.
He said that 70 percent of those over age 50 live in the suburbs, a figure he expects to remain steady despite a recent rise in moves to urban centers. Further, 92 percent of older people want to age in place, he said.

For the full story, see:
MARY M. CHAPMAN. “Wheels; For the Aged, Self-Driving Cars Could Bridge a Mobility Gap.” The New York Times (Fri., March 24, 2017): B4.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 23, 2017, and has the title “Wheels; Self-Driving Cars Could Be Boon for Aged, After Initial Hurdles.”)

Middle Class Wants to Be Free to Choose Skinnier Health Insurance

(p. B4) For Linda Dearman, the House vote last week to repeal the Affordable Care Act was a welcome relief.
Ms. Dearman, of Bartlett, Ill., voted for President Trump largely because of his contempt for the federal health law. She and her husband, a partner in an engineering firm, buy their own insurance, but late last year they dropped their $1,100-a-month policy and switched to a bare-bones plan that does not meet the law’s requirements. They are counting that the law will be repealed before they owe a penalty.
“Now it looks like it will be, and we’re thrilled about that,” Ms. Dearman, 54, said. “We are so glad to feel represented for a change.”
. . .
In interviews over the last few days, people who support repealing the Affordable Care Act pointed to their long-simmering resentment of its mandate that most Americans have health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Many also said that they could no longer afford the comprehensive coverage available on the individual market, and that they were eager to once again be allowed to choose skinnier policies without a penalty.
“Now I will no longer be expected to pay twice what I should for a product I don’t need and be treated like a criminal with a fine if I refuse,” said Edward Belanger, 55, a self-employed business appraiser in Dallas. He is an independent who usually votes Republican but last year chose Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, over Mr. Trump.
Like the Dearmans, Mr. Belanger canceled a plan that complies with the Affordable Care Act and bought a short-term policy that does not meet the law’s standards, paying $580 a month for his family of four compared with the nearly $1,200 a month he paid last year. Policies like theirs usually have high deductibles and primarily offer catastrophic coverage for major injuries.

For the full story, see:
ABBY GOODNOUGH. “Feeling Hurt By Health Law, and Eager to See G.O.P. Repeal It.” The New York Times (Tues., May 16, 2017): A12.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 12, 2017, and has the title “Why Some Can’t Wait for a Repeal of Obamacare.”)

Lower Ivory Prices Reduce Incentives to Poach Elephants

(p. A9) NAIROBI, Kenya — Finally, there’s some good news for elephants.
The price of ivory in China, the world’s biggest market for elephant tusks, has fallen sharply, which may spell a reprieve from the intense poaching of the past decade.
According to a report released on Wednesday [March 29, 2017] by Save the Elephants, a respected wildlife group in Kenya, the price of ivory is less than half of what it was just three years ago, showing that demand is plummeting.

For the full commentary, see:
JEFFREY GETTLEMAN. “Ivory Prices May Mean a Reprieve for Elephants.” The New York Times (Thurs., March 30, 2017): A9.
(Note: bracketed date added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date March 29, 2017, and has the title “Elephants Get a Reprieve as Price of Ivory Falls.”)

Banks Often Less Transparent and Less Flexible than Bank Alternatives

I saw a C-Span interview on their weekend Book TV today (3/16/17), with Professor Lisa Servon. She pointed out that many of the highly regulated, and much-criticized, alternative banking services, offer a more transparent, more flexible, and more friendly service environment than the incumbent banking industry. She even argues that for those with low-incomes, and low-education, the alternative services are often less expensive. This happens because those with low-incomes and low education are often those who by mistake or by difficult circumstance, incur high fees at banks.
She points out that many who are bankless, previously made use of bank services, but decided to go with the alternatives. She suggested that in a free market environment, some of the alternatives might creatively destroy the incumbent banks.
Servon is clearly no libertarian, but much of what she says is thought-provoking.

Servon’s book is:
Servon, Lisa. The Unbanking of America: How the New Middle Class Survives. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co., 2017.

DARPA’s $66 Million Fails to Develop Tech to Match Dog Noses

(p. A2) “What’s cool about dogs is when they do come into contact with an odor, they can track it to its source,” said L. Paul Waggoner, co-director of the Canine Performance Sciences Program at Auburn University. “There is not an instrument out there that replicates a dog’s nose.”
That’s not for lack of effort.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense spent $66 million between 1997 and 2010 drawing on the expertise of at least 35 different research institutions to develop sensors that could detect explosives as ably as a dog and identify other chemicals.
They couldn’t do it.
. . .
Surprisingly, pigs and ferrets outperformed German shepherds and Labrador retrievers, breeds often chosen for odor detection.
But overall, dogs won out because of their combination of qualities: Not only do they have strong noses, they are compatible with people, they respond to training, and–for now–they beat technology paws down.

For the full commentary, see:
Jo Craven McGinty. “THE NUMBERS; Dogs Still Beat Technology in the Smell Test.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., March 25, 2017): A2.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date March 24, 2017, and has the title”THE NUMBERS; Making Sense of a Dog’s Olfactory Powers.”)

Mainstream Economist William Baumol Celebrated Innovative Entrepreneurs

William J. Baumol is a key source in my book project on Innovation Unbound. I had hoped he would be able to read, and comment on, the current draft, but that is not to be. He was one of the heroes of the economics of entrepreneurship.

(p. A13) The disease that bears William J. Baumol’s name is not what led to his death on May 4 [2017] at age 95, but it is what cemented his legacy as one of the pre-eminent economists of the 20th century.
. . .
Professor Baumol was “one of the great economists of his generation,” Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University, said in an interview, adding, “The series of insights he had about managerial economics, the role of innovation — a whole series of innovational breakthroughs over a long period of time — had a profound effect on economics.”
. . .
“Nobody ever explained to him the difference between work and play,” Daniel Baumol said of his father. “During a long trip, he would sit in the back of the car, oblivious to the world, and as we pulled in, he would announce, ‘I just finished that article.'”
Patrick Bolton, a professor of economics at Columbia, described Professor Baumol as “someone who could come to a big problem and bring an extremely simple analysis that really shaped the way people would think about it.”

For the full obituary, see:
PATRICIA COHEN. “William J. Baumol, 95, Leading Thinker in Economics.” The New York Times (Fri., May 12, 2017): B14.
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed year, added.)
(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date May 10, 2017 and has the title “William J. Baumol, 95, ‘One of the Great Economists of His Generation,’ Dies.”)

My favorite Baumol paper, is:
Baumol, William J. “Education for Innovation: Entrepreneurial Breakthroughs Versus Corporate Incremental Improvements.” In Innovation Policy and the Economy, edited by Adam B. Jaffe, Josh Lerner and Scott Stern. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005, pp. 33-56.

Apple Funds Corning’s Glass Innovation

(p. B6) SAN FRANCISCO — Apple is seeding the next generation of American-made glass for its iPhones and iPads, and its investments may have the side benefit of helping the company win favor in Washington.
Apple announced Friday [May 12, 2017] that it was giving $200 million to Corning, which makes the tough, scratch-resistant face for every iPhone and iPad, to support the glass maker’s efforts to develop and build more sophisticated products at its factory in Harrodsburg, Ky.
Corning has made the glass for every iPhone since the original 10 years ago. Apple’s investment, the first from the technology giant’s $1 billion fund to promote advanced manufacturing in the United States, will help Corning develop thinner, more versatile glass for iPhones as well as other product lines that Apple is exploring, such as screens for self-driving cars and augmented reality glasses.
The move goes beyond Apple’s traditional practice of subsidizing suppliers, said Tim Bajarin, president of the technology consulting firm Creative Strategies.
“I would see this more as an Apple-Corning partnership to flesh out what other kinds of things you would use glass for,” he said. “They are literally thinking about stuff you and I aren’t thinking about yet.”

For the full story, see:
VINDU GOEL. “Apple Gives $200 Million to Advance Phone Glass.” The New York Times (Sat., MAY 13, 2017): B6.
(Note: bracketed date added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date MAY 12, 2017, and has the title “Apple Gives Corning $200 Million to Invent Better Phone Glass.”)

“Death Has Never Made Any Sense to Me”

(p. 10) . . . , Kinsley is intent on being wryly realistic about coping with illness and the terminal prospects ahead. He makes fun of a fellow boomer, Larry Ellison, the C.E.O. of Oracle, who has spent millions in a quest for eternal life, and who was quoted as saying, “Death has never made any sense to me.” Kinsley quips: “Actually the question is not whether death makes sense to Larry Ellison but whether Larry Ellison makes sense to death. And I’m afraid he does.”

For the full review, see:
PHILLIP LOPATE. “Senior Moments’.” The New York Times Book Review (Sun., APRIL 24, 2016): 10.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date APRIL 18, 2016, and has the title “Michael Kinsley’s ‘Old Age: A Beginner’s Guide’.”)

The book under review, is:
Kinsley, Michael. Old Age: A Beginner’s Guide. New York: Tim Duggan Books, 2016.

Silicon Valley Funding Big Dings in the Universe

When Steve Jobs was trying to recruit Pepsi’s John Sculley to become Apple CEO, Jobs asked him something like: ‘do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugar water, or do you want a chance to make a ding in the universe.’

(p. B1) One persistent criticism of Silicon Valley is that it no longer works on big, world-changing ideas. Every few months, a dumb start-up will make the news — most recently the one selling a $700 juicer — and folks outside the tech industry will begin singing I-told-you-sos.

But don’t be fooled by expensive juice. The idea that Silicon Valley no longer funds big things isn’t just wrong, but also obtuse and fairly dangerous. Look at the cars, the rockets, the internet-beaming balloons and gliders, the voice assistants, drones, augmented and virtual reality devices, and every permutation of artificial intelligence you’ve ever encountered in sci-fi. Technology companies aren’t just funding big things — they are funding the biggest, most world-changing things. They are spending on ideas that, years from now, we may come to see as having altered life for much of the planet.

For the full commentary, see:
Manjoo, Farhad. “STATE OF THE ART; These Days, Moon Shots Are Domain of the Valley.” The New York Times (Thurs., MAY 17, 2017): B1 & B6.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date MAY 17, 2017, and has the title “STATE OF THE ART; Google, Not the Government, Is Building the Future.”)

Open Offices Disrupt Analytical Thinking and Creativity

(p. A13) Visual noise, the activity or movement around the edges of an employee’s field of vision, can erode concentration and disrupt analytical thinking or creativity, research shows. While employers have long tried to quiet disruptive sounds in open workspaces, some are now combating visual noise too.
. . .
“I could barely ever focus,” says Ms. Spivak, marketing and communications director for San Francisco-based Segment.
Her company overhauled its layout when it moved to new offices in April. Its former space was like a warehouse, creating “these long lines of sight across the workspace, where you have people you know and recognize moving by and talking to each other. It was incredibly distracting,” CEO Peter Reinhardt says.
. . .
(p. A15) Being surrounded by teammates with similar work patterns can be comforting to employees. Unpredictable movements around the edges of a person’s field of vision compete for cognitive resources, however, says Sabine Kastner, a professor of neuroscience and psychology at Princeton University who has studied how the brain pays attention for 20 years. People differ in their ability to filter out visual stimuli. For some, a teeming or cluttered office can make it nearly impossible to concentrate, she says.
. . .
In an experiment with Chinese factory workers published in 2012, Ethan Bernstein, an assistant professor of leadership and organizational behavior at Harvard Business School, found teams were 10% to 15% more productive when they worked behind a curtain that shielded them from supervisors’ view. The employees felt freer to experiment with new ways to solve problems and improve efficiency when protected from their bosses’ critical gaze, Dr. Bernstein says.
A loss of visual privacy is the No. 2 complaint from employees in offices with low or no partitions between desks, after noise, according to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology of 42,764 workers in 303 U.S. office buildings.

For the full commentary, see:
Sue Shellenbarger. “WORK & FAMILY; Why You Can’t Concentrate at Work.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., May 10, 2017): A13 & A15.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date May 9, 2017 and has the title “WORK & FAMILY; Why You Can’t Concentrate at Work.”)

The Bernstein paper, mentioned above, is:
Bernstein, Ethan S. “The Transparency Paradox.” Administrative Science Quarterly 57, no. 2 (June 2012): 181-216.