Category: Books

FDR’s NRA Price-Fixing Helped Big Firms “Ruin” Little Firms

(p. 50) Among those damaged was Carl Pharis, the general manager of Pharis Tire and Rubber Company in Newark, Ohio. Pharis employed over one thousand people, mainly in the Newark area. His company grew because, in Pharis’s words, “we would make the best possible rubber tire and sell it at the lowest price consistent with a modest but safe profit.” He and his employees had survived the grim Great Depression years because they had lower prices, a good tire, and solid support in central Ohio from buyers who knew the company because it was local and because it priced its tires lower than the larger firms. As Pharis said, “It is obvious that they cannot make as good a tire as we make and sell it at the price at which we can sell at a profit:”

Then came the NRA with its high fixed prices for tires. As Pharis said, “Since the industry began to formulate a Code under the N. R. A., in June, 1933, we have at all times opposed any form of price-fixing. We believe it to be illegal and we know it to be oppressive.” He added, “We quite understand that, if we were compelled to sell our tires at exactly the same price as they sell their tires, their great national consumer acceptance would soon capture our purchasers and ruin us. Since we have so little of this consumer publicity when compared with them, our only hope is in our ability (p. 51) to make as good or a better tire than they make and to sell it at a less[er] price. . . . ”
Since Pharis and other small companies were no longer allowed to sell tires at discounted rates, Goodyear and Firestone “could go out just as they have gone out,” Pharis noted, “and say to prospective customers that, since they had to pay the same price, it would be wiser if they bought the nationally advertised lines.”
In a nutshell, Pharis put it this way: “The Government deliberately raised our prices up towards the prices at which the big companies wanted to sell, at which they could make a profit, . . . where more easily, with much less loss, they could come down and ‘get us’ and where, bound by N. R. A. decrees, we could not use lower prices, although we could have lowered them and still made a decent profit.”
Pharis was on the verge of closing down and having to lay off all of his one thousand employees. His company, with its low prices and quality tires, could weather the Great Depression, but not the NRA. “If we were asking favors from the Government,” Pharis concluded, “there would be little justice in our complaints. . . . And so, if the big fellows, with their too-heavy investments and high costs of manufacturing and selling, cannot successfully compete with us little fellows without Government aid, they should quit.”

Source:
Folsom, Burton W., Jr. New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008.
(Note: ellipses in original.)

Folsom Shows How FDR Lied, Bought Votes and Deepened the Depression

NewDealRawDealBK.jpg

Source of book image: http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=347

FDR has never been one of my heroes. But in the last few years, I have read two books that have revealed him to have been much worse than I expected. In earlier posts, I have praised Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man.
Here I praise Burt Folsom’s New Deal or Raw Deal?
Folsom documents how the economic policies of Roosevelt lengthened and deepened the Great Depression.
But what I think I will remember most about the book, is the example after example of how FDR lied to both friend and foe; and the example after example of how FDR used government spending programs to buy votes.
I found this book very unpleasant. Rather than listen to another chapter in the car, I sometimes found myself playing music.
But we need to read this book. We need to know what really happened, so we can guard against it happening again.
In the next few weeks, I will quote a few of the more memorable and significant passages in Folsom’s book.

Book discussed:
Folsom, Burton W., Jr. New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008.

“By Far the Greatest Pollution Crisis the Earth Has Ever Endured”

(p. 79) While oxygen is the third most common element in the universe, we know that free oxygen was exceedingly rare in the Earth’s initial atmosphere, until roughly two billion years ago, when an ancestor of modern cyanobacteria hit upon a photosynthetic process that used the energy from the sun to extract hydrogen from the abundant supply of water on the planet. That metabolic strategy was spectacularly successful–the organism quickly covered the surface of the planet–but it had a pollution problem: it expelled free oxygen as a waste product. During this period, now known as the Proterozoic, the oxygen content of the atmosphere exploded from 0.0001 percent to 3 percent, beginning its long march to the current levels of 21 percent. (Even today, Earth’s atmosphere is actually dominated by nitrogen, which makes up 78 percent of its overall volume: other gases. like argon and carbon dioxide, constitute less than a single percent.) The massive increase of oxygen in the atmosphere triggered what has been called “by far the greatest pollution crisis the earth has ever endured,” destroying countless microbes for whom the cocktail of sunlight and oxygen was deadly.

In time, though, organisms evolved that thrived in an oxygen-heavy environment. We are their descendants.

Source:
Johnson, Steven. The Invention of Air: A Story of Science, Faith, Revolution, and the Birth of America. New York: Riverhead Books, 2008.

Britannica Imitates Wikipedia

(p. 209) Britannica had already launched a project called WebShare in April 2008, which was described as “A special program for web publishers, including bloggers, webmasters, and anyone who writes for the Internet. You get complimentary access to the Encyclopaedia Britannica online and, if you like, an easy way to give your readers background on the topics you write about with links to complete Britannica articles.” This was a rather radical move, obviously trying to vie with Wikipedia’s emergence as one of the most linked-to resources on the Internet.

But the latest initiative was something quite astonishing, as Britannica was now inviting users to be part of the team of content creators:

To elicit their participation in our new online community of scholars, we will provide our contributors with a reward system and a rich online home that will enable them to promote themselves, their work, and their services. . . . Encyclopaedia Britannica will allow those visitors to suggest changes and additions to that content.

Source:
Lih, Andrew. The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia. New York: Hyperion, 2009.
(Note: ellipsis in original.)

Quants Confused Mathematical Models and Reality

QuantsBK.jpg

Source of book image: http://seekingalpha.com/article/188632-the-quants-review-when-the-money-grid-went-dark

(p. 7) The virtually exclusive use of mathematical models, Mr. Patterson says, was what separated the younger cohorts of quants from their Wall Street forebears. Unlike Warren Buffett or Peter Lynch, the quants did not focus on so-called market fundamentals like what goods or services a particular company actually produced. Seldom if ever did they act on old-fashioned gut instinct. Instead, they focused on factors like how cheap a stock was relative to the rest of the market or how quickly its price had risen or fallen.

Therein was the quants’ flaw, according to Mr. Patterson. Pioneers like Mr. Thorp understood that while the math world and the financial world have much in common, they aren’t always in sync. The quant traders’ model emphasized the most likely moves a stock or bond price could make. It largely ignored the possibility of big jolts caused by human factors, especially investor panics.
“The model soon became so ubiquitous that, hall-of-mirrors-like, it became difficult to tell the difference between the model and the market itself,” Mr. Patterson declares.
Move ahead to August 2007 and beyond, when markets swooned on doubts about subprime mortgages. Stocks that the model predicted were bound to go up went sharply down, and vice versa. Events that were supposed to happen only once in 10,000 years happened three days in a row.

For the full review, see:

HARRY HURT III. “Off the Shelf; In Practice, Stock Formulas Weren’t Perfect.” The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., February 21, 2010): 7.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated February 20, 2010.)

The reference to Patterson’s book, is:
Patterson, Scott. The Quants: How a New Breed of Math Whizzes Conquered Wall Street and Nearly Destroyed It. New York: Crown Business, 2010.

“The GodKing Drives a Hyundai”

(p. 176) As an homage to Wales’s sticking with a low-key style, the community adopted the saying “The GodKing (sic) drives a Hyundai,” making fun of his humble Korean-made car, a brand known more for frugality than flash.

Source:
Lih, Andrew. The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia. New York: Hyperion, 2009.

“Coase’s Penguin” and the Motives for “Commons-Based Peer Production”

(p. 108) Noted Yale law professor Yochai Benkler has a theory. In a widely circulated and famous essay on the Internet called “Coase’s Penguin,” he offered his thinking on why people participate in efforts such as Linux and other “free” projects. There was already a culture, before Wikipedia, of folks donating their time, effort, and skills to the collective good for no monetary gain or immediate compensation. Benkler observed this part of the hacker ethos and was curious to know what the common thread was.

He dubbed it “commons-based peer production.” It’s a fancy moniker for the phenomenon of people working together toward the same end–creating computer code or content that is free to be copied, distributed, used, and modified by others.
Benkler believes the Internet and the “free culture” movement have allowed individuals to connect and combine their efforts in ways unprecedented in history. The legal academic is not shy to combine scholarship outside his area of training by drawing on economics, sociology, and technology to form his theory.
According to Benkler, if monetary rewards and the creation of corporate firms have been the accepted driving force for human innovation and progress, there has to be something else driving volunteers in Linux, Wikipedia, and other “free” projects that have become so pervasive and monumental in the digital age.
He asserts the motivation comes from two main things other than money: the “socio-psychological” reward of interacting with others, and the “hedonic” personal gratification of the task.
Wikipedia’s magic occurs when these two things come together. One person’s personal affection and indulgence—mapmaking, grammar checking, baseball statistics, history of stamps—easily finds a home in Wikipedia’s amalgam of topics, where it also feeds into and inspires activities by others.

Source:
Lih, Andrew. The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia. New York: Hyperion, 2009.

Daniel Pink on What Motivates Workers to Work Well

DriveBK.jpg

Source of book image: online version of the WSJ review quoted and cited below.

Daniel Pink’s Free Agent Nation was a provocative account of how the entrepreneur benefits from being an entrepreneur. I enjoyed the book, and reference it frequently.
I have not had a chance to read Pink’s recent Drive, but hope to do so soon.

(p. A17) Science, Mr. Pink says, has shown that we are motivated as much intrinsically, by the sheer joy and purpose of certain activities, as extrinsically, by rewards like pay raises and promotions.

The science that Mr. Pink is referring to rests largely on the work of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan at the University of Rochester and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi at Claremont Graduate University. These three researchers have found that we do our best work when motivated from within, when we have control over our time and decisions and when we feel a deep sense of purpose. Under such conditions, we can achieve real mastery over whatever it is that we do.
The modern workplace, Mr. Pink laments, is too often set up to deny us this opportunity. Firms that hope to optimize efficiency by making their employees clock in and out, attend compulsory meetings, and receive pay for performance are de-motivating through excessive control. What they should be doing, he argues, is giving workers the chance to do their best work by granting them more autonomy and helping them to achieve the mastery that may come with it.
Mr. Pink cites an Australian software firm, Atlassian, that allows its programmers 20% of their time to work on any software problem they like, provided it is not part of their regular job. The programmers turn out to be much more efficient with that 20% of their time than they are with their regular work hours. Atlassian credits the 20% with many of its innovations and its high staff retention. Companies as large as Google and 3M have similar programs that have produced everything from Google News to the Post-It note.
. . .
. . . : Beyond serving our basic needs, money doesn’t buy happiness. We need a greater purpose in our lives. Our most precious resource is time. We respond badly to conditions of servitude, whether the lash of the galley master or the more subtle enslavement of monthly paychecks, quarterly performance targets and the fear of losing health insurance. Work that allows us to feel in control of our lives is better than work that does not.     . . . , these lessons are worth repeating, and if more companies feel emboldened to follow Mr. Pink’s advice, then so much the better.

For the full review, see:
PHILIP DELVES BROUGHTON. “More Than a Paycheck; Workers are more efficient, loyal and creative when they feel a sense of purpose–when work has meaning.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Feb. 2, 2010): A17.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review is dated Feb. 5, 2010.)

Philosopher Duped by Hoax Because He Failed to Consult Wikipedia

(p. A4) PARIS — For the debut of his latest weighty title, “On War in Philosophy,” the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy made the glossy spreads of French magazines with his trademark panache: crisp, unbuttoned white Charvet shirts, golden tan and a windswept silvery mane of hair.

But this glamorous literary campaign was suddenly marred by an absolute philosophical truth: Mr. Lévy backed up the book’s theories by citing the thought of a fake philosopher. In fact, the sham philosopher has never been a secret, and even has his own Wikipedia entry.
In the uproar that followed over the rigors of his research, Mr. Lévy on Tuesday summed up his situation with one e-mailed sentence: “My source of information is books, not Wikipedia.”

For the full story, see:

DOREEN CARVAJAL. “Philosopher Left to Muse on Ridicule Over a Hoax.” The New York Times (Weds., February 10, 2010): A4.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated February 9, 2010.)

“Expert Scholarship” Versus “People of Dubious Background”

(p. 71) The acknowledgment, by name, of volunteers in the preface sections of the OED is akin to Wikipedia’s edit history, where one can inspect who contributed to each article. Some Oxford contributors were professors, some royalty, but most were ordinary folks who answered the call. Winchester, in The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary, tells the story of the “madman” William Chester Minor, a U.S. Civil War survivor whose “strange and erratic behavior” resulted in him shooting an “innocent working man” to death in the street in Lambeth. He was sent to Broadmoor asylum for criminal lunatics. He discovered the OED as a project around 1881, when he saw the “Appeal for Readers” in the library, and worked for the next twenty-one years contributing to the project, receiving notoriety as a contributor “second only to the contributions of Dr. Fitzedward Hall in enhancing our illustration of the literary history of individual words, phrases and constructions.” Minor did something unusual in not just sending submissions, but having his own cataloging system such that the dictionary editors could send a postcard and “out the details flowed, in abundance and always with unerring accuracy.” Until Minor and Murray met in January 1891, no one working with (p. 72) the OED knew their prolific contributor was a madman and murderer housed at Broadmoor.

As we will see in later chapters, a common question of the wiki method is whether one can trust information created by strangers and people of dubious background. But the example of the OED shows that using contributors rather than original expert scholarship is not a new phenomenon, and that projects built as a compendium of primary sources are well suited for harnessing the power of distributed volunteers.

Source:
Lih, Andrew. The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia. New York: Hyperion, 2009.
(Note: italics in original.)

Market Entrepreneurs Versus Political Entrepreneurs

HillJamesRailroad2010-03-16.jpg“James J. Hill (center) built a great railroad on his own dime.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ commentary quoted and cited below.

(p. A17) Let’s bring back the robber barons.

“Robber baron” became a term of derision to generations of American students after many earnest teachers made them read Matthew Josephson’s long tome of the same name about the men whose enterprise drove the American industrial age from 1861 to 1901.
Josephson’s cast of pillaging villains was comprehensive: Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor, Jay Gould, James J. Hill. His table of contents alone shaped impressions of those times: “Carnegie as ‘business pirate’.” “Henry Frick, baron of coke.” “Terrorism in Oil.” “The sack of California.”
I say, bring ’em back, and the sooner the better. What we need, a lot more than a $1,000 tax credit, are industries no one has thought of before. We need vision, vitality and commercial moxie. This government is draining it away.
The antidote to Josephson’s book is a small classic by Hillsdale College historian Burton W. Folsom called “The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America” (Young America’s Foundation). Prof. Folsom’s core insight is to divide the men of that age into market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs.
Market entrepreneurs like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Hill built businesses on product and price. Hill was the railroad magnate who finished his transcontinental line without a public land grant. Rockefeller took on and beat the world’s dominant oil power at the time, Russia. Rockefeller innovated his way to energy primacy for the U.S.
Political entrepreneurs, by contrast, made money back then by gaming the political system. Steamship builder Robert Fulton acquired a 30-year monopoly on Hudson River steamship traffic from, no surprise, the New York legislature. Cornelius Vanderbilt, with the slogan “New Jersey must be free,” broke Fulton’s government-granted monopoly.

For the full commentary, see:
DANIEL HENNINGER. “Bring Back the Robber Barons.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., MARCH 4, 2010): A17.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated MARCH 3, 2010.)

The full reference for Folsom’s book is:
Folsom, Burton W. The Myth of the Robber Barons. 4th ed: Young America’s Foundation, 2003.