Books – Page 97 – artdiamondblog.com

Edison Genuinely Believed that AC Was More Dangerous than DC

(p. 174) In Edison’s view, . . . , Westinghouse did not pose a serious threat in the power-and-light business because he used the relatively more dangerous alternating current, certain to kill one of his own customers within six months.
Edison’s conviction that direct current was less dangerous than alternating current was based on hunch, however, not empirical scientific research. He, like others at the time, focused solely on voltage (the force that pushes electricity through a wire) without paying attention to amperage (the rate of flow of electricity), and thought it would be best to stay at 1,200 volts or less. Even he was not certain that his own system was completely safe–after all, he had elected to place wires in underground conduits, which was more expensive than stringing wires overhead but reduced the likelihood of electrical current touching a passerby. Burying the wires could not give him complete peace of mind, however. Privately, he told Edward Johnson that “we must look out for crosses [i.e., short-circuited wires] for if we ever kill a customer it would be a bad blow to the business.”

Source:
Stross, Randall E. The Wizard of Menlo Park: How Thomas Alva Edison Invented the Modern World. New York: Crown Publishers, 2007.
(Note: ellipsis added, bracketed words in original.)

G.D.P. Is a Useful, But Biased Downward, Measure of Growth

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

(p. 6) Dr. Coyle concludes that while imperfect, the G.D.P. is good enough as a measure of how fast the economy is growing and better than any alternative. It is closely correlated with things that do contribute to happiness. (Nobody is happy in a recession.)

“We should not be in a rush to ditch G.D.P.,” Dr. Coyle writes. “Yet it is a measure of the economy best suited to an earlier era.”
For one thing, it fails to count the value of the staggering growth in consumer choice. Where once we had three television networks, we now have 1,000 channels; greater choice equals greater freedom, she declares. It does poorly in measuring the Internet economy, in which so many benefits — like Google searches — are offered free. It badly lags behind the headlong pace of innovation and creativity. It struggles with the true value of a host of products or services that didn’t exist before. To the degree that it misses those new benefits to consumers, it understates the pace of economic growth.

For the full review, see:
FRED ANDREWS. “Off the Shelf; An Economic Gauge, Imperfect but Vital.” The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., APRIL 6, 2014): 6.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date APRIL 5, 2014.)

The book under review is:
Coyle, Diane. GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2014.

Edison’s Magnetic Low-Grade Iron Ore Processing Inventions Might Have Succeeded

(p. 193) Edison took great pleasure in the novelty of the technical challenges and in the opportunity to redeem his reputation as a savvy businessperson, even though redemption never came. The low-grade iron ore in New Jersey did not have a competitive chance once huge reserves of high-grade ore were discovered in the Mesabi Range of northeastern Minnesota; the Mesabi ore was easily mined near the surface and close to economical shipping on Lake Superior. Well after the first Mesabi mine opened in 1890, Edison remained pitiably hopeful about his Ogden mine, even when objective facts made the future of its business appear bleak to anyone else. In 1897, when failure was inevitable, he refused to acknowledge the facts. Edison wrote a colleague, “My Wall Street friends think I cannot make another success, and that I am a back number, hence I cannot raise even $10,000 from them, but I am going to show them that they are very much mistaken. I am full of vinegar yet.”

Source:
Stross, Randall E. The Wizard of Menlo Park: How Thomas Alva Edison Invented the Modern World. New York: Crown Publishers, 2007.

“The Experts Keep Getting It Wrong and the Oddballs Keep Getting It Right”

“A worker at a hydraulic fracturing and extraction operation in western Colorado on March 29[, 2014].” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. C3) The experts keep getting it wrong. And the oddballs keep getting it right.

Over the past five years of business history, two events have shocked and transformed the nation. In 2007 and 2008, the housing market crumbled and the financial system collapsed, causing trillions of dollars of losses. Around the same time, a few little-known wildcatters began pumping meaningful amounts of oil and gas from U.S. shale formations. A country that once was running out of energy now is on track to become the world’s leading producer.
What’s most surprising about both events is how few experts saw them coming–and that a group of unlikely outsiders somehow did.
. . .
Less well known, but no less dramatic, is the story of America’s energy transformation, which took the industry’s giants almost completely by surprise. In the early 1990s, an ambitious Chevron executive named Ray Galvin started a group to drill compressed, challenging formations of shale in the U.S. His team was mocked and undermined by dubious colleagues. Eventually, Chevron pulled the plug on the effort and shifted its resources abroad.
Exxon Mobil also failed to focus on this rock–even though its corporate headquarters in Irving, Texas, were directly above a huge shale formation that eventually would flow with gas. Later, it would pay $31 billion to buy a smaller shale pioneer.
“I would be less than honest if I were to say to you [that] we saw it all coming, because we did not, quite frankly,” Rex Tillerson, Exxon Mobil’s chairman and CEO said last year in an interview at the Council on Foreign Relations.
. . .
The resurgence in U.S. energy came from a group of brash wildcatters who discovered techniques to hydraulically fracture–or frack–and horizontally drill shale and other rock. Many of these men operated on the fringes of the oil industry, some without college degrees or much background in drilling, geology or engineering.

For the full commentary, see:
GREGORY ZUCKERMAN. “ESSAY; The Little Guys Who Saw Our Economic Future; Corporate Caution and Complacency Come at a Cost.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Nov. 2, 2013): C3.
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed year in caption, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated Nov. 3, 2013, and has the title “ESSAY; The Outsiders Who Saw Our Economic Future; In both America’s energy transformation and the financial crisis, it took a group of amateurs to see what was coming.” )

Zuckerman’s commentary, quoted above, is partly based on his book:
Zuckerman, Gregory. The Frackers: The Outrageous inside Story of the New Billionaire Wildcatters. New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2013.

Koch Industries Was Only Major Ethanol Producer to Oppose Ethanol Tax Credits

(p. A17) I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles–the principles of a free society–that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.
Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation’s own government. That’s why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles.
. . .
Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs–even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.
Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers–many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.

For the full commentary, see:
CHARLES G. KOCH. “OPINION; I’m Fighting to Restore a Free Society; Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., April 3, 2014): A17.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated April 2, 2014, and has the title “OPINION; Charles Koch: I’m Fighting to Restore a Free Society; Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination.” )

Koch’s philosophy of the free market is more fully elaborated in:
Koch, Charles G. The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World’s Largest Private Company. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007.

In the End Edison Said “I Am Not Business Man Enough to Spend Time” in the Electricity Business

(p. 186) In early 1892, the deal was done: Edison General Electric and Thomson-Houston merged as nominal equals. The organization chart, however, reflected a different understanding among the principals. Thomson-Houston’s chief executive, Charles Coffin, became the new head and other Thomson-Houston executives filled out the other positions. Insull was the only manager from the Edison side invited to stay, which he did only briefly. From the outside, it appeared that Thomas (p. 187) Edison and his coterie had arranged the combination from a position of abject surrender. Edison did not want this to be the impression left in the public mind, however. When the press asked him about the announcement, he said he had been one of the first to urge the merger. This was not close to the truth, and is especially amusing when placed in juxtaposition to Alfred Tate’s account of the moment when Tate, hearing news of the merger first, had been the one to convey the news to Edison.

I always have regretted the abruptness with which I broke the news to Edison but I am not sure that a milder manner and less precipitate delivery would have cushioned the shock. I never before had seen him change color. His complexion naturally was pale, a clear healthy paleness, but following my announcement it turned as white as his collar.

“Send for Insull,” was all he said as he left me standing in his library.

Having collected himself before meeting with the reporters, Edison could say with sincerity that he was too busy to “waste my time” on the electric light. For the past three years, since he first realized that his direct-current system would ultimately be driven to the margins by alternating current, he had been carting his affections elsewhere. The occasion of the merger did shake him into a rare disclosure of personal shortcoming: He allowed that “I am not business man enough to spend time” in the power-and-light business.

Source:
Stross, Randall E. The Wizard of Menlo Park: How Thomas Alva Edison Invented the Modern World. New York: Crown Publishers, 2007.

Heart Pioneer Bailey Kept Moving from Hospital to Hospital Due to His Failures

Source of book image:
http://media.npr.org/assets/bakertaylor/covers/e/extreme-medicine/9781594204708_custom-14713d8588e54f066a6abf7b5a13e4c9de832ea1-s6-c30.jpg

(p. C8) In “Extreme Medicine,” physician Kevin Fong reminds us that virtually everything we take for granted in lifesaving medical intervention was once unthinkable. Over the past century, as technology has allowed man to conquer hostile environments and modernize warfare, medical pioneers have been on a parallel journey, confronting what had once been fatal in man’s boldest pursuits and making it survivable.
. . .
As Dr. Fong notes, many of today’s commonplace treatments were once dangerously experimental. One pioneer in the early postwar years, a Philadelphia surgeon named Charles Bailey, killed several patients while trying to repair problems of the mitral valve, which if damaged can cause blood to flow backward into the hear chamber, decreasing flow to the rest of the body. Bailey moved from hospital to hospital to avoid scrutiny of his successive failures.

For the full review, see:
LAURA LANDRO. “BOOKS; They Died So We Might Live; Hypothermia, which killed explorers like Scott, is now induced in heart patients to allow time for surgery.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Feb. 15, 2014): C8.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date Feb. 14, 2014, and has the title “BOOKSHELF; Book Review: ‘Extreme Medicine’ by Kevin Fong; Explorers, astronauts and soldiers all pushed the limits of doctors’ abilities to heal and repair.”)

The book under review is:
Swidey, Neil. Trapped under the Sea: One Engineering Marvel, Five Men, and a Disaster Ten Miles into the Darkness. New York: Crown Publishers, 2014.

A&P Case Shows that Size Can Bring Economies of Scope and Scale

(p. A9) The claim that large, profit-driven firms are harmful to society has a venerable history in the United States. Perhaps no company was ever more vilified for its bigness than the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., which from 1920 to the 1960s was the largest retailer in the world. From the 1910s to the 1950s, as it cut out wholesalers and demanded volume discounts from food manufacturers, A&P was criticized for destroying the local merchants that formed the backbone of small-town America and the satisfying jobs they provided. Federal and state governments tried to cripple its business by prohibiting discounting; the Justice Department even won an antitrust case claiming that the company was selling food too cheaply. The fact that A&P’s economies of scope and scale saved shoppers 15% or 20% on groceries didn’t get much respect, just as Ms. Heffernan doesn’t much value the role that big businesses play in lowering costs today.
Yes, competition drives many companies to act in socially harmful ways, and competition within firms can get in the way of collaboration. But the fact that competition can be dysfunctional does not mean that scope and scale are economists’ fictions. Size does matter, and competition, while no panacea, does force people to find better ways of doing business.

For the full commentary, see:
MARC LEVINSON. “BOOKSHELF; When Size Does Matter; We glorify the local, but smallness didn’t stop the country’s savings and loans from needing a federal bailout in the 1980s.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., April 18, 2014): A9.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date April 17, 2014, and has the title “BOOKSHELF; Book Review: ‘A Bigger Prize’ by Margaret Heffernan; We glorify the local, but smallness didn’t stop the country’s savings and loans from needing a federal bailout in the 1980s.”)

Levinson’s own book (not the one he is reviewing in the passages quoted above), is:
Levinson, Marc. The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America. New York: Hill and Wang, 2011.

Edison Was “the World’s Greatest Inventor and World’s Worst Businessman”

(p. 165) BY THE EARLY twentieth century, Edison had earned a reputation as “the world’s greatest inventor and world’s worst businessman.” The phrasing, attributed to Henry Ford, is memorable, even if both characterizations as greatest and worst are too extreme to be accepted literally.

Source:
Stross, Randall E. The Wizard of Menlo Park: How Thomas Alva Edison Invented the Modern World. New York: Crown Publishers, 2007.

Gilder’s Information Theory of Capitalism Will Boost Morale of Innovative Entrepreneurs

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

(p. A13) Individuals like Ford and Jobs are key figures in the economic paradigm that George Gilder lays out in “Knowledge and Power.” He calls for an “information theory of capitalism” in which the economy is driven by a dynamic marketplace, with information widely (and freely) distributed. The most important feature of such an economy, Mr. Gilder writes, is the overthrow of “equilibrium,” and the most important actors are inventors and entrepreneurs whose breakthrough ideas are responsible for “everything useful or interesting” in commercial life.
. . .
Aspiring owners shouldn’t look to “Knowledge and Power” for practical advice on starting a company, but Mr. Gilder’s case for the central role of entrepreneurship might boost their morale. Certainly his argument could not be more timely. Census Bureau data show that startups were responsible for nearly all new job creation from 1996 to 2009. Yet entrepreneurship itself (as measured by new business formation) has been stagnant for about two decades. Thus the important question for America’s future may well be, as Mr. Gilder says, “how we treat our entrepreneurs.” He persuasively shows that creating a more supportive climate for entrepreneurs–by clearing away burdensome regulations and freeing information from its current imprisonment–will result in a more prosperous and vigorous society, creating not only more jobs but more Jobs.

For the full review, see:
MATTHEW REES. “BOOKSHELF; The Real Market-Maters; Economists as far back as Adam Smith have undervalued entrepreneurs–the restless, inventive, job-creating engines of the economy.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., March 18, 2014): A13.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date March 17, 2014, and has the title “BOOKSHELF; Book Review: ‘Knowledge and Power’ by George Gilder
Economists as far back as Adam Smith have undervalued entrepreneurs–the restless, inventive, job-creating engines of the economy.”)

The book under review is:
Gilder, George. Knowledge and Power: The Information Theory of Capitalism and How It Is Revolutionizing Our World. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2013.

Edison’s Goal Was Not Philanthropy, But to Make Useful Inventions that Sold

(p. 163) . . . , Edison had declared publicly that his inventions should be judged only on the basis of commercial success. This had come about when a reporter for the New York World had asked him a battery of questions that threw him off balance: “What is your object in life? What are you living for? (p. 164) What do you want?” Edison reacted as if he’d been punched in the stomach, or so the writer described the effect with exaggerated drama. First, Edison scanned the ceiling of the room for answers, then looked out the window through the rain. Finally, he said he had never thought of these questions “just that way.” He paused again, then said he could not give an exact answer other than this: “I guess all I want now is to have a big laboratory” for making useful inventions. “There isn’t a bit of philanthropy in it,” he explained. “Anything that won’t sell I don’t want to invent, because anything that won’t sell hasn’t reached the acme of success. Its sale is proof of its utility, and utility is success.”
He had been put on the spot by the reporter, and had reflexively given the marketplace the power to define the meaning of his own life.

Source:
Stross, Randall E. The Wizard of Menlo Park: How Thomas Alva Edison Invented the Modern World. New York: Crown Publishers, 2007.
(Note: ellipsis added; italics in original.)