Economics of Technology – Page 103

Why Should We Be Forced to Subsidize Those Who Choose to Live in the Boonies?

Kerry Caruselle, the only passenger on her federally subsidized flight between Pueblo and Denver, leaves the plane. Source of the photo: online version of the NYT article cited below. Grant Campbell has plenty of room to spread out on his federally subsidized flight between Pueblo and Denver. Source of the photo: online version of the NYT article cited below.

(p. A1) PUEBLO, Colo. — Hoping for an empty seat beside you on your next flight? No problem — just schedule a trip to someplace like Kingman, Ariz.; Brookings, S.D.; or Pueblo.

They are among more than 100 locales around the country that receive federally subsidized airline service, and the average number of passengers on each flight is about three.

Most of these flights on 19-seat prop planes have plenty of elbow room — a rare luxury in this age of jampacked commercial jets. Some major airlines have cut their fleets about 20 percent since 2001 and have abandoned unprofitable routes, meaning planes are flying fuller than at any time since World War II.

The more tranquil cabins come courtesy of the Essential Air Service, put in place when the airline industry was deregulated in 1978. The idea was to help travelers in smaller cities adjust to the new competitive era of air travel. The intention was for the service to go away after 10 years, but it was renewed for a second decade — and then made permanent.

Over time, though, the program has come to seem mostly expensive and, to its critics, unessential.

After all, travelers adjusted very well after deregulation, and started driving the extra distance to busier regional airports nearby that offered increasingly cheap and plentiful jet service. That left the program with (p. C7) mostly empty planes, making them more costly to fly. Add in higher maintenance and fuel costs, and spending has more than quadrupled since 1996, to $110 million.

That, of course, is not a lot in the federal scheme of things. But the program is a good case study of how poorly the government sometimes keeps pace with the free market and consumer tastes, and how entrenched interests, even in the face of some creative map-drawing, can keep such a program aloft in the face of efforts to ground it.

. . .

The emptier the subsidized flights, it seems, the more cherished the program became. Members of Congress regularly pressured the Transportation Department to continue subsidies to towns they represented. A lobbying group sprang up solely to fight to preserve and expand the program.

For the full story, see:

JEFF BAILEY. "Subsidies Keep Airlines Flying to Small Towns." The New York Times (Fri., October 6, 2006): A1 & C7.

Source of the graphic: online version of the NYT article cited above.

Entrepreneur Makes Risky, Massive Infrastructure Bet

A Louisiana site where Cheniere is building a terminal for liquified natural gas. Source of image: online version of the NYT article cited below.

Charif Souki is making a risky business decision. If he is wrong, he and his investors will lose much. If he is right, consumers will be better off, having a larger supply of liquified natural gas (LNG). And if he is right, he should be allowed to make a lot of money, both because that is just, and because it is useful for those who have bet right in the past, to have ample means to bet right in the future.

(p. C1) CAMERON PARISH, La. — The Sabine River channel, where alligators and speckled trout live alongside petrochemical plants and oil refineries, has suddenly become the center of a quiet revolution in the world of natural gas.

And it is mainly at the prodding of a little-known company called Cheniere Energy, with help from Exxon Mobil and Sempra Energy. Together they have overcome formidable regulatory hurdles to build three new liquefied natural gas terminals on the channel that will double the nation’s capacity to import natural gas by 2011.

It has been 24 years since anyone on American shores has built a new liquefied natural gas terminal. Two of the country’s four existing onshore terminals, which dock tankers the size of aircraft carriers ferrying supercooled gas from places like Qatar and Trinidad, were mothballed for years because production at home was plentiful and prices were low.

As recently as five years ago almost nobody in the energy world thought it possible to make money from a new American terminal project — with price tags that start at $600 million — let alone get a federal permit.

One lonely believer was Charif Souki, a Lebanese immigrant entrepreneur who had previously raised (p. C4) money for real estate in Paris and hotels in Hawaii before becoming chairman of Cheniere, a floundering gas exploration company. Not even the 9/11 attacks, which made many people on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts view liquefied natural gas terminals as potential terrorist targets, diverted him from his vision.

Now, even as natural gas prices sag, along with his company’s stock price, and the word glut is on the tip of the tongue among the drilling crowd, Mr. Souki says he is fixed on the longer view.

He is convinced the nation will need to import more gas because North American production is declining. That is the same view Mr. Souki held six years ago, when he decided to shake up the company’s business plan. He defiantly changed its stock symbol to LNG in 2003, and devoted himself to scoping out the country’s coastlines for potential terminal sites.

The already energy-intensive shoreline along the Gulf of Mexico, he concluded, made the most sense, economically and politically, and he started buying real estate in uninhabited harbors close to existing pipelines and gas-thirsty refineries and petrochemical plants.

“People were actually amused that we would be thinking about importing natural gas,” dryly giggled Mr. Souki, 53, a man with a taste for double-breasted suits. “Nobody took us very seriously.”

Cheniere was so unprofitable and utterly spurned by investors in 2002 that Mr. Souki had to borrow $30,000 from his company’s president just to meet a payroll. But over the last four years, Mr. Souki has managed to arrange financing, sign up long-term buyers and master the regulatory process.

For the full story, see:

CLIFFORD KRAUSS. "A Big Bet on Natural Gas." The New York Times (Weds., October 4, 2006): C1 and C4.

The map shows the area in which the terminal is being built. The bottom photo shows a Louisiana site where Cheniere is building a terminal for liquified natural gas. Source of image: online version of the NYT article cited above.

Laptops Update Read and Friedman’s “I, Pencil” Story

Source of graphic: scanned from p. B1 of NYT article cited below.

Leonard Read in his classic "I, Pencil" told the story of how the various compenents of a mere pencil came from different suppliers the world over. People who did not know each other, and might not like each other if they met, but who were brought together in productive co-operation through the power of the market. Milton Friedman frequently presented his own verison of this story. The cover of my 1980 edition of Free to Choose has a picture of Friedman holding a pencil as if in the middle of this story. And there is a short video-clip of Friedman telling the story.

A similar story could be told with many other products, and several sources have presented the raw materials in print to tell the story for laptop computers. (By "raw materials" I mean that they list the diversity of sources of the inputs; but usually without drawing all the lessons that Reed and Friedman drew.) One source is a chapter in Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat.

Two other sources are articles that appeared within a few days of each other in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

The reference to The New York Times article is:

DAVID BARBOZA. "An Unknown Giant Flexes Its Muscles; Amid Talk of Deal With I.B.M., Lenovo of China Sheds Some Obscurity." The New York Times (Sat., December 4, 2004): B1 & B3.

The reference to The Wall Street Journal article is:

Jason Dean and Pui-Wing Tam. "The Laptop Trail; The Modern PC Is a Model Of Hyperefficient Production And Geopolitical Sensitivities." The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., June 9, 2005): B1 & B8.

Source of graphic: scanned from p. B1 of WSJ article cited above.

Profit-Maximizing Infrastructure Installation

Verizon employees in New York installing fiber optic cable. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article cited below.

(p. C1) Building a whole new state-of-the-art network is a laborious and expensive process that Verizon says it must undertake to fend off rivals like Comcast and Vonage, which are moving fast into the phone business. As Verizon replaces more of its old copper network with more durable fiber lines, the company also expects to save billions of dollars in maintenance costs.

Verizon will spend about $20 billion by the end of the decade to reach 16 million homes from Florida to California. But it is in New York City where Verizon has the most at stake, because New Yorkers are some of the nation’s biggest buyers of video, Internet and phone services. The company plans to spend about $3 billion to reach the city’s 3.1 million homes and apartments.

With such a high concentration of potential customers, competition is fierce — and Verizon has been losing ground. Time Warner Cable, Cablevision and others are stealing about 1,000 Verizon phone customers a day, and their discounted services are making it hard for Verizon to win them back — another reason to get the fiber network up quickly.

“The guys understand the importance of this fiber project,” said Robert Fighera, a lineman and chief union steward in the Bronx, nodding to the workmen nearby. “We’re also stockholders, and we know we have to install this or we’ll fall by the wayside of all these other companies.”

For the full story, see:

KEN BELSON. "Verizon Is Rewiring New York, Block by Block, in a Race for Survival." The New York Times (Mon., August 14, 2006): C1 & C6.

R&D Stats Better; But Still Omit a Lot of Innovation

GDPgrowthWithR&Dgraph.gif Source of graphic: online version of WSJ article cited below.

Note well Romer’s caveat below that, although we may be measuring better, we are still not measuring Schumpeterian innovations (such as the Wal-Mart innovations that are vastly increasing the efficiency of retailing).

That research and development makes an important contribution to U.S. economic growth has long been obvious. But in an important advance, the nation’s economic scorekeepers declared they can now measure that contribution and found that it is increasing.

. . .

Since the 1950s, economists have explained economic output as the result of measurable inputs. Any increase in output that can’t be explained by capital and labor is called "multifactor productivity" or "the Solow residual," after Robert Solow, the Nobel Prize-winning economist considered the father of modern growth theory.

From 1959 to 2002, this factor accounted for about 20% of U.S. growth. From 1995 to 2002, when productivity growth accelerated sharply, that grew to about 33%. Accounting for R&D would explain about one-fifth, by some measures, of the productivity mystery. It suggests companies have been investing more than the official data had previously shown — a good omen for future economic growth. "The slump in investment is not as drastic as people thought before they saw these figures," says Dale Jorgenson, professor of economics at Harvard University.

Mr. Jorgenson noted a lot of the multifactor productivity growth remains unexplained. "The great mystery of growth . . . is not eliminated."

Paul Romer, an economics professor at Stanford Business School, said the better the measurements of R&D become, the more economists and policy makers will realize other factors may be more important. "If you look at why we had rapid productivity growth in big-box retailing, there were lots of intangibles and ideas that . . . don’t get recorded as R&D."

For the full story, see:

GREG IP and MARK WHITEHOUSE. "Why Economists Track Firms’ R&D; Data on Knowledge Creation Point to an Increasing Role In Domestic Product Growth." Wall Street Journal (Fri., September 29, 2006): A2.

(Note: The slightly different online version of the title is: "Why Economists Track Firms’ R&D; Data on Knowledge Creation Point to an Increasing Role In Domestic Product Growth.")

(Note: ellipses in Jorgenson and Romer quotes, in original; ellipsis between paragraphs, added.)

Sulfa: First Antibiotic Was Pursued for Profit

Source of the book image: http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1400082137.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V52133117_.jpg

Economists have debated whether patents mainly provide incentives, or obstacles, to innovation. In the story of the development of sulfa, the first powerful antibiotic, the desire for profit, through patents, was one motive that drove an important part of the development process; this, even though, in the end, sulfa turned out not to be patentable:

(p. P9) Mr. Hager follows a group of doctors into postwar German industry — specifically into the dye conglomerate IG Farben. These men, having witnessed horrible deaths by infection on the battlefield, picked up on Ehrlich’s hypothesis by trying to synthesize a dye that specifically stained and killed bacteria. Led by the physician-scientist Gerhard Domagk, they brought German know-how, regimentation and industry to the enterprise.

Year after year the team infected mice with streptococci, the bacteria responsible for so many deadly infections in humans. The researchers then treated the mice with various dyes but had to watch as thousands upon thousands of them died despite such treatment. Nothing seemed to work. The 1920s turned into the ’30s, and still Domagk and his team held to Ehrlich’s idea. There was simply no better idea around.

Then one of the old hands at IG Farben mentioned that he could get dyes to stick to wool and to fade less by attaching molecular side-chains containing sulfur to them. Maybe what worked for wool would work for bacteria by making the dye adhere to the bacteria long enough to kill it.

. . .

The IG Farben conglomerate expected huge profits from Prontosil. But then French scientists at the Pasteur Institute in Paris dashed these dreams. The German scientists — all of them Ehrlich disciples — thought that the power to cure infection rested in the dye, with the sulfa side-chain merely holding the killer dye to the bacteria. The scientists at the Pasteur Institute, though, showed that the sulfa side-chain alone worked against infection just as well as the Prontosil compound. In fact, the dye fraction of the compound was useless. You could have Ehrlich’s magic bullet without Ehrlich’s big idea! This bombshell rendered the German patents worthless. The life-saver "drug" turned out to be a simple, unpatentable chemical available in bulk everywhere.

For the full review, see:

PAUL MCHUGH. "BOOKS; Medicine’s First Miracle Drug." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., September 30, 2006): P9.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

The reference for the book is:

Thomas Hager. The Demon Under The Microscope. Harmony, 340 pages, $24.95

Maybe Fewer Women Engineers Because Fewer Women Want to Be Engineers?

I’ve slogged through enough reports from the National Academy of Sciences to know they’re often not shining examples of the scientific method. But — call me naïve — I never thought the academy was cynical enough to publish a political tract like “Beyond Bias and Barriers,” the new report on discrimination against female scientists and engineers.

. . .

I consulted half a dozen of these experts about the report, and they all dismissed it as a triumph of politics over science. It’s classic rent-seeking by a special-interest group that stands to get more money and jobs if the recommendations are adopted.

“I am embarrassed,” said Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, “that this female-dominated panel of scientists would ignore decades of scientific evidence to justify an already disproved conclusion, namely, that the sexes do not differ in career-relevant interests and abilities.”

. . .

After decades of schools pushing girls into science and universities desperately looking for gender diversity on their faculties, it’s insulting to pretend that most female students are too intimidated to know their best interests. As Science magazine reported in 2000, the social scientist Patti Hausman offered a simple explanation for why women don’t go into engineering: they don’t want to.

“Wherever you go, you will find females far less likely than males to see what is so fascinating about ohms, carburetors or quarks,” Hausman said. “Reinventing the curriculum will not make me more interested in learning how my dishwasher works.”

For the full commentary, see:

JOHN TIERNEY. "Academy of P.C. Science." The New York Times (Tues., September 26, 2006): A23.

(Note: the title of the online version was "Academy of P.C. Sciences.")

(Note: ellipses added.)

“Work Alone”

Source of book image: http://www.mactime.ru/Environ/WebObjects/mactime.woa/2/wa/Main?textid=6114&level1=mactimes&wosid=b2qk07iEkIh6GoutH7IbVg

Many scholars interpret Schumpeter as believing that large firms would increasingly become the main source of innovation. Scherer, Christensen, and many others, have provided plenty of reason to doubt this belief. Here is another reason, from one of the innovators who helpted bring us the personal computer:

What emerges in "iWoz" is a chatty memoir full of surprises. Yes, Mr. Wozniak cherishes workbench minutiae, such as his tips for connecting circuitry wires. But he also sees this book as a chance to cut through cliché and explain himself to a larger audience. He reveals a technology pioneer who is more charming and annoying — and whose life is more poignant — than we expected.

. . .

As Apple roared ahead, going public in 1980 and then becoming one of the 500 largest U.S. companies, Mr. Wozniak’s golden moment came to an end. New products weren’t developed anymore by a brilliant prankster working with barely any sleep. There were now teams, committees and market studies.

Mr. Wozniak by his own account didn’t like these changes, and he didn’t want to rise into senior management. He hung on at Apple as a lone engineer — and he says he still collects a tiny paycheck from the company — but from the mid-1980s onward turned his attention to other things.

. . .

Fortunately, Mr. Wozniak finishes strong. In his final chapter, he offers a bit of advice to gifted engineers: "Work alone." Big companies tend to stifle innovation, he explains. It’s lonely and risky to work solo. No matter. "Man, it will be worth it in the end," he writes. His life bears out the truth of that simple claim.

For the full review, see:

GEORGE ANDERS. "BOOKS; Technostalgia; Steve Wozniak looks back on the computer revolution and his role as Apple’s co-founder." Wall Street Journal (Sat., September 30, 2006): P8.

(Note: ellipses added.)

The reference to the book by Wozniak:

Steve Wozniak, with Gina Smith. iWoz Norton, 2006. 313 pages, $25.95.

Steve Jobs at left, and Steve Wozniak at right, in San Francisco in 1977. Source of photo: online version of the WSJ article cited above.

Sprint to Risk Billions on New Infrastructure

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article cited below.

If Sprint bets on WiFi, they’re betting with their money; if the government bets on WiFi, they’re betting with your money. If Sprint succeeds, thereby benefiting the consumer, at no risk to the consumer, the consumer should not object to their earning huge profits.

Note also, that this is a plausble candidate for a firm trying to follow Clayton Christensen’s advice to try to disrupt itself. (And see the comment at the end, for someone who hasn’t read Christensen, or doesn’t believe what he has read.)

Analysts say building a nationwide WiMax network could cost Sprint between $1 billion and $4 billion, a hefty sum for a company that is already struggling to meet Wall Street’s expectations. Sprint said it expects to invest $1 billion on the project in 2007 and between $1.5 billion and $2 billion in 2008.

Sprint’s decision carries considerable risks: Investors have hammered telecom companies that have made large capital investments in new technologies, banking on future markets to emerge. For example, among other things, Verizon Communications Inc.’s stock has been under fire as the company is rolling out a costly new fiber optic network that it says will position the company to deliver a bundled TV, Internet, and phone service. Also, WiMax technology is still untested on a large scale.

Sprint is making a huge bet that consumer demand for wireless Internet access and services such as cellphone downloads of music and video will continue to grow in the coming years. Consumers already can get access to wireless Internet service at Wi-Fi "hotspots" in airports and coffee shops, and some cities, like Anaheim, Calif., are blanketing their terrain with Wi-Fi connections.

. . .

. . . , some analysts and industry experts question why the company is gearing up for such a major capital investment when it is already even or ahead the other top U.S. carriers, Verizon and Cingular Wireless, when it comes to data services. "Why compete against yourself? It doesn’t make a lot of sense at this point," said Mike Thelander, principal analyst at Signals Research Group who predicted several weeks ago that Sprint would choose WiMax.

For the full story, see:

AMOL SHARMA and DON CLARK. "Sprint Bets on New Wireless ‘WiMax’." Wall Street Journal (Tues., August 8, 2006): B1-B2.

(Note: the above passages are from the online version, which was later, and less tentative about Sprint’s intentions, than the print version.)

(Note: ellipses added.)

Tech Bubble Caused Much of 1990s Inequality Increase

Source of graphic: online version of the NYT article cited below.

It is widely recognized that income inequality increased in the 1990’s, but nobody knows quite why. Despite the lack of hard evidence, there are plenty of theories.

. . .

Two University of Texas researchers, James K. Galbraith and Travis Hale, added an interesting twist to this debate in a paper, “Income Distribution and the Information Technology Bubble” (utip.gov.utexas.edu/abstract.html#UTIP27).

According to Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Hale, much of the increase in income inequality in the late 1990’s resulted from large income changes in just a handful of locations around the country — precisely those areas that were heavily involved in the information technology boom.

. . .

A big advantage of looking at county data is that it is possible to identify counties that contributed the most to the increase in income inequality from 1994 to 2000. It turns out that the five biggest winners in this period were New York; King County, Wash. (with both Seattle and Redmond); and Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco, Calif., the counties that make up Silicon Valley. The five biggest losers were Los Angeles; Queens; Honolulu; Broward, Fla.; and Cuyahoga, Ohio.

What do the counties in the first list have in common? Their economies were all heavily driven by information technology in the late 90’s. This is true for the rest of the list of winners as well. Harris, Tex. (home to Houston and Enron); Middlesex, Mass. (home to Harvard and M.I.T.); Fairfield, Conn.; Alameda, Calif.; and Westchester, N.Y., were also among the top 10 income gainers in this period.

The authors point out that half the 80 American companies in the CNET Tech Index are in those top 10 counties. Furthermore, when income inequality decreased after 2000, the income drop in the high-tech counties contributed most to the decline.

For the full commentary, see:

HAL R. VARIAN. "ECONOMIC SCENE; Many Theories on Income Inequality, but One Answer Lies in Just a Few Places." The New York Times (Thurs., September 21, 2006): C3.

Markets, Not Courts, Should Decide Intel Market Share

Intel executives, coming up on a pre-trial conference in a case that could decide their company’s fate, should be looking with envy and admiration at Tiger Woods, and wondering how to make their business more like his.

If golf followed the same path as other businesses, Tiger could expect to face a lawsuit contending that his dominance of professional golf is based on unfair competition. And in fact, a few years back Sergio Garcia whined that Tiger got better practice times, favorable treatment around the course, more protection against distracting fans — little things that could, Mr. Garcia intimated, explain Tiger’s edge. Sportswriters responded swiftly, deriding Mr. Garcia for looking to blame others for his being outcompeted. They understood that sports contests belong on the field, not in the media or the courts.

The same should be true of business. Market-based economies thrive on competition. The competitive economy doesn’t yield an infinite number of equally successful firms producing indistinguishable products, but lets winners and losers emerge from marketplace competition. The (inevitably) temporary dominance of one product or one firm spurs others to compete harder. Today, however, many businesses — especially American ones — find it easier to restrain a dominant competitor through the courts than to beat it in the market.

Take the case of Advanced Micro Devices and Intel, the dominant chipmaker for PCs and servers. AMD for years played the role of Phil Mickelson to Intel Corporation’s Tiger Woods — the talented rival who keeps coming up short in head-to-head competition. Last year, it decided to model Mr. Garcia rather than Mr. Mickelson, filing an antitrust action against Intel, charging it with a variety of unlawful actions.

. . .

AMD finds fault in Intel’s continued market dominance: Because Intel has had 80% or more of the x86 chip processor market for many years it must be doing something illegal to keep rivals out. Yet, George Stigler, among others, long ago debunked the significance of market share as a measure of competition. Duopoly markets, like the market for large commercial aircraft, can be fiercely competitive. Ask anyone working at Boeing or Airbus.

Moreover, markets can change rapidly, especially high-tech markets, often in ways unanticipated by antitrust suits. Witness the changes in computing that caused the government’s antitrust case against IBM to implode.

For the full commentary, see:

RON CASS. "RULE OF LAW; Tigers by the Tail." Wall Street Journal (Sat., September 23, 2006): A7.