Category: Economics

VCRs Let “You Create Your Own Prime Time”

(p. B1) Many new technologies are born with a bang: Virtual reality headsets! Renewable rockets! And old ones often die with a whimper. So it is for the videocassette recorder, or VCR.
The last-known company still manufacturing the technology, the Funai Corporation of Japan, said in a statement Thursday [July 21, 2016] that it would stop making VCRs at the end of this month, mainly because of “difficulty acquiring parts.”
. . .
In 1956, Ampex Electric and Manufacturing Company introduced what its website calls “the first practical videotape recorder.” Fred Pfost, an Ampex engineer, described demonstrating the technology to CBS executives for the first time. Unbeknown to them, he had recorded a keynote speech delivered by a vice president at the network.
“After I rewound the tape and pushed the play button for this group of executives, they saw the instantaneous replay of the speech. There were about 10 seconds of total silence until they suddenly realized just what they were seeing on the 20 video monitors located around the room. Pandemonium broke out with wild clapping and cheering for five full minutes. This was the first time in history that a large group (outside of Ampex) had ever seen a high-quality, instantaneous replay of any event.”
At the time, the machines cost $50,000 apiece. But that did not stop orders from being placed for 100 of them in the week they debuted, according to Mr. Pfost.
. . .
A consumer guide published in The Times in 1981 — when the machines ranged in price from $600 to $1,200 — explained the appeal:
“In effect, a VCR makes you independent of television schedules. It lets you create your own prime time. You set the timer and let the machine automatically record the programs you want to watch but can’t. Later, you can play the tape at your convenience. Or you can tape one show while watching another, thus missing neither.”

For the full story, see:
JONAH ENGEL BROMWICH. “Once $50,000. Now VCR, Collects Dust.” The New York Times (Mon., JULY 21, 2016): B1 & B2.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date JUNE 19, 2016, and has the title “The Long, Final Goodbye of the VCR.”)

Monopolist Ede & Ravenscroft Had 98% of Legal Wigs Market

(p. A1) British barristers and judges have worn wigs since Charles II Imported the idea from France in the 1670s. A London company, Ede & Ravenscroft Ltd., today claims 98% of the market for legal wigs in the United Kingdom. The wigs distinguish barristers from solicitors, lawyers who ordinarily don’t appear In court.
Ede & Ravenscroft, 300 years old, pursues its monopoly from a narrow London shop whose carved mahogany paneling, brass rails and chest-high counters hark back to the Victorian era.
. . .
(p. A7) In a stuffy loft two floors above, six women fabricate about 1,000 wigs a year on pockmarked wooden blocks resembling shrunken skulls. The wigmakers attach rows
of tightly rolled curls and a pair of ponytails with painful hand stitching, using 12-yard lengths of bleached curls made from horses’ tails and manes.
They strictly follow a pattern conceived by Humphrey Ravenscroft in 1822 when he invented the “modern” horsehair wig with fixed curls. It replaced ones made of goat hair, which had to be powdered and dressed with scented ointment every day to conceal the filth.

For the full story, see:
Lublin, Joann S. “Who Has Means and Motive to Steal in Halls of Justice?; British Barristers, It Seems, Can’t Resist Purloining Each Other’s Ratty Wigs.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., Oct. 4, 1989): A1 & A7.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Economist Removed from Plane for Scribbling Math

The seatmate was wrong to think the scribbling was Arabic, but was right to be alarmed.

(p. A13) In May [2016], an Italian economist from the University of Pennsylvania was removed from an American Airlines flight in Philadelphia after his seatmate became alarmed, thinking that the math he was scribbling on a piece of paper was Arabic, The Washington Post reported.

For the full story, see:
CHRISTINE HAUSER. “American Airlines Orders 2 Muslim American Women Off a Long-Delayed Flight.” The New York Times (Sat., AUG. 5, 2016): A13.
(Note: bracketed year added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date AUG. 5, 2016, and has the title “2 Muslim American Women Ordered Off American Airlines Flight.”)

Brazilians See Government as a Father Who Should Hand Out Subsidies to His Favorites

(p. 9) . . . “Brazillionaires” offers more than a flat collection of billionaire tales. Cuadros shrewdly presents his collage of immense wealth against an underlying background of corruption. There are kickbacks for government contracts. There are gigantic taxpayer subsidies: In 2009 alone, the state-run development bank, BNDES, lent out $76 billion, “more than the World Bank lent out in the entire world.” And of course there are lavish campaign contributions, attached to the inevitable quid pro quos. JBS, which leveraged government loans to become the largest meatpacking company in the world, spent $180 million on the 2014 elections alone. “If every politician who had received JBS money formed a party,” Cuadros writes, “it would be the largest in Congress.”
In his telling, Brazilians seem to embrace the cozy relationship between business and government as a source of pride rather than a risk for conflicts of interest. In one passage, Cuadros underscores the contrast between Adam Smith and the 19th-century Brazilian thinker José da Silva Lisboa, viscount of Cairu. Lisboa’s “Principios de Economía Politica” was meant to be an adaptation of Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” But rather than present a paean to the invisible hand of the market, the viscount offered a rather paternalistic view of economic progress.
“The sovereign of each nation must be considered the chief or head of a vast family,” he wrote, “and thus care for all those therein like his children, cooperating for the greater good.” Swap “government” for “sovereign” and the passage still serves as an accurate guide to the Brazilian development strategy. It’s just that some children — the Marinhos, the Camargos — are cared for better than ­others.
. . .
It would be wrong, . . . , to understand Brazil’s plutocracy as the product of some unique outcrop of corruption. The hold on political power by the rich is hardly an exclusive feature of Brazil. ­Latin America has suffered for generations from the collusion between government and business. Where I grew up, in Mexico, it is the norm.

For the full review, see:
EDUARDO PORTER. “Real Rich.” The New York Times Book Review (Sun., JULY 24, 2016): 9.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date JULY 22, 2016, and has the title “Watching Brazil’s Rich: A Full-Time Job.”)

The book under review, is:
Cuadros, Alex. Brazillionaires: Wealth, Power, Decadence, and Hope in an American Country. New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2016.

Certificate-of-Need Regulations Protect Incumbents and Hurt Consumers

(p. A11) An important but overlooked debate is unfolding in several states: When governments restrict market forces in health care, who benefits? Legislative majorities in 36 states believe that consumers benefit, because restrictions help control health-care costs. But new research confirms what should be common sense: Preventing qualified health-care providers from freely plying their trade results in less access to care.
Most states enforce market restrictions through certificate-of-need programs, which mandate a lengthy, expensive application process before a health-care provider can open or expand a facility. The story goes: If hospitals or physicians could choose what services to provide, competition for patients would force providers to overinvest in equipment such as MRI machines–and the cost could be passed on to patients through higher medical bills.
. . .
These restrictions have largely failed to reduce costs, but they certainly reduce services. A 2011 study in the Journal of Health Care Finance found that certificate-of-need laws resulted in 48% fewer hospitals and 12% fewer hospital beds.

For the full commentary, see:
THOMAS STRATMANN and MATTHEW BAKER. “Certifiably Needless Health-Care Meddling.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Jan. 12, 2016): A11.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Jan. 11, 2016.)

The “new research” mentioned by Stratman in the passage quoted above, is:
Stratmann, Thomas, and Matthew C. Baker. “Are Certificate-of-Need Laws Barriers to Entry?: How They Affect Access to MRI, CT, and Pet Scans.” Mercatus Working Paper, Jan. 2016.

Technology Platforms Will Create Decades of Gales of Creative Destruction

(p. A11) For traditional businesses, economies of scale are the key to competitive advantage: Larger firms have lower average costs. In the digital economy, network effects matter most. In “Matchmakers” (Harvard Business Review, 260 pages, $35), David S. Evans (a consultant) and Richard Schmalensee (a professor of management) highlight two particular forms.
Direct network effects occur when additional users make a service more valuable for everyone. If one’s colleagues are all on, say, LinkedIn, it will be hard for another professional network to exert a strong appeal. Without the critical mass of LinkedIn, the alternative will have less utility even if its features are better. Indirect network effects arise from positive feedback loops between opposing sides of a market. The value of Rightmove, for instance, the leading online real-estate site in Britain, comes from a matching function: Since each home is unique, buyers prefer the site with the most properties, and real-estate agents favor the site with the most buyers. This virtuous cycle magnifies Rightmove’s advantage even though participants on each side of the market compete with one another: More buyers increase competition for the same homes, and agents compete for buyers.
. . .
“Matchmakers” is . . . measured and analytical . . . . The authors fairly conclude that, while the telegraph was “a far more important multisided platform” than anything produced so far by the Internet, platforms are “behind the gales of creative destruction that . . . will sweep industries for decades to come.”

For the full review, see:

JEREMY G. PHILIPS. “Why Facebook’s Imitators Failed; If one’s coworkers are all on the same platform, any alternative will have less utility–even if its features are better.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., May 19, 2016): A11.
(Note: the ellipsis between paragraphs, and the first two in the final quoted paragraph, are added; the third ellipsis in the final paragraph is in the original.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date May 18, 2016.)

The book under review, is:
Evans, David S., and Richard Schmalensee. Matchmakers: The New Economics of Multisided Platforms. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2016.

Taylor Swift Defends Intellectual Property Rights

(p. A11) In battles against tech titans, Chinese e-commerce swindlers and others, Ms. Swift has repeatedly insisted on being paid for her music and brand–and in the process has taught some valuable lessons in basic economics.
. . .
Last year she picked a fight with Apple after the company announced plans to launch its Apple Music streaming service with a three-month trial period during which users wouldn’t pay subscription fees and Apple wouldn’t pay royalties for the songs streamed.
. . .
Ms. Swift had less luck trying to get the Spotify streaming service to restrict her songs to paying customers, so in 2014 she pulled her catalog from the platform entirely. Her manager said Spotify’s royalty payments are miserly compared with regular album revenues: “Don’t forget this is for the most successful artist in music today. What about the rest of the artists out there struggling to make a career?”
Ms. Swift’s most ambitious crusade may be in China, where she has launched branded clothing lines with special antipiracy mechanisms to combat rampant counterfeiting on e-commerce sites like Alibaba’s Taobao. Said one of the branding executives leading the effort: “It’s time for Chinese companies to say, ‘We don’t want to be known for piracy anymore.’ ” Good luck with that.

For the full commentary, see:

DAVID FEITH. “In Support of Taylor Swift, Economist.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., July 21, 2016): A11.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date July 20, 2016.)

Based on Cost and Fairness, 76.9% of Swiss Voters Say “No” to Taxpayer-Paid Minimum Income for All

(p. C6) ZURICH–Swiss voters on Sunday overwhelmingly rejected a controversial initiative that would have guaranteed all Swiss residents a minimum income on which to live.
The Basic Income Initiative received just 23.1% of the vote in Sunday’s referendum, compared with 76.9% against. . . .
Rather, the significance of Sunday’s vote–which the plan’s backers ensured by collecting the necessary 100,000 signatures–was that it gave a high-profile airing to an idea that has gained traction among economists in Europe and the U.S. in recent years.
Though the monthly amount wasn’t spelled out, it was expected to have been around 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,560) per adult, with a smaller subsidy for children, without regard to employment, education, disability, age or even wealth.
. . .
Opponents, . . . , latched on to two critiques: cost and fairness.

For the full story, see:
BRIAN BLACKSTONE. “Switzerland Votes to Reject Basic Income Initiative.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., June 6, 2016): C6.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 5, 2016.)

Obama and Koch Brothers Agree Occupational Licensing Restricts Opportunity

GranatelliGraceCanineMassageTherapist2016-07-11.jpg“Grace Granatelli, a certified canine massage therapist. In 2013, Arizona’s Veterinary Medical Examining Board demanded that she close up shop for medically treating animals without a veterinary degree.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — “I usually start behind the neck,” Grace Granatelli said from her plump brown sofa. “There’s two pressure points back behind the ears that help relax them a little bit.” In her lap, she held the head of Sketch, her mixed beagle rat terrier, as her fingers traced small circles through his fur.

Ms. Granatelli, whose passion for dogs can be glimpsed in the oil portrait of her deceased pets and the bronzed casts of their paws, started an animal massage business during the recession after taking several courses and workshops. Her primary form of advertising was her car, with its “K9 RUBS” license plate and her website, Pawsitive Touch, stenciled onto her rear window.
But in 2013, Arizona’s Veterinary Medical Examining Board sent her a cease-and-desist order, demanding that she close up shop for medically treating animals without a veterinary degree. If not, the board warned, every Swedish doggy massage she completed could cost her a $1,000 fine.
To comply with the ruling and obtain a license, Ms. Granatelli would have to spend about $250,000 over four years at an accredited veterinary school. None require courses in massage technique; many don’t even offer one.
. . .
(p. B5) The Obama administration and the conservative political network financed by the Koch brothers don’t agree on much, but the belief that the zeal among states for licensing all sorts of occupations has spiraled out of control is one of them. In recent months, they have collaborated with an array of like-minded organizations and political leaders in a bid to roll back licensing rules.
. . .
. . . the current mishmash of requirements is too often “inconsistent, inefficient, and arbitrary,” a White House report concluded last year. Many of them, the report said, have little purpose other than to protect those already in the field from further competition.
. . .
Only rarely are licensing requirements removed. Last month, though, Arizona agreed to curb them for yoga teachers, geologists, citrus fruit packers and cremationists.
But dozens more professions escaped the ax. “Arizona is perceived as a low-regulatory state, but this was the most difficult bill we worked on this session,” said Daniel Scarpinato, a spokesman for the Republican governor, Douglas Ducey.
Licensing boards are generally dominated by members of the regulated profession. And in Arizona, more than two dozen of the boards are allowed to keep 90 percent of their fees, turning over a mere 10 percent of the revenue to the state.
“They use that money to hire contract lobbyists and P.R. people,” Mr. Scarpinato said. “This is really a dark corner of state government.”
They are often joined in their campaign by lobbyists from industry trade associations and for-profit colleges, which sell the required training courses.

For the full story, see:
PATRICIA COHEN. “Horse Rub? Where’s Your License?” The New York Times (Sat., JUNE 18, 2016): B1 & B5.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date JUNE 17, 2016, and has the title “Moving to Arizona Soon? You Might Need a License.”)

The White House report mentioned above, is:
The White House. “Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Policy Makers.” July 2015.

$10,000 Universal Income Would Reduce Work and Cost Taxpayers Trillions

(p. B4) This month [June 2016], Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute will publish an updated version of his plan to replace welfare as we know it with a dollop of $10,000 in after-tax income for every American above the age of 21.
. . .
Its first hurdle is arithmetic. As Robert Greenstein of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it, a check of $10,000 to each of 300 million Americans would cost more than $3 trillion a year.
Where would that money come from? It amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. Nothing in the history of this country suggests Americans are ready to add that kind of burden to their current taxes. Cut it by half to $5,000?
. . .
As Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary and onetime top economic adviser to President Obama, told me, paying a $5,000 universal basic income to the 250 million nonpoor Americans would cost about $1.25 trillion a year. . . .
The popularity of the universal basic income stems from a fanciful diagnosis born in Silicon Valley of the challenges faced by the working class across industrialized nations: one that sees declining employment rates and stagnant wages and concludes that robots are about to take over all the jobs in the world.
. . .
Work, as Lawrence Katz of Harvard once pointed out, is not just what people do for a living. It is a source of status. It organizes people’s lives. It offers an opportunity for progress. None of this can be replaced by a check.
A universal basic income has many undesirable features, starting with its non-negligible disincentive to work. Almost a quarter of American households make less than $25,000. It would be hardly surprising if a $10,000 check each for mom and dad sapped their desire to work.
. . .
As Mr. Summers told a gathering last week at the Brookings Institution, “a universal basic income is one of those ideas that the longer you look at it, the less enthusiastic you become.”

For the full commentary, see:
Porter, Eduardo. “ECONOMIC SCENE; Plan to End Poverty Is Wide of the Target.” The New York Times (Weds., June 1, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date MAY 31, 2016, and has the title “ECONOMIC SCENE; A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty.”)

The Role of Steve Jobs in the Creation of Pixar

(p. B4) . . . [a] book that isn’t out yet (until November [2016]): “To Pixar and Beyond: My Unlikely Journey with Steve Jobs to Make Entertainment History” by Lawrence Levy, the former chief financial officer of Pixar. What a delightful book about the creation of Pixar from the inside. I learned more about Mr. Jobs, Pixar and business in Silicon Valley than I have in quite some time. And like a good Pixar film, it’ll put a smile on your face.

For the full commentary, see:
Sorkin, Andrew Ross. “DEALBOOK; Tell-Alls, Strategic Plans and Cautionary Tales.” The New York Times (Tues., JULY 5, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed word and year, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date JULY 4, 2016, and has the title “DEALBOOK; A Reading List of Tell-Alls, Strategic Plans and Cautionary Tales in Finance.”)

The book praised by Sorkin in the passage quoted above, is:
Levy, Lawrence. To Pixar and Beyond: My Unlikely Journey with Steve Jobs to Make Entertainment History. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016.