Category: Economics

Sam Peltzman Offers Advance Praise for Openness to Creative Destruction

We are told that robots are about to make us superfluous and that the giants of Silicon Valley will swallow the economy. Art Diamond’s “openness to creative destruction” provides a healthy antidote to all this gloom and doom. He gives us the necessary historical perspective: we owe our comfort and even our lives to generations of disruptive innovation. Yet each disruption bred apocalyptic portents like those we hear today. These did not come to pass because of new disruptions down the road. Diamond ably documents this process of “creative destruction” and its enormous historical benefit. He also provides a timely warning against heeding the pessimists of the moment by imposing legal and regulatory shackles on the innovators. “Openness to Creative Destruction” is a most valuable addition to the public discussion of innovation.

Sam Peltzman, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Chicago; Director Emeritus of the George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State. Author of Political Participation and Government Regulation, and other works.

Peltzman’s advance praise is for:
Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming June 2019.

As Chinese Government Control of Economy Grows, Entrepreneur Jack Ma Joins Communist Party

(p. B3) HONG KONG — Jack Ma, China’s richest man and the guiding force behind its biggest e-commerce company, belongs to an elite club of power brokers, 89 million strong: the Chinese Communist Party.
. . .
The disclosure of Mr. Ma’s membership reflects the thinking that the party controls the economy and society, said Guo Yuhua, a sociology professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing and a critic of the party.
“It’s going backward from the Deng Xiaoping era, when the party advocated the separation of the party and the government,” she said, referring to the party leader who ultimately governed China during its early years of reform in the 1970s and ’80s.
The disclosure also drew attention because Mr. Ma had in the past tried to keep his distance from the government. When asked at public appearances how he managed government relations, he often said, “Fall in love with the government, but don’t get married.”
But as Mr. Xi tightens ideological controls and the power of the state grows, many successful entrepreneurs have made a point of showing their party loyalty.

For the full story, see:
Li Yuan. “In China, Billionaires Sidle Up to the Party.”The New York Times (Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2018): B3.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Nov. 27, 2018, and has the title “Jack Ma, China’s Richest Man, Belongs to the Communist Party. Of Course.”)

With High Minimum Wages and Living Costs, S.F. Restaurants Cannot Afford, or Even Find, Servers

(p. D1) SAN FRANCISCO — Souvla, a Greek restaurant with a devoted following, serves spit-fired meat two ways: in a photogenic sandwich, or on a photogenic salad, either available with a glass of Greek wine. The garnishes are thoughtful: pea shoots, harissa-spiked yogurt, mizithra cheese.
The small menu is so appealing and the place itself so charming that you almost forget, as a diner, that you have to do much of the work of dining out yourself. You scout your own table. You fetch and fill your own water glass. And if you’d like another glass of wine, you go back to the counter.
Runners will bring your order to the table, but there are no servers to wait on you here, or at the two other San Francisco locations that Souvla has added — or, increasingly, at other popular restaurants that have opened in the last two years: RT Rotisserie, which is roasting cauliflower a few blocks away; Barzotto, a bistro serving hand-rolled pasta in the Mission district; and Media Noche, a Cuban sandwich spot with eye-catching custom tilework.
Inside these restaurants, it’s evident that the forces making this one of the most expensive cities in America are subtly altering the economics of everything. Commer-(p. D6)cial rents have gone up. Labor costs have soared. And restaurant workers, many of them priced out by the expense of housing, have been moving away.
Restaurateurs who say they can no longer find or afford servers are figuring out how to do without them. And so in this city of staggering wealth, you can eat like a gourmand, with real stemware and ceramic plates. But first you’ll have to go get your own silverware.
. . .
On July 1 [2018], the minimum wage in San Francisco will hit $15 an hour, following incremental raises from $10.74 in 2014. The city also requires employers with at least 20 workers to pay health care costs beyond the mandates of the Affordable Care Act, in addition to paid sick leave and parental leave.
Despite those benefits, many workers say they can’t afford to live here, or to stay in the industry. And partly as a result of those benefits, restaurateurs say they can’t afford the workers who remain. A dishwasher can now make $18 or $19 an hour. And because of California labor laws, even tipped workers like servers earn at least the full minimum wage, unlike their peers in most other states.
Enrico Moretti, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, estimates that when housing prices rise by 10 percent, the price of local services, including restaurants, rises by about 6 percent. (The median home price in San Francisco has doubled since 2012.)

For the full commentary, see:
Emily Badger. “Hi! You’ll Be Your Server Tonight.” The New York Times (Wednesday, June 27, 2018): D1 & D6.
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed year, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 25, 2018, and has the title “THE UPSHOT; San Francisco Restaurants Can’t Afford Waiters. So They’re Putting Diners to Work.”)

The published version of the Moretti paper, mentioned above, is:
Moretti, Enrico. “Real Wage Inequality.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5, no. 1 (Jan. 2013): 65-103.

Tech Entrepreneurs Know Innovation Thrives in Flexible Labor Markets

(p. B1) A politically awakened Silicon Valley, buttressed by the tech industry’s growing economic power, could potentially alter politics long after President Trump has left the scene. But if the tech industry becomes a political force, what sort of policies will it push?
(p. B6) A new survey by political scientists at Stanford University suggests a mostly straightforward answer — with one glaring twist. The study is the first comprehensive look at the political attitudes of wealthy technologists, whose views have long been misunderstood to the point of caricature by many outside the industry.
. . .
Over all, the study showed that tech entrepreneurs are very liberal — among some of the most left-leaning Democrats you can find. They are overwhelmingly in favor of economic policies that redistribute wealth, including higher taxes on rich people and lots of social services for the poor, including universal health care.
. . .
Now for the twist. The study found one area where tech entrepreneurs strongly deviate from Democratic orthodoxy and are closer to most Republicans: They are deeply suspicious of the government’s efforts to regulate business, especially when it comes to labor. They said that it was too difficult for companies to fire people, and that the government should make it easier to do so. They also hope to see the influence of both private and public-sector unions decline.
. . .
. . . if they’re not libertarians, what accounts for techies’ opposition to regulation? One idea might be that it’s driven by self-interest. A large fraction said they opposed regulating car-sharing services as if they were taxis, for instance; to the extent that the tech elite have a lot of money riding on the sharing economy, they may worry that regulation of such companies could hurt their wallets.
. . .
To tease out whether self-interest was at play in their views on regulation, surveyors asked a question about Uber’s surge-pricing policy, which increases prices during periods of peak demand. But the researchers disguised it with a business unrelated to tech: “On a holiday, when there is a great demand for flowers, sellers usually increase their prices. Do you think it is fair for them to raise their prices like this?”
A majority of Democrats and Republicans said it would be unfair for a florist to do that. But 96 percent of the tech elite thought it would be fair.
“My guess is there’s an underlying principle to their views,” Dr. Broockman said. “They see an entrepreneur trying to do what they want in the marketplace, and they see nothing unfair about that.”

For the full commentary, see:
Farhad Manjoo. “Tech’s Giants Skew Liberal.” The New York Times (Thursday, Sept. 7, 2017): B1 & B6.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Sept. 6, 2017, and has the title “STATE OF THE ART; Silicon Valley’s Politics: Liberal, With One Big Exception.”)

The Stanford study, discussed above, has been published online in advance of print publication:
Broockman, David E., Gregory Ferenstein, and Neil Malhotra. “Predispositions and the Political Behavior of American Economic Elites: Evidence from Technology Entrepreneurs.” American Journal of Political Science published online on Nov. 19, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12408.

False Fears of Killer Robots Distract Us from Real Benefits of Collaborative A.I.

(p. A27) If we spend all of our time looking over our shoulders for killer robots, that means we are not looking ahead to discern the outcomes we might actually want.
. . .
The most successful A.I. systems out there today are dependent on teams of humans, just as the humans depend on those systems to provide insights and perform tasks beyond their own abilities. Image-processing A.I. can outperform human radiologists at spotting tumors in X-rays, if medical personnel get patients in front of the right machine and ask the right questions. But teams of human doctors will be vital to marrying technology and empathy for the effective treatment of complex diseases.

For the full commentary, see:
Ed Finn. “Don’t Fear the Killer Robots.” The New York Times (Saturday, Nov. 17, 2018): A27.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Nov. 15, 2018, and has the title “A Smarter Way to Think About Intelligent Machines.”)

Tyler Cowen Offers Advance Praise for Openness to Creative Destruction

What are the benefits of innovative dynamism? Arthur Diamond lays out the clearest positive case to date for innovation in this highly readable and historically comprehensive work.

Tyler Cowen, Professor of Economics, George Mason University; Director of Mercatus Center; “Economic Scene” columnist for the New York Times; blogger for Marginal Revolution. Author of In Praise of Commercial Culture, Creative Destruction, The Great Stagnation, The Complacent Class, and many other works

Cowen’s advance praise is for:
Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming June 2019.

Little Correlation Between a State’s Tax Breaks and Subsidies to Firms, and the State’s Unemployment and Income Levels

(p. A27) It’s politically difficult for city and state officials to offer incentives to one firm and not another, Timothy Bartik, an economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, told me. Like Lay’s potato chips, “you can’t hand out just one,” as he put it. He fears that after the hysteria over Amazon’s HQ2 and the recent $4.1 billion deal struck between the state of Wisconsin and the Taiwanese electronics company Foxconn, incentive amounts will only climb.
Unfortunately, incentives and tax breaks don’t work. Research by Mr. Bartik indicates that there is not a large correlation between a state’s giveaways and its unemployment rate or income levels.
. . .
Lavish benefits also don’t have much influence over the choice of a location. The typical package changes a decision only 25 percent of the time or less — about two-thirds of the incentives are handed to companies that would have moved to the state offering them, regardless.
Instead, the deals often end up being a burden on budgets. Texas schools have lost an estimated $4 billion to the state’s economic development program and Cleveland schools lost over $34 million in one year alone. New Jersey’s budget is at risk of bleeding $1 billion a year, while Michigan’s liability for its business tax credits is set to soar to $9.38 billion over the next two decades and incentives have already led to a $325 million budget deficit. None of that accounts for the extra outlays to upgrade infrastructure and services for the people who move in to take advantage of any jobs that are created.
. . .
The solution, . . . , must be an armistice. States and cities need to collectively swear off big-dollar economic deals aimed at particular companies. If no one offers them, corporations will have to figure out where to locate on their own.
There’s nothing to love about these incentives. Republicans should be outraged by the idea of government picking winners and insist instead that companies be left to choose locations based on the conditions they need to operate their businesses, not sweetheart deals. Democrats should oppose them because they are starving state and city coffers of funds needed for important services, such as schools.

For the full commentary, see:

Covert, Bryce. “HQ2 Winners Are Losers.” The New York Times (Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2018): A27.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Nov. 13, 2018, and has the title “Cities Should Stop Playing the Amazon HQ2 Bidding Game.” Where there are minor differences in the versions, the passages quoted above follow the online version.)

The research by Bartik, mentioned above, is:
Bartik, Timothy J. “A New Panel Database on Business Incentives for Economic Development Offered by State and Local Governments in the United States.” W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research: Prepared for the Pew Charitable Trusts, 2017.

“The Stigma of Being ‘Drivers'”

(p. 6) They were arrested, suspended from jobs, shunned by relatives and denounced by clerics as loose women out to destroy society. Their offense? They did what many in Saudi Arabia considered unthinkable: getting in cars and driving.
Their protest in 1990 against the kingdom’s ban on women driving failed, and the women paid dearly for it, with the stigma of being “drivers” clinging to them for years.
So last month, when King Salman announced that the ban on women driving would be lifted next June, few were happier than the first women to demonstrate for that right — almost three decades ago.
. . .
Many restrictions on women remain, including so-called guardianship laws that give Saudi men power over their female relatives on certain matters. But the original protesters are overjoyed that their daughters and granddaughters will have freer lives than they did, thanks to the automobile.
“That I am driving means that I know where I am going, when I’m coming back and what I’m doing,” said Ms. Alaboudi, the social worker.
“It is not just driving a car,” she said, “it is driving a life.”

For the full story, see:
BEN HUBBARD. “27 Years After Protest, a Victory Lap for Saudi Women.” The New York Times, First Section (Sunday, October 8, 2017): 6.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date OCT. 7, 2017, and has the title “‘Once Shunned as ‘Drivers,’ Saudi Women Who Fought Ban Now Celebrate.”)

Lean Supply Chains Fail to Scale Quickly

(p. A1) American factories are running short of parts.
Suppliers of everything from engines to electronic components aren’t keeping up with a boom in U.S. manufacturing, which has lifted demand in markets such as energy, mining and construction. As a result, some manufacturers are idling production lines and digesting higher costs.
. . .
(p. A4) Years spent making supply chains as lean and efficient as possible are hurting big customers now as demand climbs, industry consultants said.
“Suppliers have not been willing to jump on adding capacity because they’ve been burned badly before,” said Shiv Shivaraman, a managing director at consultant AlixPartners LLC who advises auto and machinery makers on supply chains and production processes. “You will see many people limping for a while.”
Some companies are stockpiling parts to head off future challenges, potentially exacerbating the supply pressures.
“We built some inventory last quarter because we had seen the lead times extend and we are trying protect our customers,” said Andrew Silvernail, CEO of Idex Corp. , a maker of pumps, valves and meters that is based in Lake Forest, Ill.

For the full story, see:
Doug Cameron and Austen Hufford. “Parts Makers’ Shortages Tap Brakes on Industrial Boom.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Aug. 11, 2018): A1 & A4.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Aug. 10, 2018, and has the title “Parts Shortages Crimp U.S. Factories.”)

Jason Potts Offers Advance Praise for Openness to Creative Destruction

What explains innovative dynamism? Art Diamond has written a fantastic book exploring how strong property rights, not innovation systems, should be the basis of modern innovation policy. He has done a great job in setting out the case for a classical liberal approach to innovation and technology policy, and carefully counters many of the common arguments supporting interventionist policy models. The book is full of lucid and compelling case studies and will be popular among innovation scholars and policy-makers.

Jason Potts, Professor of Economics, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), Director of Blockchain Innovation Hub at RMIT. Author of The New Evolutionary Economics, and other works.

Potts’s advance praise is for:
Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming June 2019.

Bezos Richer than Rockefeller in Real Wealth

(p. A2) With a fortune exceeding $150 billion, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was recently declared the richest person in modern history.
But is he?
The answer depends on how you account for the wealth of past contenders for the title.
There are at least five ways to do that, and each provides a different result, according to Samuel H. Williamson, an economist and president of the website Measuring Worth.
Real wealth, the most familiar yardstick, accounts for the relative purchasing power of a particular sum by adjusting it for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index.
Using that measure, the fortune of John D. Rockefeller, America’s first billionaire and Mr. Bezos’ stiffest competition among latter day aristocrats, would equal only $24 billion today.
Working in reverse, Mr. Bezos’ fortune would amount to about $6.5 billion in 1916, when Rockefeller’s riches first hit the $1 billion mark.

For the full commentary, see:
Jo Craven McGinty. “THE NUMBERS; Bezos vs. Rockefeller, a Rich History Lesson.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Aug. 11, 2018): A2.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Aug. 10, 2018, and has the title “THE NUMBERS; Is Jeff Bezos Really the Richest of Them All?”)