Schumpeter – Page 12 – artdiamondblog.com

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.

Life Is Better, But Could Be Better Still

November 9, 1952 NYT ad announcing the introduction of the snowblower. Source of image: online version of the NYT article cited below.

(p. C1) When the first snow falls on the North Shore of Chicago this winter, Robert Gordon will take his Toro snow blower out of the garage and think about how lucky he is not to be using a shovel. Mr. Gordon is 66 years old and evidently quite healthy, but his doctor has told him that he should never clear his driveway with his own hands. “People can die from shoveling snow,” Mr. Gordon said. “I bet a lot of lives have been saved by snow blowers.”

If so, most of them have been saved in the last few decades. A Canadian teenager named Arthur Sicard came up with the idea for the snow blower in the late 1800’s, while watching the blades on a piece of farm equipment, but he didn’t sell any until 1927. For the next 30 years or so, snow blowers were hulking machines typically bought by cities and schools. Only recently have they become a suburban staple.

Yet the benefits of the snow blower, namely more free time and less health risk, are largely missing from the government’s attempts to determine Americans’ economic well-being. The same goes for dozens of other inventions, be they air-conditioners, cellphones or medical devices. The reasons are a little technical — they involve the measurement of inflation — but they’re important to understand, because the implications are so large.

. . .

(p. C10) In the early 1950’s, Toro began selling mass-market snow blowers, which weighed up to 500 pounds and cost at least $150. As far as the Bureau of the Labor Statistics was concerned, however, snow blowers did not exist until 1978. That was the year when the machines began to be counted in the Consumer Price Index, the source of the official inflation rate. By then, the cheapest model sold for about $100.

In practical terms, this was an enormous price decline compared with the 1950’s, because incomes had risen enormously over this period. Yet the price index completely missed it and, by doing so, overstated inflation. It counted the rising cost of cars and groceries but not the falling cost of snow blowers.

. . .

Mr. Gordon, besides being a fan of snow blowers, also happens to be one of the country’s leading macroeconomists. A decade ago he served on a government-appointed group known as the Boskin Commission. It argued, as Mr. Gordon still does, that the government exaggerated inflation by more than one percentage point every year.

. . .

. . . Mr. Gordon’s adjustments show that men actually got a 27 percent raise in this period and women 65 percent. The gains are not as big as those of the 1950’s and 60’s, but they do sound far more realistic than the official numbers. Think about it: we live longer than people did in the 1970’s, we’re healthier while alive, we graduate from college in much greater numbers, we’re surrounded by new gadgets and we live in bigger houses. Is it really plausible, as some Democrats claim, that the middle class has made only marginal progress?

For the full commentary, see:

DAVID LEONHARDT. "Economix; Life Is Better; It Isn’t Better. Which Is It?" The New York Times (Weds., September 20, 2006): C1 & C10.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

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

Big Business Is Often Bashed, But Is Not Always Bad

(p. 4) BUSINESS bashing by politicians in America has a long history, including rhetoric far more inflammatory than the denunciations being directed at Wal-Mart this year by some Democrats, who sometimes sound as if they are running against the company instead of another politician.

. . .

The company may not appreciate the honor, but its place in the political debate reflects its revolutionary effect on the American economy.

Put simply, the big winners as the economy changes have often been scary to many, particularly those with a stake in the old economic order being torn asunder.

“Twice as many Americans shop at Wal-Mart over the course of a year than voted in the last presidential election,” said H. Lee Scott Jr., the company’s chief executive, in a speech to the National Governors Association in February.

Wal-Mart’s success reflects its ability to charge less for a wide range of goods. That arguably has reduced inflation and made the economy more efficient. It has introduced innovations in managing inventory and shipping goods.

. . .

But the fact that Wal-Mart has more shoppers than any politician has voters shows that many of those workers — and many people higher on the income scale — find its prices irresistible. That group no doubt includes some of the company’s critics.

Previous business targets of politicians have similarly been both popular and reviled. The railroads enabled much of America to prosper, but to many people in the late 19th century they were viewed as villains.

They upset old economic relationships by making it possible to ship goods over much longer distances, thus introducing competition for local businesses and farms.

For the full commentary, see:

FLOYD NORRIS. "THE NATION; Swiping at Industry From Atop the Stump." The New York Times, Section 4 (Sun., August 20, 2006): 4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Illinois protesters bashing Wal-Mart during the summer of 2006. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article cited above.

More and Better Jobs Gained by ‘Insourcing’ than are Lost to ‘Outsourcing’

N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of W.’s Council of Economic Advisors. The media, most Democrats, and some Republicans, skewered Mankiw in 2004 for simply and clearly stating the truth about outsourcing. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article cited below.

In December 2005, the McKinsey Global Institute predicted that 1.4 million jobs would be outsourced overseas from 2004 to 2008, or about 280,000 a year. That’s a drop in the bucket. In July, there were 135.35 million payroll jobs in the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thanks to the forces of creative destruction, more jobs are created and lost in a few months than will be outsourced in a year. Diana Farrell, director of the McKinsey Global Institute, notes that in May 2005 alone, 4.7 million Americans started new jobs with new employers.

What’s more, the threat of outsourcing varies widely by industry. Lots of services require face-to-face interaction for people to do their jobs. That is particularly true for the biggest sectors, retail and health care. As a result, according to a McKinsey study, only 3 percent of retail jobs and 8 percent of health care jobs can possibly be outsourced. By contrast, McKinsey found that nearly half the jobs in packaged software and information technology services could be done offshore. But those sectors account for only about 2 percent of total employment. The upshot: “Only 11 percent of all U.S. services job could theoretically be performed offshore,” Ms. Farrell says.

Economists have also found that jobs or sectors susceptible to outsourcing aren’t disappearing. Quite the opposite. Last fall, J. Bradford Jensen, deputy director at the International Institute of Economics, based in Washington, and Lori G. Kletzer, professor of economics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, documented the degree to which various service sectors and jobs were “tradable,” ranging from computer and mathematical occupations (100 percent) to food preparation (4 percent).

Not surprisingly, Mr. Jensen and Professor Kletzer found that in recent years there has been greater job insecurity in the tradable job categories. But they also concluded that jobs in those industries paid higher wages, and that tradable industries had grown faster than nontradable industries. “That could mean that this is our competitive advantage,” Mr. Jensen says. “In other words, what the U.S. does well is the highly skilled, higher-paid jobs within those tradable services.”

There is evidence that within sectors, lower-paying jobs are being outsourced while the more skilled ones are being kept here. In a 2005 study, Catherine L. Mann, senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics, found that from 1999 to 2003, when outsourcing was picking up pace, the United States lost 125,000 programming jobs but added 425,000 jobs for higher-skilled software engineers and analysts.

For the full commentary, see:

DANIEL GROSS. "Economic View; Why ‘Outsourcing’ May Lose Its Power as a Scare Word." The New York Times, Section 3 (Sun., August 13, 2006): 5.

U.S. Economy Can Prosper, Even if G.M. Does Not

The fragility of success for large corporations is documented in the early chapters of the Foster and Kaplan book that is mentioned below.

(p. 1) THE announcement last week that General Motors would cut 25,000 jobs and close several factories is yet another blow to the Goliath of automakers and its workers. But only if you work for G.M. is the company’s decline a worry. For consumers, the decline can be seen as a symbol of healthy competition.

G.M.’s sales, market share and work force have all been falling for a generation, even as the quality of its vehicles has gone up. Why? Because its competitors’ products have improved even more. Today’s auto buyers enjoy an unprecedented array of well-built, well-equipped, reasonably priced vehicles offered by many manufacturers.

. . .

(p. 3) . . . even if a new generation is drawn to G.M.’s products, recovery of its former position seems unlikely.  Other brands have improved, too:  J.D. Power estimates that for the auto industry overall, manufacturing defects declined 32 percent since 1998 alone.

There is also great pressure to hold prices down, which is bad for companies like G.M. with vast amounts of overhead.  According to the consumer price index, new cars and light trucks today cost less in real-dollar terms than in 1982, despite having air bags, antilock brakes, CD players, power windows and other features either unavailable or considered luxury options back then.

This means that during the very period that General Motors has declined, American car buyers have become better off.  Competition can have the effect of ”creative destruction,” in the economist Joseph Schumpeter’s famous term, harming workers in some places, while everyone else comes out ahead.

. . .

As it continues to shrink, G.M. may serve as an exemplar of what the world economy will do in many arenas — knock off established leaders, while improving quality and cutting prices. In their 2001 book ”Creative Destruction,” Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, analysts at McKinsey & Company, documented how even powerhouse companies that are ”built to last” usually succumb to competition.

Competition can be a utilitarian force that brings the greatest good to the greatest number. Someday when the remaining divisions of General Motors are bought by some start-up company that doesn’t even exist yet, try to keep that in mind.

For the full commentary, see:

GREGG EASTERBROOK. "What’s Bad for G.M. Is . . ." The New York Times, Section 4 (Sunday, June 12, 2005): 1 & 3.

(Note: the ellipsis in the title is in the original title; the ellipses in the article, were added.)

The full reference to the Foster and Kaplan book, is:

Foster, Richard and Sarah Kaplan. Creative Destruction: Why Companies that Are Built to Last Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform Them. New York: Currency Books, 2001.

Static Assumptions Undermine Economic Policy Analysis

Over 50 years ago, Schumpeter emphasized that static models of capitalism miss what is most important in capitalism. Yet static analysis still dominates most policy discussions. But there is hope:

(p. A14) A bit of background: Most official analysis of tax policy is based on what economists call "static assumptions." While many microeconomic behavioral responses are included, the future path of macroeconomic variables such as the capital stock and GNP are assumed to stay the same, regardless of tax policy. This approach is not realistic, but it has been the tradition in tax analysis mainly because it is simple and convenient.

In his 2007 budget, President Bush directed the Treasury staff to develop a dynamic analysis of tax policy, and we are now reaping the fruits of those efforts. The staff uses a model that does not consider the short-run effects of tax policy on the business cycle, but instead focuses on its longer run effects on economic growth through the incentives to work, save and invest, and to allocate capital among competing uses.

For the full story, see:

ROBERT CARROLL and N. GREGORY MANKIW. "Dynamic Analysis." The Wall Street Journal (Weds., July 26, 2006): A14.

Schumpeter Not Invited to Milton Friedman’s Dinner Party

Rose and Milton Friedman. Source of image: the online venison of the WSJ article cited below.

Milton Friedman is one of my heroes. But my dinner party invitation list would include Hayek and Schumpeter in place of Marshall and Keynes.

If they were to throw a small dinner party . . . for Mr. Friedman’s favorite economists (dead or alive), who’d be invited? . . . he reeled off this answer: "Dead or alive, it’s clear that Adam Smith would be No. 1. Alfred Marshall would be No. 2. John Maynard Keynes would be No. 3. And George Stigler would be No. 4. George was one of our closest friends." (Here, Mrs. Friedman, also an economist of distinction, noted sorrowfully that "it’s hard to believe that George is dead.")

For the full interview, see:

TUNKU VARADARAJAN. "COMMENTARY: THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW; Rose and Milton Friedman; The Romance of Economics." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., July 22, 2006): A10.

Life Has Improved; And Can Continue to Improve

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

(p. 1) New research from around the world has begun to reveal a picture of humans today that is so different from what it was in the past that scientists say they are startled. Over the past 100 years, says one researcher, Robert W. Fogel of the University of Chicago, humans in the industrialized world have undergone “a form of evolution that is unique not only to humankind, but unique among the 7,000 or so generations of humans who have ever inhabited the earth.”

. . .

(p. 19) . . . stressful occupations added to the burden on the body.

People would work until they died or were so disabled that they could not continue, Dr. Fogel said. “In 1890, nearly everyone died on the job, and if they lived long enough not to die on the job, the average age of retirement was 85,” he said. Now the average age is 62.

A century ago, most people were farmers, laborers or artisans who were exposed constantly to dust and fumes, Dr. Costa said. “I think there is just this long-term scarring.”

For the full story, see:

Kolata, Gina. "The New Age; Older and Better; So Big and Healthy Grandpa Wouldn’t Even Know You." The New York Times, Section 1 (Sunday, July 30, 2006): 1 & 18-19.

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

Source of graphic: online version of the NYT article cited above. Source of book image: http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521808782

Fogel’s book is a primary academic source for much of what is interesting in the New York Times article. Fogel predicts that if we don’t screw things up, half of today’s college students will live to be 100. He shows that academics in the past have consistently and significantly underestimated the maximum lifespans that would be attainable in the future.

The full reference for the Fogel book is:

Fogel, Robert William. The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death, 1700-2100, Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Beware of a Snapshot of a Moment in Time

Source of photo: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/world/middleeast/27mideast.html?pagewanted=2

The photo of Condi Rice touching her forehead ran on the top of the front page of the New York Times on Thurs., July 27, 2006. It ran big: filling over a third of the length of the paper, and over half of the width. It ran right next to the main headline of the front page: "CEASE-FIRE TALKS STALL AS FIGHTING RAGES ON 2 FRONTS."

It appears that Condi Rice is discouraged, or has a headache, or is overcome.

But a great CNN report by Jeanne Moos run on Sat., July 29, shows a dynamic version of the minute during which this snapshot was taken. It shows that this photo is a split-second moment of Condi Rice brushing hair off of her forehead.

Our usual view of competition is to look at how many competitors there are at a moment in time. We look at a snapshot. But to really judge competition we must take Schumpeter seriously and look dynamically at whether there is the possibility of leapfrog competition over time.

In an earlier blog entry, I noted that Ronald Reagan resisted sitting for still photos because he thought that still photos could easily be manipulated to mislead. Ronald Reagan was right.

(Jeanne Moos’s report was entitled "Hairy Talks or Hair in Eyes?" on the CNN web site. I believe it first ran on 7/28/06, though I saw it replayed in the afternoon of 7/29/06.)

Current Workplace Revolution Benefits Labor

(p. 8) Would you change places with your grandfather? Would you want to work 11 brutal hours a day… in yesterday’s Bethlehem Steel mill, a Ford Motor Company factory circa 1935? Not me. Nor would I change places with my father … who labored in a whilte-collar sweatshop, at the same company, in the same building, for 41 l-o-n-g years.

A workplace revolution is under way. No sensible person expects to spend a lifetime in a single corporation anymore. Some call this shift the "end of corporate responsibility." I call it … the Beginning of Renewed Individual Responsibility. An extraordinary opportunity to take charge of our own lives.

Source of passage:

Peters, Tom. Re-imagine! London: DK, 2003.

(Note: all of the ellipses in the above passage, appear in the original.)

Intense Competition in Chip Duopoly

Phil Hester, apparently a chip hotshot, joined A.M.D. ten months ago as its technology chief, to "help lead its battle against Intel." (Hector Ruis, mentioned below, is the C.E.O. of A.M.D.)

Mr. Hester and other A.M.D. executives say that the technology in its laboratories gives them plenty of reason for optimism, and that in some product categories Intel is just catching up to advances A.M.D. pioneered. Just next month, for example, A.M.D. is expected to introduce improvements to Opteron, and both companies are designing chips to run cooler and consume less energy.

Much like Intel, A.M.D. is working to increase the number of processors on each chip from two to four, and the company says it will introduce new designs for servers and desktop systems that will be released in mid-2007, followed later in the year by a new design for notebooks. Many analysts are also expecting the company to counter Intel’s pricing moves with price cuts of its own. At A.M.D.’s annual conference for analysts last month, Mr. Hester also disclosed an unusual plan to let other manufacturers build chips that work closely with its own chips, indicating an openness and flexibility that has not been seen before in the company’s strategy.

With that effort, referred to as Torrenza, A.M.D. is licensing some of its chip specifications to other technology developers so they can add specialized functions, like advanced graphics and math processing.

“We want to open up our technology and unleash a completely new wave of innovation,” Mr. Ruiz told analysts at the conference.

Advanced Micro has picked up about five percentage points of market share over the past year, nearly all of that from Intel, according to Mercury Research. Today, A.M.D.’s overall share is about 21 percent, to Intel’s 74 percent, and at the analyst meeting Mr. Ruiz said the goal was to have a 30 percent share by 2008.

Mr. Hester said A.M.D.’s road map for new products had not changed much since his arrival. Mostly he has focused on improving the way employees manage projects and pushing them to develop multiple designs at one time. He said he also emphasized cooperation inside development teams, rather than having teams compete for attention.

The competitive situation has helped with this. “Being the underdog creates a culture of cooperation,” Mr. Hester said.

For the full story, see:

LAURIE J. FLYNN. "Jumping at the Chance to Fire Away in the Chip War." The New York Times (Weds., July 19, 2006): C7.

(Note: the online version of the article has a different title, viz., "A.M.D. Seeks to Gain in Its Rivalry With Intel.")