Schumpeter – Page 13 – artdiamondblog.com

Tom Peters: Over-the-Top Schumpeterian

Source of book image: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/078949647X/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/104-2835260-2878345?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155

Tom Peters became famous as the co-author of the business classic In Search of Excellence (1982). His Re-imagine! is exuberant, optimistic, exaggerated, and stylistically over-the-top. I find it fun, bracing, entertaining, and sometimes edifying. If you like the prose of The Cluetrain Manifesto and Gilder’s Telecosm, then you may also like Re-imagine!

Here is an early, very brief passage:

(p. 9) My overall vision, in brief: Business is cool. It’s about Creativity and Invention and Growth and Service. It’s about Adam Smith’s "hidden hand." And Nobel laureate Frederick Hayek’s "spontaneous discovery process." And economist Joseph Schumpeter’s "gales of creative destruction." At its best, it’s about building things that make life less burdensome than it was in medieval times. About getting us beyond—far, far, far beyond—the quasi-slavery of the Middle Ages, the indentured servitude of the first 150 years of the Industrial Revolution, and the cubicle slavery of the last three-quarters of a century.

Yes, business is cool.

(Or at least it can be.)

The citation to the book is:

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

(Note: the italics in the above passage appears that way in the original.)

Job Hopping May Aid Technological Experimentation

When employees jump from company to company, they take their knowledge with them. ”The innovation from one firm will tend to bleed over into other firms,” Professor Rebitzer explained. For a given company, ”it’s hard to capture the returns on your innovation,” he went on. ”From an economics perspective, that should hamper innovation.”

He found a possible answer to the puzzle in the work of two management scholars, Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark. In their book ”Design Rules: The Power of Modularity” (MIT Press, 2000), they argued that when there is a lot of technological uncertainty, the fastest way to find the best solution is to permit lots of independent experiments. That requires modular designs rather than tightly integrated systems.

”By having a lot of modular experimenters, you can take the best, which will be a lot better than the average,” Professor Rebitzer said. Employee mobility may encourage productive innovation, as people quickly move to whichever company comes up with the best new technology.

. . .

To Professor Rebitzer’s surprise (though not his co-authors’), it turns out that Silicon Valley employees really do move around more often than other people. The researchers looked at job changes by male college graduates from 1994 to 2001. During that period, an average of 2.41 percent of respondents changed jobs in any given month.

But, they write, ”living in Silicon Valley increases the rate of employer-to-employer job change by 0.8 percentage point.”

”This effect is both statistically and behaviorally significant — suggesting employer-to-employer mobility rates are 40 percent higher than the sample average.”

For the full commentary, see:

VIRGINIA POSTREL. "ECONOMIC SCENE; In Silicon Valley, Job Hopping Contributes to Innovation." The New York Times (Thursday, December 1, 2005): C4.

A PDF of the paper by Rebitzer and colleagues is downloadable at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/feds/2005/200511/200511abs.html

The book Postrel praises, is:

Source of book image: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0262024667/104-2835260-2878345?redirect=true

Russians Try to Steal Rocker’s Vacuum Tube Factory

Mike Matthews holding one of the vacuum tubes produced in the Russian factory he owns. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article cited below.

(p. C1) SARATOV, Russia — Mike Matthews, a sound-effects designer and one-time promoter of Jimi Hendrix, bought an unusual Russian factory making vacuum tubes for guitar amplifiers. Now he has encountered a problem increasingly common here: someone is trying to steal his company.

Sharp-elbowed personalities in Russia’s business world are threatening this factory in a case that features accusations of bribery and dark hints of involvement by the agency that used to be the K.G.B.

Though similar to hundreds of such disputes across Russia, this one is resonating around the world, particularly in circles of musicians and fans of high-end audio equipment.

Russia is one of only three countries still making vacuum tubes for use in reproducing music, an aging technology that nonetheless "warms up" the sound of electronic music in audio equipment.

"It’s rock ‘n’ roll versus the mob," Mr. Matthews, 64, said in a telephone interview from New York, where he manages his business distributing the Russian vacuum tubes. "I will not give in to racketeers."

Yet the hostile takeover under way here is not strictly mob-related. It is a dispute peculiar to a country where property rights — whether for large oil companies, car dealerships or this midsize factory — seem always open to renegotiation. It provides a view of the wobbly understanding of ownership that still prevails.

. . .

(p. C4) If the tube factory dies, so will the future of a rock ‘n’ roll sound dating back half a century, the rich grumble of a guitar tube amplifier — think of Jimi Hendrix’s version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" — that musicians say cannot be replicated with modern technology.

"It’s nice and sweet and just pleasing sounding," Peter Stroud, the guitarist for Sheryl Crow, said in a telephone interview from Atlanta. "It’s a smooth, crunchy distortion that just sounds good. It just feels good to play on a tube amp."

He added: "It would be a catastrophe for the music industry if something happened to that plant."

For the full story, see:

ANDREW E. KRAMER. "From Russia, With Dread; American Faces a Truly Hostile Takeover Attempt at His Factory." The New York Times (Tuesday, May 16, 2006): C1 & C4.

The transistor disrupted the vacuum tube, a case that would usually be described as an episode of creative destruction. One secondary lesson from the story above is that there may be a previously unremarked symmetry to the process of disruption. A disruptive technology typically appeals only to a niche in the market, while the incumbent technology dominates the mainstream. But after the disruptive technology improves sufficiently to capture much of the mainstream market, maybe there often will remain a niche market that still prefers the older disruptive technology?

To use Danny DeVito’s example in "Other People’s Money," the car may have disrupted horse-and-buggies. But for some nostalgic "jobs" the horse-and-buggy may still be the better product, so there will likely remain some demand for buggy whips.

To the extent that this phenomenon is significant, it might serve to ease the labor market transition when one technology leapfrogs another.

A vacuum tube used in guitar amplifiers, that was produced in the factory that Mike Matthews owned. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article cited above.

Entrepreneur Risks His Money; Government Risks Yours

George B. Kaiser. Source of photo: http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=OXNB&datatype=Person

(p. A1) In 2002, Kathleen Eisbrenner, then an executive at El Paso Corp., spent months trying in vain to find a buyer for the company’s novel technology for importing natural gas.

In February 2003, she left for a vacation in Cancun, convinced that El Paso would be forced to abandon the project. As she sat on the beach one afternoon, she got a call on her cellphone. A colleague had a message from an intermediary, who said he had an "interested buyer," identified only as a "Midwest billionaire."

"It’s Warren Buffett calling," she recalls telling her husband as they clinked pina colada glasses together in celebration. "I was absolutely sure."

But it wasn’t Mr. Buffett. It was another billionaire named George B. Kaiser.

. . .

(p. A6) . . . , Ms. Eisbrenner called Nicolas Saverys, the chief executive of Belgium-based Exmar NV. Exmar was building two of the new-style LNG vessels. Ms. Eisbrenner gushed that there was a wealthy buyer. Mr. Saverys was initially skeptical. He changed his mind in late February 2003 after meeting Mr. Kaiser in New York. "At last, I was talking to someone who was putting his own money at stake," he says.

Mr. Saverys sealed the relationship by presenting Mr. Kaiser with a box of pralines from Belgian chocolatier Pierre Marcolini at their second meeting. Mr. Kaiser, an avowed chocoholic, returned the favor a couple of weeks later in Tulsa, giving Mr. Saverys a box of candy made by Christine Joseph, a Tulsa chocolatier who also was born in Belgium.

Convinced that Energy Bridge could work, Mr. Kaiser agreed to take over the business, closing the deal last December. El Paso paid him $75 million; in return, he assumed a $120 million obligation to Exmar. El Paso also agreed to pay to install the underwater pipeline connection that carries the gas from the ship to existing pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico.

The bulk of the $660 million Mr. Kaiser invested went to modify three specially equipped tankers and to charter them for 20 years. If Energy Bridge opens on time in January, it will be at least two and a half years ahead of any new terminals being developed by other energy companies. In addition, civic leaders in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, eager to keep LNG terminals and tankers far from the mainland, are encouraging Mr. Kaiser to build an offshore tanker-based project along the Atlantic coast of the U.S.

Mr. Kaiser, who declined requests for an interview but answered some questions by e-mail, concedes he doesn’t like "taking a risk on an undemonstrated technology." But he says that the chance to import natural gas quickly was "such an obvious and alluring business opportunity" that he felt compelled to get Energy Bridge into operation. He’s betting that new LNG-export facilities expected to come online next year in Egypt, Trinidad and Nigeria will create enough extra supply to provide him with ample LNG.

. . .

He says he acquired Energy Bridge as a challenge. "I don’t gain much pleasure from personal expenditure or recognition," he wrote in an e-mail. "And any gains I make from the enterprise will accrue to charity. But I enjoy problem solving and I want to keep my brain active to forestall (or at least diminish) atrophy."

For the full story, see:

Russell Gold. "Liquid Assets: A Billionaire Takes a Gamble To Fix Natural-Gas Shortage; Mr. Kaiser Plans to Shift Processing Onto Tankers, Avoiding Terrorism Fears; A Deal Sealed With Sweets." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., July 23, 2004): A1 & A6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Container Ships Revolutionized Shipment of Goods

Source of book image: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/8131.html

Virginia Postrel’s periodic column in the New York Times over the past six years, was a beacon of optimism, clarity and fresh insights on how the economy works. The excerpt below is from her last column. Presumably she is moving on to other worthy challenges, but her column in the Times will be missed.

”Low transport costs help make it economically sensible for a factory in China to produce Barbie dolls with Japanese hair, Taiwanese plastics and American colorants, and ship them off to eager girls all over the world,” writes Marc Levinson in the new book ”The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger” (Princeton University Press).

For consumers, this results in lower prices and more variety. ”People now just take it for granted that they have access to an enormous selection of goods from all over the world,” Mr. Levinson said in an interview. That selection, he said, ”was made possible by this technological change.”

. . .

The idea of containerization was simple: to move trailer-size loads of goods seamlessly among trucks, trains and ships, without breaking bulk. But turning that idea into real-life business practice required many additional innovations.

New equipment, from dockside cranes to the containers themselves, had to be developed. Carriers and shippers had to settle on standard container sizes. Ports had to strengthen their wharves, create connections to rail lines and highways, build places to store containers and strike new deals with their unions.

Along the way, even the most foresighted people made mistakes and lost millions. Malcom McLean himself bought fast fuel-guzzling ships right before the 1973 oil crisis and slow, economical ships just as fuel prices turned down. ”Almost everybody who was concerned with containerization in any way at some point got the story wrong,” Mr. Levinson said.

It is a classic tale of trial and error, and of creative destruction.

For the full commentary, see:

Virginia Postrel. "ECONOMIC SCENE; The Container That Changed the World." The New York Times (Thursday, March 23, 2006): C3.

The full reference to Levinson’s book is:

Levinson, Marc. The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger. Princeton University Press, 2006.

Leapfrog Competition in Video Game Machines

Source of book image: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0385479492/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/104-0758544-2447945?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155

Co-opetition is a readable book with some plausible discussion of interesting cases. The central message is that business is not always a zero-sum game (in contrast, say, to competitive sports). One implication is that the firm’s complementary relationships with other firms, may deserve as much attention as its competitive relationships.

One qualitfication: I think the book too much emphasizes game theory as the sine qua non source of the book’s insights. About the only game theory you really need to understand 99% of the book’s analysis is the concept of the "zero-sum game."

In a couple of places, the book discusses "leapfrog" competiton in the video game industry:

(p. 102) By mid-1995 the price of the 3DO machine was down to $400 (with $150 worth of software thrown in). Cumulative sales passed half a million. Progress, surely, but as of early 1996, 3DO’s future remains uncertain. It no longer has the 32-bit game to itself. Sega is shipping its 32-bit Saturn machine at $400. Sony has launched its 32-bit PlayStation at $300. Looking to leapfrog them all is Nintendo, whose 64-bit Ultra machine is due out in April 1996 at a price under $250.

(p. 114) Could a challenger hope to breach Nintendo’s virtuous circle? Not once the circle had got rolling. Forget about alternatives–TV, books, sports. From a kid’s perspective, there were no good alternatives to a video game. The only real threat came from alternative video game systems. Here, software was key, as always. With a huge library of Nintendo titles to choose from, why would anyone buy another machine? Perhaps a challenger could take successful Nintendo games over to its platform and then offer its own library. But the exclusivity clause killed that option. No game could be taken to another platform for a two-year period, by which time the game was passe. A challenger would have had to start from scratch. While large profits and shortages normally invite entry, the virtuous circle made competing in Nintendo’s game hopeless. The only hope was to leapfrog Nintendo with a new technology; that’s what Sega ultimately did, as we’ll see in the Scope chapter.

Source:

Brandenburger, Adam M., and Barry J. Nalebuff. Co-Opetition; a Revolution Mindset That Combines Competition and Cooperation; the Game Theory Strategy That’s Changing the Game of Business, 1st ed. Currency, 1996.

Leonard Read’s Comparative Advantage

When I was a student at Wabash College, Ben Rogge arranged for Liberty Fund to finance my attendance at a couple of weekend seminars at the Foundation for Economic Education in New York. The seminars were taught by Rogge, Edmund Opitz, and Leonard Read. I remember upon returning to Wabash after one of the seminars, Rogge asking me what I thought of Read. I said something along the lines that I didn’t much like his presentation style. I remember saying that he expressed himself in a way that I associated with used car salesmen. (So unlike Rogge’s low-key, witty, intensity.)

My memory is that Rogge did not respond directly to my comment, but (perhaps with a hint of a smile) mentioned that among many audiences, especially in business, Leonard Read was an extremely effective speaker.

I do not doubt that, and I also do not doubt that Read belongs in the pantheon of free market defenders. His essay "I, Pencil" is by itself sufficient for admission. But he did more than write and speak; he nurtured and called attention to others who had wisdom to offer. For one small example, many of us learned about Albert Jay Nock’s "The Remnant" through Leonard Read’s The Freeman.

I believe that the last time I saw Read was at the memorial service at Wabash College for Ben Rogge. I ended up sitting near Read and Opitz, who had flown in from New York. I introduced myself as a Rogge student who had attended FEE seminars.

I remember Read looking very sad, and depressed, and almost lost. I also remember that he expressed some mild indignation that more of Rogge’s students hadn’t made it back for the memorial service.

But as a serious reader of "The Remnant," Read on further reflection probably realized that the attendance at a memorial service is not a good measure of a teacher’s influence on his students.

Apparently one student, whom Read himself influenced, was Charles Koch:

(p. A8) Whereas the bookshelves of most of America’s leading CEOs are stocked with pop corporate management and "how to succeed" books, Mr. Koch’s office is a wall-to-wall shrine to writings in classical economics, or, as he calls it, "the science of liberty." The authors who have had the most profound influence on his own political philosophy include F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Joseph Schumpeter, Julian Simon, Paul Johnson and Charles Murray. Mr. Koch says that he experienced an intellectual epiphany in the early 1960s, when he attended a conference on free-market capitalism hosted by the late, great Leonard Read.

For the full commentary, see:

STEPHEN MOORE. "THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW with Charles Koch; Private Enterprise." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., May 6, 2006): A8.

(Note: In the quotation above, I have corrected the WSJ’s misspelling of Read’s last name.)

“Everybody wants to be like Bill Gates”

Vietnamese university students hoping to see Bill Gates. Source of image: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/world/asia/27vietnam.html?ex=1303790400&en=255d4d4996b1a9a6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

HANOI, Vietnam, April 26 — It was Lenin’s birthday. The most important Communist Party meeting in five years was under way. And the star of the show was the world’s most famous capitalist, Bill Gates.

The president, the prime minister and the deputy prime minister all excused themselves from the party meeting on Saturday to have their pictures taken with Mr. Gates, who has more star power in Vietnam than any of them.

When people heard he was in town, hundreds climbed trees and pushed through police lines to get a glimpse of him. He was the subject of the lead article in the next day’s newspapers.

This is where Vietnam stands today, moving cautiously toward a new version of communism while the people and their leaders lunge eagerly for the brass ring of capitalist development.

"That was very symbolic," said Le Dang Doanh, an official in the Ministry of Planning, speaking of the reception for Mr. Gates. "It is a very clear sign of the new mood of society and the people. Everybody wants to be like Bill Gates."

For the full story, see:

SETH MYDANS. "Communist Vietnam Lunges for Capitalism’s Brass Ring." The New York Times (Thurs., April 27, 2006): A3.

Note: the version of the article above corrects an error in the print version that had misidentified the day of Lenin’s birth, and Gates visit as a Sunday (it was a Saturday).

Hunter-Gatherers Prefer Civilization

Source of photo: online version of NYT article cited below.

(p. A13) The newly arrived Nukak do not provide much detail about why they left. They just say that "the Green Nukak," a possible reference to Marxist guerrillas, who wear camouflage, told them to leave.

"The Green Nukak said we could not keep walking in the jungle, or else there would be problems," explained Va-di, another Nukak man, whose words were translated from Nukak by Belisario. "The Green Nukak told us to go where it is safe."

. . .

In Aguabonita, the scene on a recent day was full of commotion and laughter. Naked children tugged at the shirts of two foreign journalists, offering big smiles and hugs. The men quickly welcomed the visitors into a makeshift shelter, where they laughed at some of the questions and, it seemed, wholly innocently at their own odd predicament.

Are they sad? "No!" cried a Nukak named Pia-pe, to howls of laughter. In fact, the Nukak said they could not be happier. Used to long marches in search of food, they are amazed that strangers would bring them sustenance — free.

What do they like most? "Pots, pants, shoes, caps," said Mau-ro, a young man who went to a shelter to speak to two visitors.

Ma-be added, "Rice, sugar, oil, flour." Others said they loved skillets. Also high on the list were eggs and onions, matches and soap and certain other of life’s necessities.

"I like the women very much," Pia-pe said, to raucous laughs.

One young Nukak mother, Bachanede, breast-feeding her infant as she talked, said she was happy just to stay still. "When you walk in the jungle," she said, "your feet hurt a lot."

The men still go into the jungle, searching for monkeys, a delicacy the Nukak cannot seem to live without. Monkeys are grilled, dismembered and boiled, then eaten piece by piece. The women still spend their time carefully weaving intricate wristbands and hammocks, using threads from palm leaves.

All live in shelters now, enjoy constant medical attention and, on weekends, stroll into town to take in the sights. "Nukak life is hard in the jungle," Dr. Maldonado said. "You wake up thinking about food and you go hunt, you go search for nuts. So when they see us they think their food problems are over."

That is not to say the Nukak do not have plans.

Ma-be explained that the idea is to grow plantains and yucca and take the crops to town. "We can exchange it for money," he said, "and exchange the money for other things." But first they need to learn how to cultivate crops. The Nukak say they would like their children to go to school. They also say they do not want to lose traditions, like hunting or speaking their language. "We do want to join the white family," Pia-pe said, speaking of Colombian society, "but we do not want to forget words of the Nukak."

For the full story, see:

JUAN FORERO. "Leaving the Wild, and Rather Liking the Change." The New York Times (Thurs., May 11, 2006): A1 & A13.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Omit the Footnotes?

When I was a graduate student at Chicago, Milton Friedman was rumored to have given a presentation on how to write a doctoral dissertation in which he said something like:

Take everything nonessential, and move it into footnotes. Then collect all the footnotes into an appendix. Finally, delete the appendix.

My memory is that Deirdra McCloskey, in her wonderful advice on how to write economics clearly, also advises against footnotes. I at least attribute this advice to McCloskey (and Friedman) when I pass it on to students.

But sometimes, when I write an article, a misguided referee, or editor, insists that I omit some stuff that I think is really good. When that happens, sometimes, if I feel strongly, I sneak some of that material back into the paper in footnotes. Maybe no one will ever read it, but I feel better that it is still there.

And every once in awhile, it may turn out that the footnotes are what matter most:

It was typical of Schumpeter’s love for theory that he rejected Marshall’s view that the reader could skip the footnotes and appendixes. If time were short, Schumpeter advised, read them and skip the text! (p. 7; italics in original.)

In this case, though, I suspect that Marshall was right, and Schumpeter wrong.

Source:

Samuelson, Paul. "Compete as an Economic Theorist." In Schumpeterian Economics, edited by Helmut Frisch, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1981, pp. 1-27.

Will Google Leapfrog Microsoft?

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Source of photo: online version of NYT article quoted and cited below.

The Microsoft-Google rivalry is shaping up as a titanic corporate clash for the ages.

It may not turn out that way. Markets and corporate fortunes routinely defy prediction. But it sure looks as if the two companies are on a collision course, as the realms of desktop computing and Internet services and software overlap more and more.

Microsoft, of course, is the reigning powerhouse of computing and Google is the muscular Internet challenger. On each side, the battalions are arrayed: executives, engineers, marketers, lawyers and lobbyists. The spending and competition are escalating daily. For each, it seems, the other passes what Andrew S. Grove, a founder and former chairman of Intel, calls the "silver bullet test" of strategic competition. "If you had one bullet, who would you shoot with it?"

How the Microsoft-Google confrontation plays out could shape the future of competition in computing and how people use information technology.

Do the pitched corporate battles of the past shed any light on how this one might turn out?

Business historians and management experts say the experience in two of the defining industries of the 20th century, mass-market retailing and automobiles, may well be instructive. The winners certainly scored higher in the generic virtues of business management: innovation, execution and leadership.

But perhaps even more significant, those who came out on top, judging from history, had two more specific attributes. They were the companies, according to business historians, that proved able to adapt to change instead of being prisoners of past success. And in their glory days, these corporate champions were magnets for the best and brightest people.

For the full story, see:

STEVE LOHR. "And in This Corner . . . Microsoft and Google Grapple for Supremacy as Stakes Escalate." The New York Times (Weds., May 10, 2006): C1 & C14.

Source of graphic: online version of NYT article quoted and cited above.