Economics – Page 33 – artdiamondblog.com

GDP Neglects Benefits of New Goods

(p. A13) . . . [one] source of underestimation of growth is the failure to capture the benefit of new goods and services. Here’s how the current procedure works: When a new product is developed and sold to the public, its market value enters into nominal gross domestic product. But there is no attempt to take into account the full value to consumers created by the new product per se.
Think about statins, the remarkable class of drugs that lower cholesterol and reduce deaths from heart attacks. By 2003 statins were the best-selling pharmaceutical product in history. The total dollar amount of statin sales was counted in GDP, but the government’s measure of real income never included anything for improvements in health that resulted from statins–such as a one-third decrease in the death rate from heart disease among those over 65 between 2000 and 2007.
Or consider consumer electronics. New York University economist William Easterly recently tweeted an image of a 1991 RadioShack newspaper ad and noted that all the functions of the devices on sale–clock radio, calculator, cellphone, tape-recorder, compact-disk player, camcorder, desktop computer–are “now available on a $200 smartphone.” The benefits to consumers from these advances don’t show up in GDP.

For the full commentary, see:

Martin Feldstein. “We’re Richer Than We Realize; The official economic statistics fail to account for quality improvements and new products.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Sept. 9, 2017): A13.
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed word, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Sept. 8, 2017.)

When 4% Economic Growth Was Routine

(p. R3) Starting in 1983, when Ronald Reagan was in the middle of his first presidential term, the American economy reeled off three straight years of 4% growth. The economy went on to hit that politically important target in nine of the next 17 years. In fact, even as Mr. Bush ran for re-election, the economy actually was revving up after a two-year lull, though the surge came too late for voters to realize it.
Then, at the turn into a new millennium, that streak stopped. In the last 15 years, the American economy hasn’t grown at a 4% annual rate even once.
But it isn’t just the U.S. In the last 15 years, according to International Monetary Fund data, exactly one of the traditional seven major industrialized nations achieved annual economic growth of 4%, one time: Japan in 2010.
In sum, the kind of economic growth that used to be relatively routine in the industrialized world has become virtually extinct.
This low-growth era leaves political leaders facing two unsavory tasks. The first is to explain to unhappy voters why growth is so anemic, and the second is to convince them that they know what to do about it.

For the full commentary, see:
Gerald F. Seib. “Politicians Pine for Elusive Solution to Voters’ Discontent: 4% Growth.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Jan. 17, 2017): R3.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Jan. 16, 2017.)

Lower 50% Have Largely Stagnated in Recent Decades

(p. B1) Even with all the setbacks from recessions, burst bubbles and vanishing industries, the United States has still pumped out breathtaking riches over the last three and half decades.
The real economy more than doubled in size; the government now uses a substantial share of that bounty to hand over as much as $5 trillion to help working families, older people, disabled and unemployed people pay for a home, visit a doctor and put their children through school.
Yet for half of all Americans, their share of the total economic pie has shrunk significantly, new research has found.
This group — the approximately 117 million adults stuck on the lower half of the income ladder — “has been completely shut off from economic growth since the 1970s,” the team of economists found. “Even after taxes and transfers, there has been close to zero growth for working-age adults in the bottom 50 percent.”
. . .
(p. B3) By 2014, the average income of half of American adults had barely budged, remaining around $16,000, while members of the top 1 percent brought home, on average, $1,304,800 or 81 times as much.
That ratio, the authors point out, “is similar to the gap between the average income in the United States and the average income in the world’s poorest countries, the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Burundi.”
The growth of incomes has probably increased a bit since 2014, the latest year for which full data exists, said Mr. Zucman, who, like Mr. Saez, also teaches at the University of California, Berkeley. But it is “not enough to make any significant difference to our long-run finding, and in particular, to affect the long-run stagnation of bottom-50-percent incomes.”
. . .
Mr. Piketty, Mr. Saez and Mr. Zucman concluded that the main driver of wealth in recent years has been investment income at the top. That is a switch from the 1980s and 1990s, when gains in income were primarily generated by working.

For the full story, see:
PATRICIA COHEN. “”A Bigger Pie, but Uneven Slices; Research Shows Slim Gains for the Bottom 50 Percent.” The New York Times (Weds., DEC. 7, 2016): B1 & B3.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date DEC. 6, 2016, and has the title “A Bigger Economic Pie, but a Smaller Slice for Half of the U.S.” The print article shares the title “A Bigger Pie, but Uneven Slices” with a commentary by Eduardo Porter. The Cohen article has the unique subtitle “Research Shows Slim Gains for the Bottom 50 Percent.”)

The July 7, 2017 draft of Piketty, Saez and Zucman’s working paper, mentioned above, is:
Piketty, Thomas, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman. “Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States.” Working Paper, July 6, 2017.

Warren Buffett: High-Tech Especially Hard to Predict

(p. 1D) Turns out that Warren Buffett spoke out in IBM’s favor, sort of, 37 years ago when the government accused “Big Blue” of illegal anti-competitive practices.
. . .
But Buffett was one of 87 witnesses who testified on behalf of the International Business Machines Corp. during the federal government’s antitrust trial.
. . .
In his testimony, Buffett said he asked the Price, Waterhouse accounting firm to calculate the debt levels of 104 other computer-oriented companies that, according to federal prosecutors, were harmed by IBM’s low prices and other alleged anti-competitive actions.
Buffett said his hypothesis was that the competing companies had trouble raising money to finance their growth because they had too much debt. The accounting analy-(p. 2D)sis, Buffett said in court, “bore that hypothesis out in a very conclusive manner.”
So why didn’t he buy IBM stock in 1980?
Because, he told the court, with high-tech companies it’s “particularly difficult to have a clear view of a long-term future. … High-technology companies are ones where both the product and the customer’s use of it are (areas in which) I don’t feel I have a full understanding.”

For the full commentary, see:
Steve Jordon. “WARREN WATCH; What Buffett said in court about IBM in 1980.” Omaha World-Herald (Sun., Jan 22, 2017): 1D-2D.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the title “WARREN WATCH; What Warren Buffett said in court about IBM in 1980.”)

Half of Today’s 36-Year-Olds Earn Less Than Their Parents Did at Same Age

Source of graph: http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/

(p. 2) These days, people are arguably more worried about the American dream than at any point since the Depression. But there has been no real measure of it, despite all of the data available. No one has known how many Americans are more affluent than their parents were — and how the number has changed.

The beginnings of a breakthrough came several years ago, when a team of economists led by Raj Chetty received access to millions of tax records that stretched over decades. The records were anonymous and came with strict privacy rules, but nonetheless allowed for the linking of generations.
The resulting research is among the most eye-opening economics work in recent years.
. . .
After the research began appearing, I mentioned to Chetty, a Stanford professor, and his colleagues that I thought they had a chance to do something no one yet had: create an index of the American dream. It took them months of work, using old Census data to estimate long-ago decades, but they have done it. They’ve constructed a data set that shows the percentage of American children who earn more money — and less money — than their parents earned at the same age.
The index is deeply alarming. It’s a portrait of an economy that disappoints a huge number of people who have heard that they live in a country where life gets better, only to experience something quite different.
. . .
About 92 percent of 1940 babies had higher pretax inflation-adjusted household earnings at age 30 than their parents had at the same age.
. . .
For babies born in 1980 — today’s 36-year-olds — the index of the American dream has fallen to 50 percent: Only half of them make as much money as their parents did.

For the full commentary, see:
Leonhardt, David. “The American Dream, Quantified at Last.” The New York Times, SundayReview Section (Sun., DEC. 11, 2016): 2.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date DEC. 8, 2016.)

The Chetty co-authored paper mentioned above, is:
Chetty, Raj, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang. “The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940.” Science 356, no. 6336 (2017): 398-406.

Venture Capital Stars Invested in Over-Hyped “Symbol of Silicon Valley’s Insular Excess”

(p. B2) MONTEREY, Calif. — From the moment it started, Juicero stood out as a symbol of Silicon Valley’s insular excess.
The company sold a $700 Wi-Fi-enabled juicer, trying to solve a problem that did not exist. It also raised some $120 million, and attracted a mountain of attention.
But on Friday, the company said it was shutting down operations — joining the hordes of other Silicon Valley start-ups that could not deliver business results to match the hype.
Started by a health fanatic with a checkered history as an entrepreneur, Juicero devised an elaborate scheme to deliver small glasses of expensive cold pressed juice to kitchens around the country. The machine scanned codes printed on pouches of chopped produce to help assess the freshness of the contents inside. Doug Evans, the founder, hired engineers, food scientists and fashionable industrial designers to work alongside him.
The company was a particularly bold bid to capitalize on the hype around the so-called internet of things and interest in the juice business. Mr. Evans believed there was a legion of customers who, once they tasted his juice, would find it superior to the many varieties that can be bought at convenience stores, juice bars or even Walmart.
Top venture capital firms including Google’s venture capital spinoff and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, as well as big companies like Campbell Soup, invested heavily in the company.

For the full story, see:

DAVID GELLES. “Start-Up That Sold $700 Juicer Shuts Down.” The New York Times (Sat., SEPT. 2, 2017): B2.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date SEPT. 1, 2017, and has the title “Juicero, Start-Up With a $700 Juicer and Top Investors, Shuts Down.” )

“Bankruptcies and Losses Concentrate the Mind on Prudent Behavior”

(p. A18) Allan H. Meltzer, an influential conservative economist who strongly opposed government bailouts and was credited with coining the anti-bailout slogan, “Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin,” died on Monday in Pittsburgh. He was 89.
. . .

In books like “Why Capitalism?” (2012), Dr. Meltzer promoted the view that countries and investors should suffer the consequences of their mistakes, whether flawed fiscal measures or bad lending decisions.
In coining the slogan “Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin,” he added another maxim: “Bankruptcies and losses concentrate the mind on prudent behavior.”
. . .
In recent years Mr. Meltzer found a new interest in law and regulation. He and other scholars were working on a book, “Regulation and the Rule of Law.”

For the full obituary, see:
ZACH WICHTER. “Allan H. Meltzer, Economist Averse to Bailouts, Dies at 89.” The New York Times (Sat., MAY 13, 2017): A18.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date MAY 12, 2017, and has the title “Allan H. Meltzer, Conservative Economist, Dies at 89.”)

Meltzer’s book on capitalism, mentioned above, is:
Meltzer, Allan H. Why Capitalism? New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Cashless Toll Technology Enables Congestion Pricing in Manhattan

(p. A15) As debate about creating a toll system to limit traffic in the most congested parts of Manhattan heats up, a transformation in technology could make congestion pricing a far more realistic notion than when it was last proposed a decade ago.
By the end of the year, nine crossings around the city will employ an open-road, cashless collection system that does away with tollbooths, toll lanes and toll collectors. Instead, sensors and cameras installed both above the road and in the pavement itself will capture cars and trucks as they zip by at full speed – automatically charging the 90 percent of drivers with E-ZPass transponders, and billing the other 10 percent by mail.
A decade ago, when the Bloomberg administration first proposed congestion pricing, such tolling technology was in its infancy and not widely used. Now, it is in place in some 35 jurisdictions, and its deployment in New York is the most ambitious use of the technology in a complicated urban setting.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who had not shown any enthusiasm for congestion pricing, has embraced the idea of late as a way to raise billions of dollars for the city’s ailing subway system. But Mayor Bill de Blasio has been steadfast in his opposition, and has instead pushed a plan to raise transportation funds by increasing taxes on wealthy New Yorkers.
Mr. Cuomo has yet to release a detailed congestion-pricing plan, but most schemes being discussed call for tolling vehicles to enter crowded parts of Manhattan, and doing so in a way that that does not slow the flow of traffic. By making toll-collecting all but invisible, Mr. Cuomo hopes congestion pricing will be more politically viable this time around.

For the full story, see:
MARC SANTORA. “Cashless Toll System Could Pave the Way for Manhattan Congestion Pricing.” The New York Times (Sat., AUG. 26, 2017): A15.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date AUG. 25, 2017, and has the title “Open-Road Tolls Could Pave the Way for Manhattan Congestion Pricing.”)

More Workers Benefit from Driverless Cars, Than Are Hurt

(p. A2) Self-driving vehicles have the potential to reshape a wide range of occupations held by roughly one in nine American workers, according to a new U.S. government report.
About 3.8 million people drive taxis, trucks, ambulances and other vehicles for a living. An additional 11.7 million workers drive as part of their work, including personal care aides, police officers, real-estate agents and plumbers. In all, that’s roughly 11.3% of total U.S. employment based on 2015 occupational data, according to the analysis by three Commerce Department economists.
If businesses embrace autonomous vehicles on a large scale, workers in the first category are “more likely to be displaced” from their jobs, while workers in the latter group “may be more likely to benefit from greater productivity and better working conditions,” wrote David Beede, Regina Powers and Cassandra Ingram in the report, released Friday.

For the full story, see:
Ben Leubsdorf. “Driverless Cars May Alter 1 in 9 Jobs.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Aug 15, 2017): A2.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Aug 14, 2017, and has the title “Self-Driving Cars Could Transform Jobs Held by 1 in 9 U.S. Workers.”)

The report summarized in the passages quoted above, is:
Beede, David, Regina Powers, and Cassandra Ingram. “The Employment Impact of Autonomous Vehicles.” ESA Issue Brief, #05-17, Aug. 11, 2017.

3-D Printing Promises Goods Quicker, Cheaper, More Local, and More Customized

(p. B3) With the rise of new technologies like smartphones and 3-D printers, fashion start-ups like Feetz are changing the ways goods are ordered, made and sold.
Like Ms. Beard, several founders of these companies don’t have fashion backgrounds. Instead, they consider technology the answer to off-the rack, mass-produced goods, which are increasingly shunned by millennials. Consumers with hard-to-find sizes — like petite, or big and tall — will find shopping simpler.
Traditionally, manufacturing is the most expensive part of the retail supply chain. Creating goods in small batches is difficult and costly. Most are manufactured overseas, and shipping goods to the United States adds time and cost to the process. So even “fast fashion” can take about six weeks to hit store shelves.
The beauty of instant, customized fashion, experts say, is that goods can be made at a lower cost and more quickly — yet in a personalized style.
. . .
These are still early days for 3-D printing, said Uli Becker, the former chief executive of Reebok and an investor in Feetz. The offerings are not very diversified, and they are limited to basic goods. And fabric cannot yet be printed.
But he sees great potential for 3-D printing. “You can start producing in America, for America,” he said. “Production facilities can be in the same place where you sell products, which creates jobs.”
. . .
“We’re a technology company that creates T-shirts,” said Walker Williams, 27, chief executive of Teespring, who started the company with Evan Stites-Clayton, a friend from Brown University. “The future of fashion is in smaller brands that have relationships with customers.”

For the full story, see:
CONSTANCE GUSTKE. “ENTREPRENEURSHIP; With Analytics and 3-D Printers, a Faster Fashion Just for You.” The New York Times (Thurs., SEPT. 15, 2016): B3.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date SEPT. 14, 2016, and has the title “ENTREPRENEURSHIP; Your Next Pair of Shoes Could Come From a 3-D Printer.”)