What Machines Can't Do

Here's a very nice article by David Brooks.

More generally, the age of brilliant machines seems to reward a few traits. First, it rewards enthusiasm. The amount of information in front of us is practically infinite; so is that amount of data that can be collected with new tools. The people who seem to do best possess a voracious explanatory drive, an almost obsessive need to follow their curiosity. Maybe they started with obsessive gaming sessions, or marathon all-night study sessions, but they are driven to perform extended bouts of concentration, diving into and trying to make sense of these bottomless information oceans.

Second, the era seems to reward people with extended time horizons and strategic discipline. ..

That doesn’t seem too surprising. A computer can calculate a zillion options, move by move, but a human can provide an overall sense of direction and a conceptual frame. In a world of online distractions, the person who can maintain a long obedience toward a single goal, and who can filter out what is irrelevant to that goal, will obviously have enormous worth.

 

Who will prosper in the New world?

Tyler Cowen asks in the NYT:

Who will do well? THE CONSCIENTIOUS Within five years we will are likely to have the world’s best education, or close to it, online and free. But not everyone will sit down and go through the material without a professor pushing them to do the work. Those who are motivated to use online resources will do much, much better in the generations to come.

Motivation - those who have it, those who can inspire it - is one of the main themes. It's an interesting take. I agree motivation - including incentivizing behavior - is the key issue for the emerging new economy. That's why I've been so interested in some of the classic psychology on motivation, like Maslow.

 

The "Semantic Web" is next

This is an interesting piece on where Google Search is going in the future.

Until now, Google has been an unprecedented signposter of knowledge. It has not "known" the answer to anything itself but it has had an awfully clever way of directing you to exactly the place you can find out. In some senses, that attribute is in the process of changing. This year, Google will roll out what it calls its Knowledge Graph, the closest any system has yet come to creating what Tim Berners-Lee, originator of the web itself, called "the semantic web", the version that had understanding as well as data, that could itself provide answers, not links

 

No flying cars, but there is still progress

Virginia Postrel writes that a spate of gloom about the rate of technological innovation is wrong. People lament the fortieth anniversary of the moon landings.

“You promised me Mars colonies. Instead, I got Facebook,” reads the cover of the current issue of MIT Technology Review. In an essay titled “Why We Can’t Solve Big Problems,” editor Jason Pontin considers “why there are no disruptive innovations” today.

But we hardly notice many of the improvements around us, she says.

The world we live in would be wondrous to mid-20th-century Americans. It just isn’t wondrous to us. One reason is that we long ago ceased to notice some of the most unexpected innovations.

Forget the big, obvious things like Internet search, GPS, smartphones or molecularly targeted cancer treatments. Compared with the real 21st century, old projections of The Future offered a paucity of fundamentally new technologies. They included no laparoscopic surgery or effective acne treatments or ADHD medications or Lasik or lithotripsy -- to name just a few medical advances that don’t significantly affect life expectancy... The glamorous future included no digital photography or stereo speakers tiny enough to fit in your ears.

 

Dark social

This is a different view of the significance of Facebook and the social web that I only just noticed, by Alex Madrigal of the Atlantic. In summary:

1. The sharing you see on sites like Facebook and Twitter is the tip of the 'social' iceberg. We are impressed by its scale because it's easy to measure.

2. But most sharing is done via dark social means like email and IM that are difficult to measure.

3. According to new data on many media sites, 69% of social referrals came from dark social. 20% came from Facebook.

We should rewrite the history of the web, he says. People have shared ever since its early days. What Facebook does is provide a way to archive and monetize that sharing.

Companies which lose good ideas

I subscribed a month ago to a wonderful daily e-mail, delanceyplace, which provides excerpts from current non-fiction books, with links to Amazon which benefit a children's literacy project. Today's excerpt is from a book called Advocacy by John A. Daly, with remarkable examples of how people with good ideas could not get them accepted in their original companies. Check it out on the delanceyplace site. An excerpt from the excerpt:

"Business history is dotted with stories of opportunities lost because people within companies were unsuccessful in pitching their ideas. And those neglected opportunities were consequential. Competitors seized market share that could have been kept and increased if the good idea had been adopted. Take the minivan. Who came up with that idea -- Chrysler? No. Ford engineers came up with that idea -- they called it the van-wagon -- but they couldn't convince management that customers would buy it. In fact, one executive who endorsed it, Hal Sperlich, was fired and went on to lead the effort at Chrysler, which then dominated the minivan world for many years. Ford lost out. ...

"Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, started his career as a franchisee in the Ben Franklin chain of stores. Walton tried to convince the Ben Franklin executives that his model of buying directly from manufacturers and offering deep discounts would lead to incredible opportunities. They didn't listen, Walton implemented the idea himself, and Walmart became an international phenomenon. ...

The same applies to Intel, and many other companies. But the best example is Apple.

"Steve Wozniak, a cofounder of Apple Computers, was working at Hewlett Packard when he and Steve Jobs designed their first personal computer. Wozniak had signed a document at HP saying that whatever he designed as an employee belonged to HP. He said, 'I loved [HP]. That was my company for life. So I approached HP .... Boy, did I make a pitch. I wanted them to do it. I had the Apple I, and I had a description of what the Apple II could do. I spoke of color. I described an $800 machine that ran BASIC (an early computer language), came out of the box fully built and talked to your home TV: And Hewlett-Packard found some reasons it couldn't be a Hewlett-Packard product.'

"Later, when HP began work on a computer, Wozniak approached the project managers and asked to work on it. 'I really wanted to work on computers. And they turned me down for the job. To this day I don't know why. I said, 'I don't have to run anything,' even though I'd done all these things and they knew it. I said, 'I'll do a printer interface. I'll do the lowliest engineering job there is.' I wanted to work on a computer at my company and they turned me down.' Think how different the computer industry would be if Wozniak had successfully pitched his ideas to HP. ...

I read a good book about pitching ideas and overcoming objections a while back, Buy-In: Saving Your Good Idea from Getting Shot Down by John Kotter. I've had good ideas shot down nonetheless. Sometimes no amount of persuasion will work. 

The reason capitalism works better as a system is not because it's efficient or elegant - I was talking about this concerning General Electric the other day - but because in the medium term, in aggregate, fewer good ideas are shot down. So it is more adaptable and innovative.


 

 

Food breakthrough?

This is pretty interesting. A new company is successfully growing food using just sea water and Australian scrubland.

Indeed, the work that Sundrop Farms, as they call themselves, are doing in South Australia, and just starting up in Qatar, is beyond the experimental stage. They appear to have pulled off the ultimate something-from-nothing agricultural feat – using the sun to desalinate seawater for irrigation and to heat and cool greenhouses as required, and thence cheaply grow high-quality, pesticide-free vegetables year-round in commercial quantities.

So far, the company has grown tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers by the tonne, but the same, proven technology is now almost ready to be extended to magic out, as if from thin air, unlimited quantities of many more crops – and even protein foods such as fish and chicken – but still using no fresh water and close to zero fossil fuels. Salty seawater, it hardly needs explaining, is free in every way and abundant – rather too abundant these days, as our ice caps melt away.

It could dramatically change world water usage.

It's an inspiring project, more important, it could be argued, than anything else going on in the world. Agriculture uses 60-80% of the planet's scarce fresh water, so food production that uses none at all is nothing short of miraculous.

I can't help wondering if there is a catch, or long-term problem that isn't evident yet. But a combination of hydroponic techniques and more efficient solar power may be durably effective.

It's bearing out some of the ideas and arguments and new technologies we discussed here.

 

The Internet of Things

GE is building up a huge new research center in the East Bay, near Silicon Valley, says this NYT article, because the same thing that powers sharing trivia on Facebook could also share much more significant data in the real economy. The industrial Internet is being born.

.. G.E.’s effort, analysts say, shows that Internet-era technology is ready to sweep through the industrial economy much as the consumer Internet has transformed media, communications and advertising over the last decade.

The key is adding sensors to machines, to help make them more intelligent.

Today, G.E. is putting sensors on everything, be it a gas turbine or a hospital bed. The mission of the engineers in San Ramon is to design the software for gathering data, and the clever algorithms for sifting through it for cost savings and productivity gains. Across the industries it covers, G.E. estimates such efficiency opportunities at as much as $150 billion.

I think this is very interesting, but the question is whether it will prove to be about transformation and new business models, not simply efficiency. There is a certain amount of big data "me-too-ism" about it.

I was watching an interview between Jeff Bezos and Charlie Rose the other day. Bezos said they never liked to enter a market just because they could. There isn't much money to be made doing the same thing as everyone else, entering a market late a in "me-too" way.

GE may be very good at efficiency, but I wonder if they can innovate as well. We've seen before that the rise of the modern world cannot be explained by greater efficiency, but by doing things in new ways. And I say that as a GE shareholder. Their share price is still near half what it was before the crisis.

They have such vast scale that more efficiency means millions of dollars for even tiny gains, and that could ripple across the economy in power and transportation sectors. But we need new possibilities as well.


 

Investing in local neighborhoods

This is a fascinating piece in Atlantic Cities:

The Millers have invested the last two years and nearly a million dollars in trying to answer this question: Why can’t small-time investors put their money in their own communities? Then, finally, in August, they successfully took a single property on H Street public

 

Aristotle: Household, Wealth, Common Property

We're talking about Aristotle's The Politics , starting here.

The household

The first few chapters, on the household, do seem like a relic of a distant 350 BC, and are best hurried through. It is hard to relate to the small farms or city households of ancient Athens or the Troad. This household management, oikonomia , is however the origin of the term "economic."

Most objectionately to modern readers, he believes some people lack the capacity for deliberative reason, so that they are slaves by nature ( although ancient slavery was not racially based). He also takes for granted strict division between the sexes. The head of the household must have moral virtue in its entirety; others, such as women, children, and slaves, in lesser degree.

He was perhaps more enlightened than many of his time , but he was of his time. He took for granted that, as a matter of practical necessity, some had to labor, not least because they were not suited to do anything else.

Of course, for us automation has removed much of the raw mechanical labor from life, although the economy still has an insatiable appetite for cheap labor in many agricultural and service industries. And we more optimistic about people's capacity for reason (although sometimes I wonder, if you see any episode of Access Hollywood or other celebrity glop).

What he says also entails one expects much more from the free, independent head of household in moral terms than children or servants or dependents. We still believe that of children, of course. Perhaps the capacity for moral virtue differs, and that is something we set aside in contemporary debate.

Wealth

He talks about the acquisition of property, and the definition of wealth. Wealth, properly thought of, is a tool:

Solon in one of his poems said "no bound is set on riches for men." But there is a limit, as in the other skills; for none of them have any tools which are unlimited in size or number, and wealth is a collection of tools for use in the administration of a household or state. (P 79 in the Penguin edition).

Of course, one can acquire goods without limit, but the function of the household is to use them.

The reason why some people get this notion into their heads may be that they are eager for life but not the good life; so, desire for life being unlimited, they desire an unlimited amount of what enables life to go on. Others again, while aiming at the good life, seek what is conducive to the pleasures of the body. So, as this too appears to depend on the possession of property, their whole activity centers to business. For where enjoyment consists in excess, men look for that skill which produces the excess that is enjoyed. (p85)

This of course is still a live political issue - is there a point where we have enough? How much is enough? (the title of a book I looked out a few weeks ago). It is also very much linked to questions of environmentalism. There is a very old tradition which sees the answer to human happiness not in prosperity and abundance but in limiting human desires. That ancient ascetic creed can surface today in those who want us to abandon growth and return to a significantly simpler lifestyle.

I think the answer is it is almost impossible to define what "enough" is, or what wealth itself is, without some conception of the good life and flourishing. Seeing wealth primarily as a tool for particular purposes, something to use and activate, rather than a pile of gold or financial assets is productive. It can be hard to transform financial assets into a flourishing, happy, secure life, as many celebrity divorcees or high-profile occupational burnouts know.

Aristotle also somewhat disapproves of trade and charging interest, "since it arises not from nature but from men's gaining from each other", views which were to still resonate late into the modern period, and underpinned nobility looking down on the merchant classes. We have seen this before, (including a quote from the Politics) in the deep suspicion of many religious and philosophical traditions of the institution of money.

But pragmatist that he is, he can have a shrewd appreciation of business. Thales of Miletus, he says, was criticized for making little money from philosophy. So one year he cornered the olive oil presses on his island just before a good harvest.

He made a lot of money, and so demonstrated that it is easy for philosophers to become rich, if they want to; but that is not their object in life. .. the principle can be applied more generally: the way to make money is to get, if you can, monopoly for yourself. (P90).

And that is also why we have to be very careful of monopolies and businsss restrictions and regulation sometimes.

It is also an illustration of how most ideas in the humanities and social sciences are rediscoveries or permutations of much older themes. Michael Porter would advise the way to profitability is to build barriers to entry (Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors). Warren Buffett looks for businesses with a "moat."

Against common property

Aristotle then turns to the state and comparative politics, looking at a number of constitutions including Athens, Sparta, Crete and Carthage.

He has a modern skepticism for Plato's notion of communal ownership or modern socialist property, not to mention sharing wives and children:

The greater the number of owners, the less respect for common property. People are much more careful of their personal possessions than of those owned communally; they exercise care over common property only insofar as they are personally affected. Other reasons apart, the thought that someone else is looking after it tends to make them careless of it. P108

That is also true for organizations, which is why assigning responsibility and accountability is often so important.

What was later called "to each according to his needs" is also met with skepticism by Aristotle.

For if the work done and the benefits accrued are equal, well and good; but if not, there will inevitably be ill-feeling between those who get a good income without doing much work and those who work harder but get no corresponding extra benefit. To live together and share in any human concern is hard enough to achieve at the best of times, and such a state of affairs makes it doubly hard. P114

This has a very contemporary ring about it, no doubt because it is such a timeless human response. So common ownership of property has inherent difficulties. At least, he says, existing laws are strengthened by familiarity.

Far better is the present system - provided that it has the added attraction of being a matter of habit and of being controlled by sound laws.

Even if you could fix a level of common possessions, and achieve absolute material equality,

to fix a moderate amount for all, that would still be no use: for it is more necessary to equalize appetites than possesions, and that can only be done by adequate education under the laws. ... And civil strife is caused by inequality in distinctions no less than inequality in property, though for opposite reasons on each side; that is to say, the many are incensed by the inequality in property, whereas more accomplished people are incensed if honors are shared equally, for then, as the tag has it, 'good and bad are held in equal esteem. p129

This is very important for my interests, as an obvious response to economic abundance is some kind of minimum or basic income. It is an essential illustration of the issues which surround distribution more generally.

The matter of equal esteem and distinctions is also important. It suggests the difficulties of those small slivers of society which have actually achieved abundance in the past. The behavior of aristocracies (or as Aristotle would more likely say, oligarchies) is highly instructive. When landed estates mean they have no immediate material needs, the result has often been a focus on rank and status and courtier affectation, not a higher form of achievement or freedom.

It also is clear that many of our contemporary political issues are claims or conflicts about equality of esteem, more than economic equality.

Moreoever,

Secondly, the depravity of mankind is an insatiable thing. At first they are content with a dole of a mere two obols, then, when that is traditional, they go on asking for more and their demands become unlimited. For there is no natural limit to wants and most people spend their lives trying to satisfy them. p131

Such is the fate of the welfare state as it develops toward fiscal catastrophe, perhaps. And it is a general warning about the complications and difficulties of redistributing wealth.

In general, he is concerned with the immediate psychology of how people will see things and behave in practice, rather than ultimate principle, which is why it is useful wisdom.

We of course instinctively see how what he says helps explain why the USSR and other communist states got into trouble. But it is also a warning against some of our own practices, though that may be harder to see.

 

Change

He is very conservative with a small c.

.. it is clear that there are some occasions which call for change and that there are some laws that need to be changed. But looking at it in another way we must say that there will be need of the very greatest caution. ..A man will receive less benefit from changing a law than damage from becoming accustomed to disobeying authority. .. The law has no power to secure obedience save the power of habit, and that takes a long time to become effective. Hence easy change from established laws to new laws means weakening the power of the law. p138-9

Habituation is a major theme in his ethical approach. There can be significant downside to basing institutions and expectations on the thin and fragile ground of rational choice alone.

What should reformers take from that? Not that reform or major change is impossible, or ought not to be attempted. But that you have to be aware of the practical difficulties and downsides, and do something to avoid or confront or control them. As I said before the election, the left's dreams often turn into darkness , because they look at one shining principle at the expense of daily reality and psychology.

Progress should be measured not by intentions but by actual flourishing lives.

Of course, seeing this as wry, shrewd advice depends on assuming that some elements of human nature are constant, and the human predicament has some timeless elements that unite us with someone who lived so long ago. In international relations, there has been a long debate over Thucydides, and whether his similar observations of power politics and war and history in Ancient Greece (The History of the Peloponnesian War) still have application today.  

I would say that we do advance a little in social understanding over time. But not as much as we think.

I'll look at more tomorrow.


 

 

Acceleration and flexibility in the economy

This is a fascinating story in the NYT about Zara, the huge Spanish clothes retailer, which says a lot about business and consumption. Zara has vastly accelerated the cycle of fashion. They monitor what customers are buying, and also saying to sales clerks. So if one item is selling, they can have more of them and more similar designs manufactured, shipped and on the shelves within three weeks.

Merchandise moves incredibly quickly, even by fast-fashion standards. All those thousands of Inditex stores receive deliveries of new clothes twice a week.

In this way, says Masoud Golsorkhi, the editor of Tank, a London magazine about culture and fashion, Inditex has completely changed consumer behavior.

“When you went to Gucci or Chanel in October, you knew the chances were good that clothes would still be there in February,” he says. “With Zara, you know that if you don’t buy it, right then and there, within 11 days the entire stock will change. You buy it now or never. And because the prices are so low, you buy it now.”

And fashion trends are now worldwide and instantaneous.

I remarked that it must be interesting to see what is fashionable in Turkey but not in New York and vice versa. I imagined that different nationalities still had different tastes, at least in terms of fashion. But I was wrong.

“Actually, the customer is more or less the same in New York and Istanbul,” she said. “There are differences, like Brazilian girls like more brilliant colors, whereas in Paris they use more black. But in general when you find a fashion trend, it’s global.”

It is similar to the evolutionary paradigm I have talked about before, in fact, from the very beginning of the blog. They try lots of small experiments, shipping just three or four skirts or jackets to a store. When they find something working, they immediately replicate and build on it. And they adapt extremely fast.

I wonder how fast the economy can really spin, though. Fashion has always been a special case. Change for the sake of change, for display and identity, might apply to clothes or phones. It seems to apply less to things like cars than before, though. The economy is increaingly intangible altogether.

And some things get increasingly commodified and generic at the same time as other things become the object of relentless change. Commodification is just a heartbeat or a moment away.

 

Mobs and Marvels

The other end of the scale from medieval mobs burning schools in Pakistan: Microsoft demonstrates something just like a Star Trek Voice Replicator.

It could be the next best thing to learning a new language. Microsoft researchers have demonstrated software that translates spoken English into spoken Chinese almost instantly, while preserving the unique cadence of the speaker's voice—a trick that could make conversation more effective and personal.

 

Negative Feedback loops

 

We're looking at Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail-but Some Don't, starting here.

Here's another stray reference in the book which reminded me of something else. Silver talks about Larry Summers and feedback loops in the economy.

Usually, in Summers’s view, negative feedbacks predominate in the American economy, behaving as a sort of thermostat that prevents it from going into recession or becoming overheated. Summers thinks one of the most important feedbacks is between what he calls fear and greed.

Summers is a brilliant if famously obnoxious economist, of course, with a lot of practical experience of economic crises in several administrations. Isn't it surprising how little attention there has been to the homeostatic mechanisms in the American economy apart from the price system? A capitalist economy does have some inherent resilience and stability, for all its volatility. But we don't have much real knowledge about confidence and expectations ( for all the attention in economics to rational expectations.)

Another feedback loop is displacement of demand. Recessions produce pent-up demand for houses or cars or consumer durables. Less buying now typically means, other things equal, more buying tomorrow. Choice across time matters. (One of my larger themes, however, is preferences and tastes may not be stable as before, as abundance means many basic needs are satisfied.)

The best account I've seen from this dynamic perspective is Jane Jacob's dialogue about dynamic stability, which we looked at here. Surely someone within the economics profession is doing some systematic work in this vein. Or perhaps not, as it is so heterodox. If someone knows of any such good work, please comment.

In college, one sure way to throw something at an economics problem was to contrast comparative statics with a dynamic view of the economy. But much of the bedrock of economics is still single-country comparative statics, perhaps, for the daring, with some hysteresis - path-dependence - thrown in.

When people try to do dynamics , it necessarily relies much more on assumptions about behavior and psychology. Take, for example, the controversies over CBO dynamic forecasts of tax revenue. Republicans tend to want to see more behavioral changes and higher revenue for a given tax cut because do dynamic effects. Democrats do not.

The upshot is we would do much better thinking about the economy in dynamic terms, with close attention to feedback loops. But we mostly don't.

Signal, Noise and Prediction

I'm now going to turn to Nate Silver's new book, The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail-but Some Don't. Silver is the well-known political forecaster who parlayed his blog FiveThirtyEight into a prominent spot in the New York Times.

I didn't expect much when I bought it. I thought it would be one of those "my quantitative model explains the universe" books (and investment funds) which are so tiresome and common. The world, and especially the markets, are filled with quants who think all you need is Mathematica and some back issues of Econometrica to explain everything. They are usually overconfident, expert on code rather than decisions,and tend to blow up spectacularly like LTCM given time.

Nothing could be further from the truth in this case. The book massively exceeded expectations and turns out to be a thoughtful, mature and reflective. It is consistent with much of my experience and thinking, but I still learned a lot of things I didn't know. It's also fluent and well-written. I'd recommend it without hesitation, and I'll look at it in some detail.

The crux of the book, from someone known for his number-crunching models, is that there is no such thing as objective data-driven models, at least in human affairs.

The numbers have no way of speaking for themselves. We speak for them. We imbue them with meaning. Like Caesar, we may construe them in self-serving ways that are detached from their objective reality. Data-driven predictions can succeed—and they can fail. It is when we deny our role in the process that the odds of failure rise. Before we demand more of our data, we need to demand more of ourselves.

The more information we have, the more we tend to screen out that which does not match our preconceptions. More information most often makes us narrower rather than wiser.

Alvin Toffler, writing in the book Future Shock in 1970, predicted some of the consequences of what he called “information overload.” He thought our defense mechanism would be to simplify the world in ways that confirmed our biases, even as the world itself was growing more diverse and more complex.

Information is no longer scarce, but much of it is not very useful.

Our biological instincts are not always very well adapted to the information-rich modern world. Unless we work actively to become aware of the biases we introduce, the returns to additional information may be minimal—or diminishing.

This does not mean we should just give up, or adopt lazy relativism. Instead, everything is approximate.

Some of you may be uncomfortable with a premise that I have been hinting at and will now state explicitly: we can never make perfectly objective predictions. They will always be tainted by our subjective point of view. But this book is emphatically against the nihilistic viewpoint that there is no objective truth. It asserts, rather, that a belief in the objective truth—and a commitment to pursuing it—is the first prerequisite of making better predictions. The forecaster’s next commitment is to realize that she perceives it imperfectly.

So what are the causes of failure to predict outcomes?

The most calamitous failures of prediction usually have a lot in common. We focus on those signals that tell a story about the world as we would like it to be, not how it really is. We ignore the risks that are hardest to measure, even when they pose the greatest threats to our well-being. We make approximations and assumptions about the world that are much cruder than we realize. We abhor uncertainty, even when it is an irreducible part of the problem we are trying to solve.

Indeed, experts have a particular tendency to ignore threats to their expertise. The rating agencies, for example, did not think through the possibility that default risk of various CDOs and CDO tranches might not be independent and uncorrelated.

The possibility of a housing bubble, and that it might burst, thus represented a threat to the ratings agencies’ gravy train. Human beings have an extraordinary capacity to ignore risks that threaten their livelihood, as though this will make them go away.

Our expectations about the future are riddled with blind spots, as anyone who has ever really thought about the policy process or had to predict events for a living - and been held accountable for it - knows.

We'll look at some other aspects of the book in more detail.

 

More pain at hedge funds

A major trader at Moore Capital decides to get out.

Moore Capital Management LLC’s Greg Coffey is calling it quits amid markets that have proved difficult for even the most nimble hedge-fund investors.

Coffey, who has lost money for clients in the past two years, follows other high-profile hedge-fund managers to step away from trading as Europe’s sovereign-debt crisis and concerns over global economic growth roils markets. Chris Rokos, 42, a co-founder of Brevan Howard Asset Management LLP, retired to “pursue his personal interests,” the London-based firm said in August. Billionaire energy trader John Arnold, 38, former Morgan Stanley co-president Zoe Cruz, 57, and oil trader Pierre Andurand, 35, shuttered their hedge funds this year.

The industry has matured and the easy money is largely gone. It's now more a game of the management fees - the '2' in the '2 and 20' standard deal of 2% of assets and 20% of gains.

Is US Economic Growth Over?

Here is something I'll have to look at (from an NYT article):

The American economy is running on empty. That's the hypothesis put forward by Robert J. Gordon, an economist at Northwestern University. Let's assume for a moment that he's right. The political consequences would be enormous.

In his widely discussed National Bureau of Economic Research paper, "Is U.S. Economic Growth Over?" Gordon predicts a dark future of "epochal decline in growth from the U.S. record of the last 150 years." The greatest innovations, Gordon argues, are behind us, with little prospect for transformative change along the lines of the three previous industrial revolutions:

It is pretty gloomy.

Over most of human history, in Gordon's view, the world had minimal economic growth, if it had any at all - and "there is no guarantee that growth will continue indefinitely." Gordon's paper suggests instead that "the rapid progress made over the past 250 years could well turn out to be a unique episode in human history."

 

An open access version of The Gordon article is here, although I haven't read it yet. It sound similar to Tyler Cowen's arguments.

 

Intellectual Property..and Theft

The NYT has a very interesting series on the impact of intellectual property disputes. The cost of litigation is becoming astronomical:

In the smartphone industry alone, according to a Stanford University analysis, as much as $20 billion was spent on patent litigation and patent purchases in the last two years — an amount equal to eight Mars rover missions. Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings.

IP law is a mess, and it is holding back innovation - especially by small companies who cannot afford battalions of lawyers and lobbyists. I was talking about patent trolls here.

Copyright ls is just as much of a mess - for example, Google and publishers continue to fight over orphan copyright works, although they have apparently just settled terms for other uses.

There's a common theme here. Our basic intutions about property and property rights don't work very well for many kinds of intangible property. And much of the value in the economy is now intangible. Instead of owning defined parcels of land, this is more like an evolving ecosystem, like a coral reef, where interactions and recycling and reuse can be highly complex and interdependent.

At very least, patent and copyright terms ought to be getting shorter as change accelerated, not longer.

It isn't clear we do need such an elaborate patent system to incentivize innovation. MIT and public universities and NASA and the national labs and DARPA and the National Institutes of Health are churning out new innovations all the time, and that is just in the US. The fundamental long-teamwork is much more likely to be done this way.

In fact, the worst way through most of history to generate innovation has been to let huge corporations and organizations get monopolies, often at the expense of startups, disrupters and the less connected.

Much of the value in the Economy is increasingly nonrival and largely nonexcludable. An economy based on ideas and innovation has to work differently to one based on manufacturing trucks or toasters or life insurance. That's a fact. We have to get used to it.

 

 

Dialogue: Ethos

I've been visiting my parents. I was talking to my father about his long experience in a private school linked to one of the major Protestant mainline denominations. G is fed up trying to make people work together, I say. I remember you often said what was most important about any school was its ethos, I say, and it's very difficult to provide a good education without one?

Yes, he says. It's very much how you tell a good school from a bad one.

How do you achieve a good ethos?

Well, he says, it takes generations to achieve. It isn't something you can do quickly. But I think much of it comes down to having a clear sense of what you are aiming at, a sense of purpose. In fact, I think that is much easier when you have a religious affiliation for the school. It somehow makes having a clear aim and context more obvious. That is where many of the public, state schools have difficulty, because they can't really find that sense of purpose.

That's interesting, I say. Pubic schools have to be much more neutral.

Yes, he says. You need some kind of aim or purpose, otherwise people can get completely self-interested. They end up only interested in it for the money, or are just going through the motions. You need to have something beyond immediate self-interest that people will engage with.

I think it's more than just education where you see this, I say. Take finance. Focusing just on money hasn't worked out well even in money management, brokerage and so on. There used to be much more emphasis on keeping one's word, character, or duty towards the client. One of the underlying reasons for the crisis is we drifted away from that. I think we've placed such emphasis on neutrality and impartiality in public life that we've lost a sense of purpose, or ethos. If the ethical side has gone off the rails, nothing in the economics is going to work properly.

Yes, he says. Sounds like something you should write a book about.

Later in the day, I ask, if a school is drifting, how do you fix it? Let's say you don't have generations to build up the ethos but have to try to improve things now? How do you get people to behave better and cooperate with each other? You need to put in a new head, he says. A new leader with a new broom to clear things out. It has to be someone who doesn't care if they're popular, who are going to make sure that things are going to change. You need the right person to do that. There can be a lot of inertia and resistance, from the staff, from the students too who don't like tighter rules and expectations.

But what do they actually do, I say? What do they clean out?

You tighten things up, he says. You start with the staff, and make sure timekeeping and reporting are good. You make sure students wear their clothes or uniforms properly. You make sure classes start on time and kids are doing their homework. You'll almost certainly get resistance. People don't like change. Some of the staff will have got lazy and may leave. So you get the small things right, as if someone cares about maintaining standards. And then it's a matter of expectations. Every student, every single one is expected to do as well as they can. Not all may be academic, but all can be expected to do as well as their potential. That kind of solid expectation matters.

Interesting, I say. It's probably why even the military spend so much time initially on observation of spit and polish. Yes, probably, even if its very different, he says. Just making sure little things are tighter tends to change the atmosphere and how people behave. Otherwise people get slack and lazy.

I think organizations have a natural life cycle, I say. Bureaucracy and time-serving and risk-aversion gradually build up. Yes, he says, you can even see it in things like churches, where you may get a wave of renewal. But then the next generation comes along that doesn't feel it and it all becomes routine and taken for granted. You need occasional waves of renewal.

What happens, though, I say, if problems in a school or other organization are really entrenched and you don't have the ability or tools to change people? Shut it down, he says immediately. Sometimes that's all you can do, things get so entrenched there's no way forward and you are much better off starting fresh all over again.

It's a simplistic question, I say, but why do some people more than others resist improvement or change? They get used to the routine and don't like change? Laziness, often, he says. I don't know why. Perhaps they forget why they went into a career or organization in the first place. Routine makes them forget. Some people just want security and don't want any risk or standards or change. I suppose at some level it is just personality. Some people really are just lazy.

 

Happiness and Security

Richard Easterlin writes about happiness in China in the NYT. Massive growth in the last twenty years has not produced any increase in happiness.

It is startling to find that Chinese people’s feelings of well-being have declined in a period of such momentous improvement in their economic lives. After all, most policy makers would confidently predict that a fourfold increase in a people’s material living standard would make them considerably happier.

And yet, piecing the surveys together, we found a U-shaped pattern of happiness over time, with life satisfaction declining from 1990 to the first part of this decade, and then recovering by 2010 to a level somewhat below the 1990 value. What explains the “U” at a time of unprecedented economic growth?

Before free-market reforms kicked in, most urban Chinese workers enjoyed what was called an “iron rice bowl”: permanent jobs and an extensive employer-provided safety net, which included subsidized food, housing, health care, child care, pensions and jobs for grown children. Life satisfaction during this period among urban Chinese, despite their much lower levels of income, was almost as high as in the developed world.

Reform meant loss of security, in a country with no welfare safety net. Aso, people naturally do not like risk and change, which means disruption to their lives and expectations. We've talked extensively before about Maslow's hierarchy of needs, in which a need for security is the first thing people want after basic survival needs. The psychology of risk and security is far more complex an most policymakers understand.

The feeling of insecurity also meant the average Chinese person saved an enormous proportion of their wages, which in turn led to the huge savings imbalances in the world, which in turn was a major underlying cause of the great 2008 crash.

All the same, I would imagine Chinese happiness was far higher in 1990 than it was at the depths of the cultural revolution or amidst the famines of the Great Leap Forward. Mediocre happiness is much better than mass starvation and misery.

The fact is happiness does not increase much with wealth - the "Easterlin paradox" he first wrote about thirty years ago. But security can also turn into rigidity. We also see in the West that too much of a welfare state is destroying government finances and sapping vitality. Too much security is as damaging as too little.

As in so many things, the essential requirement is to strike a balance. The trouble is this is obscured so often in our policy discussions because we are primed to look for impersonal, universal rules, rather than judging situations.

 

Our algorithmic overlords

The WSJ reviews a new book about the prevalence of algorithmic decision-making. We shouldn't blame algorithms so much as the objectives their designers build into them, it says. We need to be transparent about that.

On the whole, though, Mr. Steiner believes that we need to accept our algorithmic overlords. Accept them we might—but first we should vigorously, and transparently, debate the rules they are imposing. Following several high-profile scandals involving algorithmic trading, regulators in Hong Kong have recently proposed that all such algorithms be audited and tested every year. Similar calls have been made with regard to independent audits of Google's search algorithms—if only to avoid the impression that the company might be favoring its own services in its search results.