Must-read: Gavyn Davies: “The internet and the Productivity Slump”

Must-Read: Gavyn Davies: The internet and the Productivity Slump: “How much would an average American, whose annual disposable income is $42,300…

…need to be paid in order to be persuaded to give up their mobile phone and access to the internet, for a full year? Would it be more, or less, than $8,400 for the year?… Chad Syverson… calculates that the productivity slowdown in the US is equivalent to about $2.7 trillion of lost output per annum by 2015. Even on the most generous method that he can find to calculate the extent of the underestimated consumer surplus from the digital economy, he reckons that only about one third of the productivity gap can be explained in this way…. He suggests, on prima facie grounds, that few people would value their access to the digital economy at one fifth of their disposable income. Maybe, but… most people are now extremely reliant upon, or addicted to, the internet, especially via their smartphones. Faced with the choice, I doubt whether they would be prepared to be transported back to the obsolete technology of a decade ago in exchange for an annual payment of less than, say, a few thousand dollars a year–i.e. far less than than the value currently accorded to digital activity in GDP…

Must-read: Tim Worstall: “Brookings Is Wrong On The Productivity Slowdown”

Must-Read: Tim Worstall: Brookings Is Wrong On The Productivity Slowdown: “My own favoured example being that in our current GDP numbers globally…

…we have Facebook marked down as providing some $18 billion of economic value, that should then translate into perhaps $36 billion of consumer surplus, which is the true measure of how we’ll we’re doing as humans. And yet that’s obviously ridiculous: something that 1 billion people do for an average 20 minutes a day simply cannot be valued at such a low number. If we measured that time at US minimum wage (maybe not right, but indicative) then we’d have $800 billion or so of time value. Or, alternatively, we should be valuing the time people spend on Facebook at 10 cents or whatever an hour….

Brookings has a new paper out:

We find little evidence that the slowdown arises from growing mismeasurement of the gains from innovation in IT-related goods and services…. Many of the tremendous consumer benefits… are, conceptually, non-market…. These benefits do not mean that market-sector production functions are shifting out more rapidly than measured, even if consumer welfare is rising.

And that’s a horrible assumption, a terrible line of reasoning. As Delong says:

Isn’t ‘measuring consumer welfare’ the point? We (a) arrange atoms (b) in forms we find pleasing and convenient, and then use them in combination with (c) information and (d) communication to accomplish our purposes. That our measures of economic growth are overwhelmingly ‘market’ measures that capture the value of (a), much of the value of (b), and little of the value of (c) and (d) is an indictment of those measures, and not an excuse for laziness by shrugging them off as ‘non-market’ and claiming that measuring the shifting-out of market-sector production functions is our proper business….

Consumer welfare… is the thing…. Market economic activity… are only a proxy… because we want to be able to calculate it in something close to real time… [and] to have objective rather than highly subjective numbers…. But we must never forget that it is only a proxy…. Consider WhatsApp. Currently it charges no fee… and… carries no advertising…. Anyone want to claim that WhatsApp adds nothing?… Thus we know absolutely that we’ve got a measurement problem here. Our only question is how bad is it?… And yes, obviously, this spills over into public policy…. We do indeed have 1 billion of those guys’n’gals getting their telecoms for free: what do you mean this isn’t making people richer?

Must-read: David M. Byrne et al.: “Does the United States Have a Productivity Slowdown or a Measurement Problem?”

Must-Read: Is it really credible that the rapid growth in potential output over 1995-2004 was 90+% an “anomaly… upward shift in the level of productivity rather than… thanks to the Internet, the reorganization of distribution sectors, and the like…” and 10-% a supply-side consequence of a high-pressure economy? Surely the coincidence of sustained high demand relative to current potential in this one single decade of the past four and rapid potential output growth create a strong and unrebutted presumption that the split is 50%-50% or 70%-30% and not 95%-5%?

David M. Byrne et al.: Does the United States Have a Productivity Slowdown or a Measurement Problem?: “After 2004, measured growth in labor productivity and total-factor productivity (TFP) slowed…

…We find little evidence that the slowdown arises from growing mismeasurement of the gains from innovation in IT-related goods and services…. Underlying macroeconomic trends–not mismeasurement of IT-related innovations — are responsible for the slowdown in U.S. labor productivity and total factor productivity (TFP) since the early 2000s…. Because the slowdown predated the Great Recession, and growth was similar in the 1970s and 1980s to what it’s been since 2004, it was the fast-growth of 1995-2004 period that was the anomaly — a one-time upward shift in the level of productivity rather than a permanent increase in its growth rate – thanks to the Internet, the reorganization of distribution sectors, and the like. ‘Looking forward, we could get another wave of the IT revolution. Indeed, it is difficult to say with certainty what gains may yet come from cloud computing, the internet of things and the radical increase in mobility represented by smartphones,’ they write. Still, those hypothetical benefits have not appeared yet.

I also confess to being annoyed by:

Second, many of the tremendous consumer benefits from smartphones, Google searches, and Facebook are, conceptually, non-market: Consumers are more productive in using their nonmarket time to produce services they value. These benefits do not mean that market-sector production functions are shifting out more rapidly than measured, even if consumer welfare is rising…

Isn’t “measuring consumer welfare” the point? We (a) arrange atoms (b) in forms we find pleasing and convenient, and then use them in combination with (c) information and (d) communication to accomplish our purposes. That our measures of economic growth are overwhelmingly “market” measures that capture the value of (a), much of the value of (b), and little of the value of (c) and (d) is an indictment of those measures, and not an excuse for laziness by shrugging them off as “non-market” and claiming that measuring the shifting-out of market-sector production functions is our proper business.

Must-read: Henry Farrell: “Facebook’s Algorithms Are Not Your Friend”

Must-Read: Ordinarily, buyers and sellers in a marketplace have a partial harmony of interests. All want to make a win-win deal. But all also want to, conditional on the deal being made, reduce the amount of surplus received by their counterparty by as much as they can. The interest vectors have a positive dot product. But they are not aligned.

However, when what is being sold is not the service to the user but rather the user’s eyeballs to an advertiser who may want to inform the user and may want to distort the user’s cognition and worsen his or her judgment, even the partial harmony of interest goes up for grabs. And now Henry Farrell is annoyed at Alex Tabarrok’s transfer of what was originally a valid intuition outside of its proper sphere:

Henry Farrell: Facebook’s Algorithms Are Not Your Friend: “Alex’s more fundamental claim–like very many of Alex’s claims…

…rests on the magic of markets and consumer sovereignty. Hence all of the stuff about billions of dollars ‘making its algorithm more and more attuned to our wants and needs’ and so on. But we know that the algorithm isn’t supposed to be attuned to our wants and needs. It’s supposed to be attuned to Facebook’s wants and needs, which are in fact rather different. Facebook’s profit model doesn’t involve selling commercial services to its consumers, but rather selling its consumers to commercial services. This surely gives it some incentive to make its website attractive (so that people come to it) and sticky (so that they keep on using it). But it also provides it with incentives to keep its actual customers happy–the businesses who use it to advertise…

Must-read: Sheryl Sandberg: “From Facebook Q4 2015 Results–Earnings Call Transcript”

Must-Read: Via Ben Thompson: Sheryl Sandberg: From Facebook Q4 2015 Results–Earnings Call Transcript: “Our third priority is improving the relevance and effectiveness of our ads…

…We shipped a lot of new ad products this past year. These products help deliver personalized marketing at scale and drive business for our clients. Leading up to Black Friday Shop Direct, the UK’s second largest online retailer teased upcoming sales with a cinemagraph video to build awareness. They then retargeted people who saw the video with one day only deals. On Black Friday, they used our carousel and DPA ads to promote products people had shown interest in. They saw 20 times return on ad spend from this campaign, helping them achieve their biggest Black Friday and their most successful sales day ever…

Must-read: Tim Worstall: “Facebook Doesn’t Waste Trillions In Time: That’s The Value Facebook Adds For Us”

Must-Read: Tim Worstall: Facebook Doesn’t Waste Trillions In Time: That’s The Value Facebook Adds For Us: “CNBC… [is] saying that we all spend lots of time on Facebook…

…That’s entirely true…. They’re then saying that that time has a value: this is also true…. But then they say that the time we spend on Facebook is a waste… because we are doing Facebook rather than working to make money. And that’s entirely the wrong way around. That we are on Facbeook rather than making money shows that we value the Facebook time more than the money. Thus this financial value of this time is the value that is being added to our lives. And yes, this is an important economic point which then feeds through into public policy….

[CNBC’s] is bad economics… a fetishisation, a reification, of GDP… not something that we want to do at all: we need to remember that GDP is only a proxy for how well we’re doing, not how well we’re doing itself…. Facebook is valued in GDP at it’s profits plus its wage bill… about $10 billion [a year]…. [But] we’ve got people giving up $900 billion in hypothetical labour value…. I’m not going to insist upon that $900 billion…. But I am going to insist that the addition is very much larger than the $10 billion odd that sits in GDP…

Must-read: Mark Thoma: “Why GDP Fails as a Measure of Well-Being”

Must-Read: Mark Thoma: Why GDP Fails as a Measure of Well-Being: “Catherine Rampell provides a nice summary of the alternative measures that have been proposed…

…However, none of these alternatives deal with the main problem… how to measure the full impact of technology on our lives…. GDP assigns a zero value to goods with a zero price, but those goods aren’t valued at zero and as they become more prominent, we’ll need to find a way of including the benefits they provide in our measures of the standard of living…. When you hear that your standard of living has gone up, ask yourself what has happened to leisure time?… How much of technology’s benefits might have been missed–how often do you use Wikipedia? And how was the additional GDP distributed across the population–did it mostly go to the 1 percent?…

Must-read: David Warsh: “Whose ‘Rules?'”

David Warsh (1998): Whose `Rules?’: “For the last year, hardly a week has passed without…

…some bright new book fetching up on my desk promising to explain some aspect of the business dynamics of the new age of information…. In all this stack of books on managing knowledge, intellectual capital, the ecology of information and the like, the single volume most worth reading — and, for many persons having, for it bears consulting again and again — is ‘Information Rules.’…

Shapiro and Varian are professors at the University of California at Berkeley. Shapiro served for a time in Washington, D.C., as deputy assistant attorney general for economics. Varian is dean of Berkeley’s School of Information Management and Systems, an expert on Internet economics and the author of a leading microeconomics text as well.

As they increasingly were drawn into the policy battles of the information age, Shapiro and Varian heard the constant refrain from entrepreneurs, consultants, and journalists: the old rules had been broken; a new set of principles was required to guide business strategy and public policy.

They write in their introduction:

But wait, we said. Have you read the literature on differential pricing, bundling, signalling, licensing, lock-in, or network economics? Have you studied the history of the telephone system or the battles between IBM and the Justice Department?

Our claim: You don’t need a brand-new economics. You just need to see the really cool stuff, the material they didn’t get to when you studied economics.’

And so they wrote their book.

The battle over incompatible standards, for example, is as old as North vs. South in railroad track gauges; between Edison and Westinghouse in electricity. True, the old story had been given some new twists, by Sony vs. Matsushita in videotape players, or 3Com vs. Rockwell and Lucent in modems. The jury is still out on DVD and Divx (both of which play CDs). But same as it ever was, standards wars may end in truce, as with modems; in duopoly, as with video games; or in annihilation of one of the parties, as with videotape players.

The keys to the analysis of networks are the twin concepts of positive feedback and network externalities, the authors say. Neither one is a recent arrival. Network externalities — when the value of a product to one user depends on how many other users there are — have long been recognized as keys to transportation and communications industries.

For example, a handful of telephones will have only limited value. Then positive feedback sets in: as the installed base of telephones grows, more and more users find it worthwhile to tap into the network. Eventually growth levels off, but only after a successful technology has taken over the market. Railroads, highways, electricity grids, television, e-mail: all obey the same basic principles.

‘Information Rules’ has something to say about nearly every aspect of today’s business terrain; it is hard to exaggerate how pervasive is the logic of positive feedback. Among the most interesting chapters are those on recognizing and managing ‘lock-in,’ the widespread situation in which choices today are hemmed in by selections made in the past. The cost of abandoning your Toyota for a Ford may not be great, but just try switching from a Macintosh to a Windows PC.

Savvy marketers, moreover, are trying to raise the switching costs to their customer base, and not just through tricks of engineering, training, and design. Frequent-flier miles are an especially successful device for increasing lock-in, a subtle form of volume discount. Consumer loyalty programs are proliferating everyday as computation power creates ‘synthetic frictions,’ little barriers designed to influence your choice. Those supermarket cards, for example, that gain you sale prices, in return for the windfall of information about your tastes that store owners receive, are a prime example.

The overriding virtue of ‘Information Rules’ is that it is clearly written but deeply grounded in a sense-making discipline that has evolved over a couple hundred years. If you want to know more about the whys and wherefores of ‘Goldilocks’ pricing — if your market doesn’t segment naturally, choose three versions, just like Goldilocks — you are referred to a paper by Itamar Simonson and Amos Tversy (and to the three sizes of peanut butter in your supermarket!). Got a question about the virtues of standardization through committees vs. the market? See the recent work by Joe Farrell and Garth Saloner.

Economics isn’t perfect — far from it. But it has raced ahead in the last 25 years in topics of the greatest concern in industrial organization. This book is the best available introduction to the nuts and bolts of new learning.

Must-read: Dietz Vollrath: “Beating a Dead Robotic Horse”

Must-Read: Dietz Vollrath: Beating a Dead Robotic Horse: “People are not horses, they are apes…

…And apes are intelligent, creative, and social. The last one is very important, because it means we have a built-in demand for being around other people. A demand that we routinely pay to have supplied. We will always find ways to pay other people to interact with us. The horse agument, though, is a form of strong robo-pessimism. When I go after it, it makes it seem as if I have a real distinct difference from someone like Richard, a weak robo-pessimist. I don’t. I think I am a weak robo-optimist…

Must-read: Dani Rodrik: “The Evolution of Work”

Must-Read: Dani Rodrik: The Evolution of Work: “Thanks to the Industrial Revolution, new technologies in cotton textiles, iron and steel, and transportation delivered steadily rising levels of labor productivity for the first time in history….

…First in Britain in the mid-eighteenth century, and then in Western Europe and North America, men and women flocked from the countryside to towns to satisfy factories’ growing demand for labor. But, for decades, workers gained few of the benefits of rising productivity. They worked long hours in stifling conditions, lived in overcrowded and unsanitary housing, and experienced little growth in earnings. Some indicators, such as workers’ average height, suggest that standards of living may have even declined for a while. Eventually, capitalism transformed itself and its gains began to be shared more widely… partly because wages naturally began to rise as the surplus of rural workers dried up. But, equally important, workers organized themselves to defend their interests. Fearing revolution, the industrialists compromised. Civil and political rights were extended to the working class….

The post-industrial economy opened up a new chasm in the labor market, between those with stable, high-paid, and fulfilling services jobs and those with fleeting, low-paid, and unsatisfying jobs. Two factors determined the share… the education and skill level of the workforce, and the degree of institutionalization of labor markets in services…. There is both good and bad news for the future of work in developing countries. Thanks to social policy and labor rights, workers can become full stakeholders in the economy much earlier in the process of development. At the same time, the traditional engine of economic development–industrialization–is likely to operate at much lower capacity. The resulting combination of high public expectations and low income-producing capacity will be a major challenge for developing economies everywhere.