Tag Archives: Economics

Economics is failing

Posted on by

Yes, that’s right, traditional economics is failing, but then we knew that. We hear talk that we’re out of the recession, but for a lot of people that doesn’t seem to be true. Many businesses are out of the recession and the “market” seems to think we’re out of the recession. However, what does it mean when the market is out of the recession? A lot of the market runs on high frequency trading, so the market can make money without a lot of people participating. Based on traditional economics theory, these markets should behave in a specific manner and they aren’t.

Slate calls this the difference between salt water and freshwater economics. Where the freshwater economics is based upon a lot of the traditional neoclassical theories, while the salt water economics is what the market traders are using. They’re using physics or other sort of network models that aren’t included in traditional economics theories.

Many of them have begun to use various forms of evolutionary economics, because it works. However, there’s a disconnect between the market and many of the leading theorists in Academia. Why? because those economists have made a career out of developing these theories. I believe that economics is at the beginning of a paradigm shift and it’s going to be painful. A lot of things are going to be changing because of this paradigm shift.

We’re staring at the end of jobs within the next 40 years, not all jobs, but a huge amount of the works force is going to be automated. Google’s working on industrial robotics with Foxconn, multiple companies are working on driverless cars, a few companies have developed drag and drop software so you don’t need to know how to code to develop software which will automate work because you build in your process rather than building your process around the system. This is radically going to change work. In the Race Against the Machine book it’s clear we’re going to be seeing changes in how our society works.

We’re going to be entering a time period where traditional economics doesn’t work and neither does capitalism. A blog post I read the other day has an interesting discussion of how we can move beyond capitalism (based on Star Trek). By the way, when I’m saying capitalism isn’t working, what I mean is that it’s not going to work to fundamentally keep the majority of the people working or provide any realistic relief to non-working people. It will be working quite well for a subset of the population that figure out how to survive or thrive in that economy. The question at that point becomes not what we think our economy is or should be, but what we value as a society.

I’ve talked about this in other posts in the past, however, I think that when we are looking at the “market place of applicable ideas” and we see that the people that should be influenced the most by economic theory AREN’T using it, but our government is, we have a serious problem. People at banks making huge sums of money on trading should be influenced by economic theory because they deal with vast sums of money and are actively driving a huge portion of our economic activity (valuable or not is another question). If they don’t see value in using those theories, then our leaders that are still applying them need to seriously rethink what theories they are applying to “manage” our economy.

When the prevailing theory in a discipline is failing, for the discipline to survive it must move beyond it. Typically the new theories that save it come from outsiders and indeed in economics it has – from two sources, Biology and Physics. Hopefully our leaders and teachers can see it before our current economic theories destroy us all.

Is Net Neutrality regulation commie nonsense?

Posted on by

Network Economy

Regulation’s a bad thing, right? Personally, I think there are instances where regulation is an amazingly good thing that drives innovation. We also need to be cautious about who is saying regulation is good or bad. Back in the 90’s we’d hear that regulating in anyway to prevent acid rain would cripple business and kill our economy. This clearly didn’t happen, we have acid free rain for the most part, we have more productive manufacturing than ever. We also hear that regulating CEO pay by median rather than average is significantly more complicated to the point that a place stacked full of MBA’s can’t figure it out. Then there are regulations that pick winners like Solyndra and turns out to be a disaster. These cause higher taxes and are actual drains on the economy (personally I’m on the fence about experimenting with new technologies and having the government support them, but that’s me).

What about the FCC “regulating” net neutrality? I think that it’s important to look at how this all started. First, I’ll start with a bit of a history with the telecoms, then move to how the internet was developed, and move to comparisons between other monopolies.

AT&T has been described as a natural monopoly. This was partially helped by the US government because the government wanted coast to coast telephony and selected AT&T as the standard for that activity. This gave AT&T incredible market strength, but was also extremely fragile as it was continually under threat of being broken up for being a monopoly (which is was). To do everything they could to avoid this, the geniuses at Bell Labs continually designed ways to keep their costs down, improve quality, and make very thing better. They also had some government deals that helped them a lot (military contracts for telecom stuff, like the first satellite). The value of AT&T’s network grew every time a person joined the network.

The fact that one person joined Network A over Network B could further impact the growth of that network. Let’s say Person A is friends with 5 people and is already on Network A, it’s likely, if they are really good friends and A is known for making good decisions, that those five people will join A on Network A. The value increases by more than simply 5, because all five of those people can talk to each other as well as every other person they know on Network A. Now if Person A has more friends, but not as good of friends and they actually are better friends with Person A’s friends they will also likely join Network A. This sort of cascade effect will continue to happen. This is also known as Metcalfe’s law.

When AT&T was force to break up, all of that interoperability remained. Instead of one big monopoly there were regional ones instead. As we’ve seen over time, these same regional operators have slowly re-joined back into 2 Bells versus the non-Bells. AT&T being split is a type of regulation for sure, but it did spur some interesting competition for a time.

How the Internet was designed:

The internet was originally designed to operate in many different application layers. Essentially the bottom of the stack was Internet Protocol which was agnostic to the type of information being sent across it. At the time, the most efficient method was over Ethernet so there was not any requirement to be concerned over the application medium. Over time there would be some concern, but that was really addressed by the protocol.

What would happen is that the applications that required information to be sent on either end would translate the information to be used by the layer below it to send out, such as a web browser to the OS, to the network driver to IP, across the internet to the network driver to the OS to the web server application. Across this entire process the actual data being sent was unknown to any of the nodes in between the application layers. (If you’re interested in this check out Internet Architecture and Innovation).

Of course the companies providing the bandwidth for that did not want to find itself in a similar role as they had after the break up of AT&T where they were forced to become “dumb pipes” for whatever people wanted to send across their network. To prevent this they created capabilities like deep package inspection and other tools to identify what content was being shipped across their lines. This also was the beginning of violating “True” net neutrality.

Why were they dumb pipes? Because they were defined as a common carrier to increase competition across the land line providers and ISPs the telephone companies had no choice. This lead to the explosion of ISPs like AOL, Century Link, and so on. What has happened since? The broadband lines have been ruled that they are not “Common Carriers“. Meaning that the data across the line can be treated however the companies that own the lines want.

Why is this bad in a network economy?

In a network economy, being able to fully control anything and everything can be very bad for the consumer if there is no other option. Now, you could argue that there are options, but in most cases because of other monopoly rules there are few options for allowing a new ISP.

A perfect example where a network monopoly isn’t a big deal is in Smart Phones. The iOS App Store is a natural monopoly in a network. The more people using the iPhone the more valuable it became and more app developers developed apps. It never became a problem that Apple regulates the entire experience BECAUSE there were other networks you could shift to, such as Blackberry, webOS, Windows (whatever mobile version you want to include), and, of course, Android. All of these ecosystems offer very different options for devs. Additionally, within Android there are competing App stores which further benefits the consumer. If there were no other competitors to iOS and it’s App Store the constraints that Apple puts on their product would likely be viewed as very anti-competitive and a type of “foreclosure.”

Market foreclosure is using one monopoly to enable another monopoly. Now, regardless of if you think that this should have happened or not, it did. Microsoft was hit for using it’s Window’s OS to foreclose on the internet browser market and was looking to do the same with their music player. What resulted was that MS was required to offer other browsers when a new Windows OS was launched and helped to reduce the market share of IE.

How does this apply here? Comcast is already trying to do the same with Netflix in the streaming video business. Comcast owns the content (Universal, NBC, etc), the connection (Comcast Cable ISP), the rules (data caps), and if they want to charge to access their network or not. Eliminating the rules of net neutrality tilt the table in the direction of Comcast to a degree that Netflix may never recover. If Netflix, at one point 2/3 of all internet traffic, had to pay for every bit they streamed to allow for an enjoyable streaming experience they would be bankrupt in very short order.

I get that Comcast’s of the world don’t want to be dumb pipes, they own the content and that’s king. However, not every ISP owns content (Verizon/AT&T) so they aren’t at such an advantage to companies like Netflix. However that’s where AT&T’s data plan comes in. Which would essentially level the table compared to Comcast. We, as end users, wouldn’t see any benefit out of this. It’s not that our subscription fees would lower or we’ll magically get faster internet. This is simply rent seeking behavior and bad for the economy overall. Only true new competition can lead to that. Changing these rules have zero impact on that competition.

What it does do though is negatively impact the creation of new businesses that want to stream video or provide a novel product that requires high bandwidth and equal rights to streaming. Removing the protections on net neutrality dramatically increases the cost of streaming that otherwise could go into building that startup’s infrastructure. Think of the problems at Twitch.TV with their growth. My subscription fees pay for the growth of the network that I subscribe to regardless if it’s something like Twitch or Comcast. Anything else will go to shareholders and CEOs.

Could we develop other options like a Mesh network? It’s possible, but for that to work the option would have to be a public/private venture. Most citizens aren’t going to help create that and likely don’t have the technology savvy to do so. To further complicate this issue many ISPs are actually pushing to make it illegal for cities to create their own ISP.

In many cases regulation is bad for business. However, in cases like net neutrality it’s returning the net to it’s roots and enabling much stronger competition based on the merits of the company providing the service, not the arbitrary whim of network owner.

Healthcare is not a free market

Posted on by

From the obvious department, amIright? Yes, but not for the reasons you think. Healthcare cannot and never will be a free market. There are several reasons for this that I will elaborate on here.

Healthcare consists of micro-regulation in the form of the reimbursement structure. This is an artifact of two different systems combining to make things worse. First, because the Federal Government is big and has two different programs one for Federal Employees and one of those in need Medicare/Medicaid (I’m combining them here for simplicity), there’s also the VA, but that has much less influence on healthcare. These two programs set the terms on how the government will reimburse or even pay providers for care provided. These are based on Current Procedure Terminology (CPT Codes) and not based upon your diagnosis. Essentially the government sets a price they are willing to pay for a procedure. As one of the largest market players, this influences all of the other payers (IE insurance companies). Many insurance companies use Medicare payment rates to set their own, which drives down the cost of a procedure to the point, in many cases, where it’s below the cost of the actual care. This drive providers to select more expensive and more procedures in many cases to make up the short fall. This payment model also makes it hard for new procedure methodologies to be adopted as they may not be paid for.

Healthcare is a network economy – nearly all care happens close to home. This is why groups like the ACLU argue that driving more than an hour for an abortion is an unnecessary burden on women. Because of the proximity of the majority of care (10.2 miles) this creates a local network of care based on the original provider a patient sees. When you receive a referral, there are a few different routes this can go, best doctor the the referrer knows, another doctor in the same clinic, or in the same care network (such as UPMC in Pittsburgh or Kaiser Permanente in CA). This drives an incentive to send patients within the network leading to mutual referrals or money staying within that care network even if there are better doctors for that specific patient outside of that care network. In addition to the Doctor’s network there is, of course, your insurer’s network which may be in direct conflict with the professional network that your provider has.

Imbalances of knowledge – in typical free markets there’s an assumption that everyone has the same amount of knowledge. In Healthcare, it is abundantly clear that this isn’t true. Most patients have little to no understanding of their diseases when they are first diagnosed. On the other hand, both their insurer and provider has an extensive knowledge of the disease. This limits how well the patient is able to correctly make decisions about their healthcare. It also pushes reliance to the provider whenever there is a disagreement between insurer and provider. The member can’t effectively participate in those conversations about care. Furthermore, there maybe little penalty to the patient if they fail to follow the prescribed course of care until much later where neither the insurer or provider can enforce a change of behavior to reduce costs for the entire system now through treatment rather than later when there are more complications.

These are but three cases that highlight the lack of free market mechanisms in healthcare. Even in cases where a patient wants to seek the best care it’s typically the patient’s responsibility to pay for it if it’s not with in the insurer’s network. In many cases these clinics can reduce systemic costs through lower point of care and lower likelihood of readmission after care.

Over the course of the next few weeks I will discuss Exchanges and their potential, how healthcare can be made more affordable using process improvement tools and other mechanisms. I plan on writing weekly on healthcare. If you have any topics that interest you please comment and let me know!

Minimum Wage, labor, and economics

Posted on by

Last night on the twittars I had an invigorating discussion related to minimum wage, the mobility of labor, and the economics. The basics of the argument started over the fact that in MA minimum wage will be slowly going up from around $8/hour to $11/hour. $8/hour already is pretty good for the US where the federal minimum wage is closer to $7.25/hour – which is an annual salary of $15,080 (poverty line for an individual is $11,490/year). Obama is proposing to raise the national minimum wage to $10.10/hour or $21,008/year and MA’s eventual minimum wage at $11,440/year. If minimum wage had kept up with productivity gains seen throughout the economy a study argues that the minimum wage should actually be $22/hour or $45,760.

The unfortunate thing about minimum wage jobs is that you typically don’t work 40 hours per week, in fact places like Wal-Mart try to keep employees under 30 hours per week to avoid the requirement of paying any healthcare benefits (at least 1/3 of Walmart employees are limited to 28 hours/week). This requires minimum wage employees to have two or three jobs which creates an extra layer of uncertainty for scheduling of work and getting from one location to another using public transportation. (as a side note WalMart is holding a food drive for their employees)

Why don’t they move to another location that pays better for a job though? There are a couple reasons, first moving is expensive. Even if you’re renting on both ends a cross country move costs several thousand dollars. You have to put money up front for a deposit, go without pay for some period of time as you transition between jobs, you need to move your stuff, and finally, many places won’t hire you if you don’t live there, but you can’t rent unless you have a job. It’s even worse if you own a house, and the worst case is a house that’s underwater.

Now, under utility theory all that won’t matter because it’s a sunk cost. It’s the cost of doing business, all that matters is the amount of money you’ll gain on the other side. Now, if we were all perfectly rational “Econs” that would work, however we’re Human and we don’t think that way. According to Prospect Theory we are extremely loss adverse and would much rather have a small chance at a with with a worse downside than a guaranteed downside. For example, we’d rather have a 10% of winning $0, but 90% of losing $1,000 than automatically losing $900. From Utility theory or expected value they are the same, but from Prospect theory they are very different. This drives our behavior when it comes to relocating for jobs, and is especially true when you’re unemployed. Because your baseline is set at your previous salary, you’d rather wait and risk making no money than taking a job that’s more than 10% less than your previous salary. From an “Econs” perspective this is irrational as you should take any job that’s offered to you, because it’s more than $0. This theory can be applied to corporations as well. They are risk adverse in many cases. In one way this manifests is through the controllable costs of employees salaries. In many cases managers will let employees go or hire employees at a lower salary than deal with something that’s a sunk cost.

Prospect Theory FourFold, Thinking, Fast and Slow Daniel Kahneman

Furthermore, corporations are under pressure do to short term requirements of the market to continually beat the previous quarters. This pushes activities in to the lower right quadrant, which also negatively impacts innovation and employee salary.

Based on the rationality here, should we increase minimum wage? Based on both Utility theory and Prospect theory companies would dramatically reduce the number of employees they have to avoid a sudden massive loss. Companies should move or relocate elsewhere, however, many studies have shown this simply isn’t the case. I think that this can be explained by something else that’s unexpected, unemployment benefits help the economy grow. According to a Moody’s study several years ago and another talk a single dollar of unemployment benefits creates between $1.64 – $2.00 of economic activity. This is because it creates demand that otherwise would have been missing. It’s likely that the higher salary of people that are making minimum wage generates additional demand for goods and services that otherwise would have been unable to be fulfilled.

I believe, this is why Switzerland is looking into providing a living wage of $2,800/month or $33,600/year. It’s a way of being both moral (not allowing citizens to starve and live on the street), but also stimulate the economy to continually grow. The idea of lower taxes is to put more money into the economy so people will spend more money. However, there are a lot of people out there that don’t benefit from this all that much because they already pay little to no taxes (40% before 2007). Providing tax relief doesn’t help this portion of the economy. Providing a higher minimum wage would provide relief for them, but a tax on corporations, but would be recouped through additional demand. A living wage provides relief, but a tax on the broader public, but would be recouped through additional demand.

In the first case, people are working and providing a service to a corporation for the salary they earn. In the second case, there’s a higher chance of free loading – however I see no reason why you can’t put requirements on accepting the money such as community service, using the money for education and training, or volunteering somewhere.

Do these thoughts address every issues we’ve seen regarding minimum wage? No, but it’s helps frame the discussion a little bit and hopefully addresses some of the concerns. I believe that much of debate comes from non-rational sources, such as the economic theory you fully support. Prospect theory, Behavioral Economics, and Evolutionary Economics are disdained or unknown by Libertarians and Conservatives which paint a very different picture on the economic policies we should enact than neo-classical economics. Which puts this to something closer of a religious battle than a logical rational debate, because these theories are incommensurate with each other in the same way that Newtonian Physics and Relativistic Physics were to each other. It’s either one or the other not both.

Edit: I miscalculated on the salaries for minimum wages. I have corrected them.

New Economy vs. Old Economy – Creative Destruction

Posted on by

My last post on this the New Vs. Old triggered a far to brief conversation at work about creative destruction and when it’s “right” for creative destruction to occur. I felt that this was an interesting tact for approaching this sort of conversation. My colleague pointed out that when new businesses challenge laws that are in place just because you have to question if that’s “right” or not.

First, what is creative destruction? I wrote about this over two years ago, so I’ll forgive you not remembering. Essentially, it’s whenever new businesses figure out new innovative ways to provide a service or technology that causes the previous service to be obsolete. Today, it’s more popularly described as “disrupting a market.”

So, looking at creative destruction and the laws that spring up around a given industry I believe that on the extreme there are only two types of laws. Those that protect the consumer/public/end user/employee and those that protect the industry. That’s not to say that this isn’t a gradient where the impact of a given law flows from protecting the public to the industry or in fact does both.

For example, Copyright used to protect both the people that produce music and the public. It did this by guaranteeing a state sanctioned monopoly for a short time period and upon expiration the public would then own the work. This enable the creation of the music industry and helped artists grow and make money. It wasn’t perfect for either party, but it worked fairly well. We all know of stories of starving artists that died and then their works became popular. Well, currently those works still make someone money and that isn’t good for the public. Now copyright lasts as long as 70 years past the death of the original artist. This clearly is no longer protecting the public but is protecting the industry. I would argue that with how far the pendulum has shifted it’d be moral to try to push the boundaries of these laws and creatively destroy the industry. This is currently happening with the copyleft movement.

In the last blog I wrote about AirBnB and discussed Uber in the one before that. These are very different than the music industry. Most cab companies have something called a medallion, which is something like a certification of quality for the vehicle and the cab driver. These are very expensive and have essentially a dual function of protecting both the public and the taxi industry. Uber is challenging these laws because it is a “ride sharing” program where you hail a person going in the direction you are, pay them some money and move on. The purpose of the company is to reduce expense of moving around a big city like San Francisco, increase the competition of the market, reduce the number of cars on the road, and to make money a different way. Depending on your point of view it’s breaking the law. It’s being sued and will likely continue to be sued.

Is it “right” for this company to operate this way? Well, there’s the argument that you don’t have to use Uber at all, so if you’re concerned about the safety aspect you’re mostly covered. Since it’s a personal vehicle the general public is at no more risk than if the car was driving around with one person rather than two. The person is already on the road and likely would have been anyway, so if they suck at driving you’re no more or less safe. However, it’s still possibly in conflict with the law. It’s a new way to hail a “cab” and the taxi companies are having problems adapting to the competition. So is it right or wrong? In this case, I don’t really know. I think that it’s “Right” that a company is forcing taxi companies to evaluate how they do business and to challenge the laws that are in place to protect the taxi industry. I think there could be risks to the public, but they aren’t huge.

There’s another aspect that I haven’t talked about in this model though. A company like Yellow cab has subsidiaries in many different cities. While Uber is an application and it’s “cabs” are in any city where a person is a member. There’s a huge network effect benefit for Uber, they need to do little to no extra work and they can grow into new markets. Uber doesn’t control which markets they enter to some extent or how quickly they grow in a given market, they can grow as fast as the market can support the growth. Yellow Cab has a much different growth potential and can’t enter new markets as easily. If Uber is able to service an under serviced area shouldn’t we support that? Isn’t that “right.” Furthermore, with this rapid growth model it’s nearly impossible to know what laws they are going to be in conflict with until it’s already in the market. Ignorance of course is no defense, but it removes some of the intentional aspects of the creative destruction.

I think that there are certainly moral questions that need to be asked around new businesses and business models. We should continue to ask them and work to make sure that if a new company is disrupting and industry the result is equal or greater protection to the public and a balance between changing laws that protect incumbent industry and the new entrant.