31/1/18: What Teachers of Piketty Miss on r vs g

A popular refrain in today’s political and socio-economic analysis has been the need for aggressive Government intervention (via taxation and regulation) to reverse growing wealth inequality. The narrative is supported by the increasing numbers of center and centre-left voters, and is firmly held in the key emerging demographic of the Millennial voters. The same narrative can also be traced to the emergence of some (not all) populist movements and political figures.

Yet, through regulatory restrictions, Governments in the recent past not only attempted to manage risks, but also created a system of superficial scarcity in supply of common goods & services (healthcare, education, housing etc) and skills, as well as access to professional services markets for practitioners. This scarcity de facto redistributes income (& thus, wealth) from the poor to the rich, from those not endowed with assets to those who inherit them or acquire them through other non-productive means, e.g. marriage, corruption, force. Many licensing requirements, touted by the Governments as the means for ensuring consumer protection, delivering social good, addressing markets failures and so on are either too cumbersome (creating a de facto bounds to supply) or outright skewed in favour off the incumbents (e.g. financial services licensing restrictions in trivial areas of sales and marketing). 

The re-distribution takes the form of high rents (paid for basic services that are woefully undersupplied: consider the California ‘water allocations’ and local authorities dumping federal subsidies to military personnel onto private sector renters, or consider the effect of pensions subsidies to police and other public services providers that are paid for by poorer taxpayers who themselves cannot afford a pension). 

This benevolent-malevolent counter-balancing in Government actions has fuelled wealth inequality, not reduced it, and the voters appear to be largely oblivious to this reality.

Crucially, the mechanism of this inequality expansion is not the simple r>g relationship between returns to capital (r) and the growth rate in the economy (g), but a more complex r(k)>r(hh)>r(g)>r(lh) relationship between returns to financial & restricted (r(k)), inc property & water rights in California, etc, high-quality human capital (r(hh)), inc returns to regulated (rationed) professions, the rate of growth in the economy (g), and the returns to low-quality human capital (r(lh)), inc returns to productive productive), but un-rationed professions. 

Why this is crucial? Because the r>g driven inequality, the type that was decried by Mr. Piketty and his supporters is missing a lot of what is happening in the labor markets and in large swathes of organisational structures, from limited partnerships to sole traders. Worse, lazy academia, across a range of second-tier institutions, has adopted Piketty’s narrative unchecked, teaching students the r vs g tale without considering the simple fact that neither r, nor g are well-defined in modern economics and require more nuanced insight. 

Yes, we now know that r>g, and by a fat margin (see https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/wp2017-25.pdf). And, yes, that is a problem. But that is only one half off the problem, because it helps explain, in part, the 1% vs 99% wealth distribution imbalances. But it cannot explain the 10% vs 90% gap. Nor can it explain why we are witnessing the hollowing-out of the middle class, and the upper middle class. A more granular decomposition of r (and a more accurate measurement of g - another topic altogether) can help.

The non-corporate entities and high human capital individual earners can still benefit from the transfers from the poorer and the middle classes, but these benefits are not carried through traditional physical and financial capital returns or corporate rent seeking. (Do not take me wrong: these are also serious problems in the structure of the modern economy). 

Take for example, two professionals. Astrophysicist employed in a research lab and a general medical practitioner. The two possess asymmetric human capital: astrophysicist has more of it than a general medical doctor. Not only in duration of knowledge acquisition (quantity), but also in the degree of originality of knowledge (quality). But, one’s supply of competitors is rationed by the market (astrophysics high barrier to entry is… er… the need to acquire a lot of hard-to-earn human capital, with opportunity costs sky-high), another is rationed by the licensing and education systems. Guess which one earns more? And guess which one has access to transfers from the lower earners that can be, literally, linked to punitive bankruptcy costs? So how much of the earnings of the physician (especially the premium on astrophysicist’s wage) can be explained by a license to asymmetric information (extracting rents from patients) and by restrictions on entry into profession that go beyond assurance of quality? How much of these earnings are compensation for the absurdity of immense tuition bills collected by the medical schools with their own rent-seeking markets for professional education? And so on.

In a way, thus, the Governments have acted as agents for creating & sustaining wealth inequality, at the same time as they claimed to be the agents for alleviating it. 

Yes, consumer protecting regulation is necessary. No question. Yes, licensing is often necessary too (e.g. in the case of a physician as opposed to a physicist). But, no - transfers under Government regulations are not always linked to the delivery of real and tangible benefits of quality assurance. Take, for example, restrictive development practices and excessively costly planning bureaucracies in cities, like, San Francisco. While some regulation and some bureaucracy are necessary, a lot of it is pure transfer from renters and buyers to bureaucrats as well as investors. So, do a simple arithmetic exercise. Take $100 of income earned by a young professional. Roughly 33% of that goes in various taxes and indirect taxes to the Governments. Another 33% goes to to the landlord protected by these same Governments from paying the full cost of bankruptcy (limited liability) and from competition by restrictive new building and development rules. Another 15% goes to pay for various insurance products, again - regulated and/or required by the Governments - health, cars, renters’ etc. What’s left? Less than 20% of income puts gas into the car or pays for transportation, buys food and clothing. What exactly remains to invest in financial and real assets that earn the r(k) and alleviate wealth inequality? Nada. And if you have to pay for debt incurred in earning your r(hh) or even r(lh), you are… well… insolvent. Personal savings averaged close to 6.5-7% of disposable income in 2010-2014. Since then, these collapsed to 2.4% as of December 2017. Remember - the are percentages of the disposable income, not gross income. Is that enough to start investing in physical and/or financial capital? No. And the numbers quoted are averages, so \median savings are even lower than that.

Meanwhile, regulated auto loans debt is now at $4,340 per capita, regulated credit card debt is at $2,930 per capita, and regulated student loans debt is now at $4,920 per capita. Federal regulations on credit cards debt are know n to behaviourally create barriers to consumers paying this debt down and/or using credit cards prudently. Federal regulations make student loans debt exempt from bankruptcy protection, effectively forcing borrowers who run into financial troubles into perpetual vicious cycle of debt spiralling out of control. Auto loans regulations effectively create and encourage sub-prime markets for lending. So who is responsible for the debt-driven part of wealth inequality? Why, the same Government we are begging to solve the problem it helps create.

Now, add a new dimension, ignored by many followers of Mr. Piketty: today’s social & sustainability narratives risk to deliver more of the same outcome by empowering Governments to create more superficial scarcity. This does not mean that all regulations and all restrictions are intrinsically bad, just as noted before. Nor does it mean that social and environmental risks are not important concepts. Quite the opposite, it means that we need to pay more attention to regulations-induced transfers of wealth and income from the lower 90% to the upper 10% and to companies and non-profits across the entire chain of such transfers. If we want to do something about our social and environmental problems (and, yes, we do want) we need to minimise the costs of other regulations. We need to increase r(hh) and even more so, r(lh). And we need to increase the g too. What we do not need to do is increase the r(k) without raising the other returns. We also need to recognise that on the road paved with good (environmental) intentions, we are transferring vast amounts of income (and wealth) from ordinary Joe and Mary to Elon Musk and his lenders and investors. As well as to a litany of other rent-seeking enterprises and entrepreneurs. The subsidies fuel returns to physical and fixed capital, intellectual property (technological capital), financial capital, and to a lesser extent to higher quality human capital. All at the expense of general human capital.

Another aspect of the over-simplified r vs g narrative is that by ignoring the existent tax codes, we are magnifying the difference between various forms of r and the g. Take the differences in tax treatment between physical, financial and human capital. Set aside the issue of tax evasion, but do include the issue of tax avoidance (legal and practiced with greater intensity the higher do your wealth levels reach). I can invest in fixed capital via a corporate structure that allows depreciation tax claws-backs and interest deductions. I can even position my investment in a tax (non-)haven jurisdiction, like, say Michigan or Wisconsin, where - if I am rich and I do invest a lot, I can get local tax breaks. I can even get a citizenship to go along with my investment, as a sweetener. Now, suppose I invest the same amount in technological capital (or, put more cogently, in Intellectual Property). Here, the world is my oyster: I can go to tax advantage nations or stay in the U.S. So my tax on these gains will be even lower than for fixed capital. Investing in financial capital is similar, with tax ranges somewhere between the two other forms of capital. Now, if I decided to invest in my human capital, my investments are not fully tax deductible (I might be able to deduct some tuition, but not living expenses or, in terms of corporate finance, operating expenses and working capital). Nor is there a depreciation claw back. There is not a tax incentive for me to do this. And my returns from this investment will be hit with all income taxes possible - state, and federal. It is almost sure as hell, my tax rate will be higher than for any form of non-human capital investment. Worse: if I borrow to invest in any form of capital other than human capital, and I run into a hard spot, I can clear the slate by declaring bankruptcy. If I did the same to invest in human capital, student loans are not subject to bankruptcy protection.

Not to make a long argument any longer, but to acknowledge the depth of the tax policy problems, take another scenario. I join as a partner a start up and get shares in the company. Until I sell these shares as a co-founder, I face no tax liability. Alternatively, I join the same start up as a key employee, with human capital-related skills that the start up really, really needs to succeed. I get the same shares in the company. Under some jurisdictions rules, I face immediate tax liability, even if I can never sell these shares in the end. Why? Ah, no reason, other than pure stupidity of those writing tax codes. 

The net effect is the same across all of the above points: risk-adjusted after tax returns on investment in human capital are depressed - superficially - by policies. Policies, therefore, are driving wealth inequality. After-tax risk-adjusted returns to human capital are lower than after-tax risk-adjusted returns on physical, financial and technological capital.

Once again, we need to increase returns to human capital without raising returns to other forms of capital. And we need to increase real rates of economic growth (what that means in the real world - as opposed to what it means in the world of Piketty-following academia is a different subject all together). And we need to get Government and regulators out of the business of transferring our income and potential wealth from us to the 1%-ers and the 10%-ers. 

How do we achieve this? A big question that I do not have a perfect answer to, and as far as I am aware, no one does. 

One thing we must consider is systemically reducing rents obtained through inheritance, rent seeking and other unproductive forms of capital acquisition. 

Another thing we must have is more broadly-spread allocation of financial assets linked to the productive economy (equity). In a way, we need to dramatically broaden share holding in real companies’ assets, among the 90%. Incidentally, this will go some ways in addressing the threat to the social fabric poised by automation and robotisation: making people the owners of companies puts robots at work for people. 

Third thing is what we do not need: we do not need is a penal system of taxation that reduces r(hh) and r(lh). Progressive income taxation delivers exactly that outcome. 

Fourth thing: we need to recognize that some assets derive their productivity from externalities. The best example is land, which derives most of its value from socio-economic investments made by others around the site. These externalities-related returns must be taxed as a form of unearned income/wealth. A land value tax or a site value tax can do the job.

As I noted above, I do not claim to hold a solution to the problem. I do claim to hold a blue print for a systemic approach to devising such a solution. Here it is: we need sceptical, independent  & continuous impact analysis of every piece of regulation, of every restriction, of every socially and environmentally impactful (positive or negative) measure. But above all, we need to be sceptical about the role of the Government, just as we have become sceptical about the capacity of the markets. Scepticism is healthy. Cheerleading is cancerous. Stop cheering, start thinking deeper about the key issues around inequality. And stop begging for Government action. Government is not quite the panacea we imagine it to be. Often enough, it is a problem we beg it to solve. 

30/9/17: Technological Revolution is Fizzling Out, as Ideas Get Harder to Find

Nicholas Bloom, Charles Jones, John Van Reenen, and Michael Webb’s latest paper has just landed in my mailbox and it is an interesting one. Titled “Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?” (September 2017, NBER Working Paper No. w23782. http://www.nber.org/papers/w23782.pdf) the paper asks a hugely important question related to the supply side of the secular stagnation thesis that I have been writing about for some years now (see explainer here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2015/07/7615-secular-stagnation-double-threat.html and you can search my blog for key words “secular stagnation” to see a large number of papers and data points on the matter). Specifically, the new paper addresses the question of whether technological innovations are becoming more efficient - or put differently, if there is any evidence of productivity growth in innovation.

The reason this topic is important is two-fold. Firstly, as authors note: “In many growth models, economic growth arises from people creating ideas, and the long-run growth rate is the product of two terms: the effective number of researchers and their research productivity.” But, secondly, the issue is important because we have been talking in recent years about self-perpetuating virtuous cycles of innovation:

• Clusters of innovation engendering more innovation;
• Growth in ‘knowledge capital’ or ‘knowledge economies’ becoming self-sustaining; and
• Expansion of AI and other ‘learning’ fields leading to exponential growth in knowledge (remember, even the Big Data was supposed to trigger this).

So what do the authors find?

“We present a wide range of evidence from various industries, products, and firms showing that research effort is rising substantially while research productivity is declining sharply.” In other words, there is no evidence of self-sustained improvements in research productivity or in the knowledge economies.

Worse, there is a diminishing marginal returns in technology, just as there is the same for every industry or sector of the economy: “A good example is Moore's Law. The number of researchers required today to achieve the famous doubling every two years of the density of computer chips is more than 18 times larger than the number required in the early 1970s. Across a broad range of case studies at various levels of (dis)aggregation, we find that ideas — and in particular the exponential growth they imply — are getting harder and harder to find. Exponential growth results from the large increases in research effort that offset its declining productivity.”

We are on the extensive margin when it comes to knowledge creation and innovation, which - to put it differently - makes ‘innovation-based economies’ equivalent to ‘coal mining’ ones: to achieve the next unit of growth these economies require an ever increasing input of resources.

Computers are not the only sector where the authors find this bleak reality. “We consider detailed microeconomic evidence on idea production functions, focusing on places where we can get the best measures of both the output of ideas and the inputs used to produce them. In addition to Moore’s Law, our case studies include agricultural productivity (corn, soybeans, cotton, and wheat) and medical innovations. Research productivity for seed yields declines at about 5% per year. We find a similar rate of decline when studying the mortality improvements associated with cancer and heart disease.” And more: “We find substantial heterogeneity across firms, but research productivity is declining in more than 85% of our sample. Averaging across firms, research productivity declines at a rate of around 10% per year.”

This is really bad news. In recent years, we have seen declines in labor productivity and capital productivity, and TFP (the residual measuring technological productivity). Now, knowledge productivity is falling too. There is literally no input into production function one can think of that can be measured and is not showing a decline in productivity.

The ugly facts presented in the paper reach across the entire U.S. economy: “Perhaps research productivity is declining sharply within every particular case that we look at and yet not declining for the economy as a whole. While existing varieties run into diminishing returns, perhaps new varieties are always being invented to stave this off. We consider this possibility by taking it to the extreme. Suppose each variety has a productivity that cannot be improved at all, and instead aggregate growth proceeds entirely by inventing new varieties. To examine this case, we consider research productivity for the economy as a whole. We once again find that it is declining sharply: aggregate growth rates are relatively stable over time, while the number of researchers has risen enormously. In fact, this is simply another way of looking at the original point of Jones (1995), and for this reason, we present this application first to illustrate our methodology. We find that research productivity for the aggregate U.S. economy has declined by a factor of 41 since the 1930s, an average decrease of more than 5% per year.”

This evidence further confirms the supply side of the secular stagnation thesis. Technological revolution has been slowing down over recent decades (not recent years) and we are clearly past the peak of the TFP growth of the 1940s, and the local peak of the 1990s (the ‘fourth wave’ of technological revolution).

Update June 7, 2018: A new version of the paper is available at https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/IdeaPF.pdf.

31/5/2013: Bank Holidays Links: On Art, Science and In Praise of Unfocused Thoughts

For the bank holiday - an alternative (to economics) reading list of things artsy & scientific…


A quick note before I launch into the links: I will be taking part in http://www.rar.ie/ on June 13th.


Wired.com [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/neurologist-markam-human-brain] article on a fascinating project to build a computer to replicate human brain "down to the individual ion channel". The newsy bit here is that on January 28, 2013, the EU Commission awarded the lead research group (headed by Henry Markram) EUR 1 billion to attempt to perform that task. There is much of interest here - beside the fascinating technology behind. Here are some questions that puzzle myself and many others:

1. As article points out, the task is multi-dimensional: it is one thing to build a replica of neurons and physical interfaces. It is yet an entirely different thing to build a replica of consciousness. "The way Markram sees it, technology has finally caught up with the dream of AI: Computers are finally growing sophisticated enough to tackle the massive data problem that is the human brain. But not everyone is so optimistic. “There are too many things we don’t yet know,” says Caltech professor Christof Koch, chief scientific officer at one of neuroscience’s biggest data producers, the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle. “The roundworm has exactly 302 neurons, and we still have no frigging idea how this animal works.”"
2. Is the EU Commission engaging in an absurd gamble with taxpayers money is another, perhaps mundane question, but the one that arises on foot of (1). 
3. Bigger question of the two above - can consciousness be reproduced? Is consciousness even a logical system system?

ArsTechnica piece on the role of focus (singularity of objective) in raising IQ [http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/if-everything-fades-into-the-background-you-may-have-a-high-iq/] might be leading to an interesting set of questions - possibly even related to the previous link. If focusing on a task help raise our IQ, then:

1. How meaningful is IQ as a measure of human capacity to think vs to create? After all, focus can also be seen as concentrating attention on a singular subject or even an aspect of a subject. In doing so, we forego the breadth of inquiry for the depth of inquiry. If IQ is positively and strongly correlated with the depth (focus), is it not then negatively correlated with the breadth? 
2. Is IQ a tool/source of incremental uncovering of knowledge as opposed to revolutionary discoveries? Again, focus can be helpful in the former, but it can also be detrimental to the latter.
3. In modern academia and even art, specialism is the core driver of publications and output, and the latter are the core drivers of earnings, promotion, access to research and creative funding etc. Does this focus --> IQ --> incremental productivity nexus lead to a dramatic reduction in encyclopaedic inquiry? We are having more and more specialist researchers and fewer and fewer Leonardo's and the reason for this might not be the difficulty of engaging in encyclopaedic inquiry, but a disincentive to engage in it contained in the added capacity for pursuing the IQ-based forms of incremental inquiry that also tend to generate higher career payoffs?

As you can see, I am not attempting to exert too much focus here… perhaps because I don't really care if I do sound like a Mensa member…

And here's a link to show that focus --> IQ link might be complete rubbish:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/30/why_indian_americans_dominate_spelling_bees Now, the article quotes: "The first generation immigrant parent brings with her/him a set of memories about how education works and what is to be valued. For Indians that is a memory of endless class tests doled out on a regular basis to evaluate our ability to retrieve information - spellings of words, names of world capitals, cash crops of states, length of rivers, height of mountains, and a plethora of minutiae charmingly labeled as General Knowledge." ... Err… so Indian-Americans are more focused on the task of spelling stuff. Great. I am looking forward to them starting to focus on content of what they are spelling more… which, automatically means they will have to stop focusing and start thinking much broader. Great art and science are not made out of 'focus' - they are made out of wandering.


Now onto art - let's start with kitsch, but brilliant efforts of the Northern Irish and British authorities at creating a Potemkin Village out of Belcoo, Co. Fermanagh in the anticipation of the G8 summit later this month:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/recession-out-of-the-picture-as-fermanagh-puts-on-a-brave-face-for-g8-leaders-1.1409112 Here's an image from the Irish Times of a comer butcher's shop in town now transformed into a window-display of fake prosperity.

I class this 'art' because to really describe the nature of what is happening in this instance one would need volumes of unpleasant explicatives... let's keep things academic, instead.


Onto serious art: Biennale is on in Venice and I am going to keep linking to it. One of the most memorable things I did so far in my own life was to take part in 2006 Beinnale by writing an essay for irish entry volume.

The main link to this year's Biennale is here: http://www.labiennale.org/en/Home.html and a couple of images / stills from there:

Those heading for Venice for Biennale - do not miss http://www.villamanin-eventi.it/eng/index.php great venue for art in Friuli.


On art, @Saatchi_Gallery twitter account was posting some stunning images this week.

One worth checking out is https://twitter.com/saatchi_gallery/status/339672007127998465/photo/1 and this comes via PetaPixel article: http://petapixel.com/2013/05/30/miniature-world-photo-manipulations-by-14-year-old-photographer-fiddle-oak/

Another one is from Art Basel Hong Kong show:

This is the first and probably the last VW, that I would love to own… Artist's work is discussed here: http://www.mondecor.com/kuratorial/ichwan-noor-solo-exhibition-english-version and Art Basel page for the artist: http://abhk.insideguidance.com/artists/ichwan-noor

A quick synopsis of some of the best works at Art basel this year is here: http://www.highsnobiety.com/2013/05/29/10-great-artworks-from-art-basel-hong-kong-2013/  One of my other favourites is:

Bruegelesque (as in Peter Bruegel's Seven Deadly Sins etching)…


Cool tech thinking from the 1970s? Sure: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-elon-musks-hyperloop-2013-5 And it proves, in passim, that much of the cutting-edge-new is really a well-forgotten-old…


Tripping spirituality meets art and collides with nature? Only in NYC, but stunningly so:
http://www.amnh.org/our-research/hayden-planetarium/resources/manhattanhenge


From things brilliant to brilliant narrative. Here's a superb blogpost on the nature of the value of expressed beliefs: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.ie/2013/05/bets-do-not-necessarily-reveal-beliefs.html  This treats beliefs in the context of revealed preferences - many analysts and now even journalists make the argument that to reveal true underlying motives for a judgement, one has to have "a skin in the game". I myself was on a receiving end recently from a business editor of one of the major newspapers. When I queried if an interview with investor in one of the banks was fully open and transparent in his/her praise for the bank in a totally uncritical interview with the investor published by his newspaper, the editor simply accused me of not having "a skin in the game" and thus not having a valid point of view to offer. Idiotic? You betcha: anyone's starting position for a conjecture has nothing to do with validity of the conjecture or with testability of this validity. Double idiotic because as a taxpayer and a bank customer, I do have probably more "skin in the game" than the said investor. Nonetheless, the entire incident reminds me that people often think that someone placing a bet (say going long VIX) is equivalent to them revealing their true belief (that for example volatility will rise in the future). Actually, it is not. And the blogpost linked above explains why. It is all really basic, but we too often forget that basic things are the first ones to be forgotten by us…


Lastly, here's an excellent article (based on a very interesting paper) that argues that sustainability of 'local' food sources might be severely over-exaggerated: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/may/26/worrying-about-food-miles-missing-point?post_id=100005271660100_143433612509027#_=_ Now, one additional point is that we are talking here about UK (heavily subsidised) agriculture vs New Zealand (zero subsidies regime). Should the balance of carbon required to produce subsidies be entered into the equation? I doubt anyone would then be 'ethically' buying much of anything local… The original paper referenced in the article is here: http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/documents/2328_rr285_s13389.pdf

So enjoy the long weekend!

25/5/2013: Saturday Reading Links

Some interesting reading links:

FT Weekend edition has a full supplement on Venice Biennale 2013 - no link, but here's the official page: http://www.labiennale.org/en/art/exhibition/index.html?back=true


A fascinating article from The Economist on the movement toward technology displacing 'knowledge' workers next: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21578360-brain-work-may-be-going-way-manual-work-age-smart-machines

This cuts across my own view that we are seeing rising complementarity between technology and human capital, as opposed to substitutability thesis advanced in the article. The Economist view is thought provoking, for sure.


At last, there is a proof of the theorem that postulates that gaps between prime numbers are bounded: http://blogs.ethz.ch/kowalski/2013/05/21/bounded-gaps-between-primes/ and more on same http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/do_the_math/2013/05/yitang_zhang_twin_primes_conjecture_a_huge_discovery_about_prime_numbers.single.html


An excellent piece on the changes big data is bringing to economics - not from the point of view of new studies directions, but from the point of view of verifiability: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2013/may/17/economic-big-data-rogoff-reinhart?CMP=twt_gu
There added 'bonus' points in the article discussing overall relationship between the research recognition, rewards and background work.


And a brilliant example of just how atavistic and primitive is the understanding of the web-based and mobile-platformed services in the top political echelons in Europe:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/electronics/10054717/France-preparing-tax-on-Apple-and-Google-to-fund-culture.html
Apparently, dinosaurs in French political elites have trouble comprehending just how revolutionary to culture and its creators (artists, thinkers, analysts, developers etc) Apple 'i'- and Google platforms are. It is highly likely that iTunes, for example, are doing more to distribution of Francophone music across the world than the entire Ministry of 'French' Culture. Then again, the entire tax debate in Europe is never about culture or arts or anything tangible, but about finding ever more elaborate and bizarre paths for milking the economy to sustain ever expanding state.


While on topic of matters European, a fascinating study on genetic persistency in European populations covered in http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/3770411-europeans-we-re-all-kissing-cousins
Given it comes from the US (original home to Apple and Google), may be the French can pay a special levy to the US for bothering to include their subjects in global research? Afterall, shall they fail to pay up, ignoring France should not be that hard - it works in geopolitics and economics, after all...

18/11/2012: Innovation, Professionalization of Risk, Stagnation?

The recurrent theme in forward thinking nowdays is the decline of technological 'revolutions' cycle. I wrote about this on foot of earlier research (here) and in recent weeks there has been another - most excellent - article on the same topic from Garry Kasparov and Peter Thiel (link here).

Two quotes:

"During the past 40 years the world has willingly retreated from a culture of risk and exploration towards one of safety and regulation. We have discarded a century of can-do ambition built on rapid advances in technology and replaced it with a cautiousness far too satisfied with incremental improvements."

The irony has it that in our collective / social pursuit of certainty, we have surrendered risk pricing and risk taking to the professional class of the 'bankers' who proceeded to show us all that they are simply incapable of actual investing. The delegation of risk authority to them, compounded with over-taxing risk taking via tax systems and strict bankruptcy regimes, has meant that real equity and real investment have been replaced with financial instrumentation of debt and financial instrumentation of creativity.

"Many investors practise a fake form of long-term thinking. Portfolio managers see the returns of the 20th century and project those far into the future. Tomorrow’s retirees are betting their fortunes on the success rates of yesterday’s companies. But the vast wealth registered by modern capital markets came from technological feats that cannot be repeated. If nobody takes the risk to invent products that produce new industries and new profits, then analysing historical returns from the 20th century will be no better guide to our future than researching crop yields from the 10th century. Without innovation, faith in the stock market is a kind of cargo cult."

We are no longer thinking - as a society - in terms of risk as an input into production of new goods, services, value-added in the economy, but see it as both as a negative utility good (something to avoid and reduce) and as a fertile ground for taxation (a logical corollary in the world where risk is a matter of 'professional' fees collection, and not an input into innovation). The social structures of modern democracies in the West are now wholly committed to reducing risk impact on households - the Nanny State - and thus taxing risk returns.

"Above all the future will be created by individuals. Those with the most liberty to take on risk and make long-term plans, young people, should consider their options carefully. ...The coming generation of leaders and creators will have to rekindle the spirit of risk. Real innovation is difficult and dangerous but living without it is impossible."

Note: beyond 'professionalization' of risk, there also remains the issue of 'financialization' of risk. While Kasparov and Thiel clearly focus on the latter aspect, my comments focus on the former. But the two are not, in fact, separate - the financialization is impossible without professionalization, and vice versa.