Harmoniously Confused

This will probably be short and definitely take a more personal tone than is usual for this site, but I wanted to share it anyways. I just got back from a small group retreat to Maine this afternoon and while I was there, one of the girls in the group gave me a pack of gum with a quote from Alexander Pope on it saying that it reminded her of me. (I had mentioned something about emergent order in a conversation prior to that.) 

"Where order in variety we see, and where, though all things differ, all agree."

Now, here's the rest of the section for some context.

Here earth and water, seem to strive again;
Not Chaos like together crushed and bruised,
But as the world, harmoniously confused:
Where order in variety we see,
And where, though all things differ, all agree.

Since it comes from a poem, the interpretation is obviously subjective but I pulled from it the concept of order in what would otherwise be a disordered world.  The idea itself is called "Emergent Order" and was started by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations book but was developed over the course of an entire career by F.A. Hayek.  Perhaps my next post will be a longer explanation of how emergent order works, but for the time being, contemplate on the fact that there are billions of people all over the world who have as many different tastes, preferences, skills, levels of intelligence, kinds of intelligence, experiences, knowledge, memories, etc.  Note that each of the people personally only interact with an infinitesimally small percentage of the rest of the people.  Consider that everyone makes life choices both big and small based on their personal characteristics mentioned above as well as other factors. 

Finally: realize that humanity has progressed so much over the course of its history in such ways that require incredible feats of cooperation between millions and billions of people.  The wondrous way that the world is today was achieved without some ruler of humanity dictating individuals' actions for thousands of years.  And do my question is, "How is this possible? How was all the cooperation achieved?"

Tune in next time.

Read More...

Occupy Wall Street v. Tea Party

It's something to think about.  I'm planning on writing about the Occupy Wall Street movement at some point. 

Read More...

We Need More Jobs...Or More Like Him

            Anyone who has used the internet, read the news paper, listened to the radio, turned on the TV, or talked to anyone who has in the past 24 hours has doubtlessly heard that Steve Jobs passed away.  In a country where the super rich as a whole are demonized by society for their wealth, he enjoyed incredible popularity in his time.  While we all praise his numerous inventions and the steps he took to make the computer accessible to the common people (apparently he innovated the mouse and cursor in computers), I’d like to take a minute to appreciate his life from an economic standpoint.

            When we look at where he came from, Jobs started as a man with an idea.  Through the founding of Apple Computer, he became an entrepreneur in a class he shared only with Bill Gates.

            I will refrain from going into further detail about all the things he designed and the Apple Empire because everyone already knows what he’s done.  So instead of Jobs the inventor, I’d like to look at Jobs the entrepreneur and what people like him mean for the economy.

            But before going there, I’ll spend a bit on economic growth.  How does the economy “grow”?   That is a long discussion and there are many ways of measuring it.  A general way is to measure the output of an economy as a result of physical and human capital.  Physical capital would be buildings, factories, machines, roads, etc.  Human capital would be hands, feet, brains, brawn, etc.  Human capital does work and designs technology while physical capital facilitates the production of goods and services.  So by working together, humans and machines produce the things we use today. A nice way to grow an economy is to build more physical capital.  This allows for the employment of more people as well as higher volume of output.  But at some point a country reaches the point where it isn’t worth it to build more.  Take a farmer, for example, if he has no tractor, getting a tractor will be a huge boon to his farm.  If he gets a second tractor, he can maybe hire someone else to drive it and farming will go even faster.  But it doesn’t make as big of a difference as the first one did.  Say he keeps on buying more and more tractors.  At some point, it just isn’t worth it to buy more. This is the Law of Diminishing Returns and you can see it everywhere.  At some point, Intel only presses so many chips that it isn’t worth it to build more factories.  Ford only makes so many cars that investing in more plants isn’t worth it.  So what happens when a country has reached the limit of physical capital’s potential?  Is it not able to grow anymore?

            Luckily there is a second way that an economy can grow: through innovation.  People can invent things and come up with new technologies that allow us to produce more value with the same amount of physical capital.  Consider the evolution of the written word over the course of human history.  Writing was first done on stone tablets.  People would spend hours and hours engraving words into stone and only the very skilled could do it.  But then at some point, papyrus and ink were invented.  All of the sudden, writing became much faster so people were able to write much more in the same amount of time and more people could be trained to do it.  Fast forward again to Gutenberg: the inventor of movable type printing.  He was able to produce the printed word both quickly and at a large quantity relatively quickly compared to writing on papyrus.  Consider how typewriters changed the game for writing again!  All of the sudden, a skilled person could write dozens of words every minute.  The most skilled, like my grandmother when she was a secretary, could type 95 words per minute on a typewriter.  Then those evolved into computers such as the one I’m writing on now which allow just about anyone to write even more!

            In the long-run, economic growth comes from new ideas, from innovation that allows us to produce more with the same or less amount of physical resources as before.  We see this happening in writing and in just about every industry from lighting to textiles and automobiles to telephones.   This is just the kind of growth that came about through the efforts of Steve Jobs. 

            Because we live in a free market, Jobs had the ability to design something, sell it for profit, and use the money he earned to fund future development/innovation as well as personal gain.  Essentially, the Apple 1 that Jobs and Wozniak (his underappreciated co-founder) built in 1976 allowed eventually for the creation and sale of over 250 million iOS devices (iPod Touches, iPhones, and iPads), plus hundreds millions more of computers, peripherals, other iPods, and software.  Furthermore, Apple employs thousands of engineers, designers, lawyers, public relations managers, sales representatives, and others.  The manufacture of Apple’s goods provides employment to thousands more in the United States and abroad.  Plus we can’t even begin to appreciate the body of work that has been accomplished through the use of Apple products.  All this growth came from a man who had some ideas and introduced them to the world.

            So when our economy is stagnating, the way to make it grow in the long-run isn’t by the government hiring people to build bridges and roads and schools but rather to encourage innovation and invention.  That is why I said in the beginning: we need more Jobs.  

 from the Apple frontpage

Read More...

Capitalism: A Real Love Story

This is a piece that I wrote a long time ago and posted on Facebook.  If you saw it there, consider this a second edition: slightly different, expanded, edited for clarity, etc. 

            I have a friend/acquaintance who, for some reason, is not down with capitalism.  She takes as many opportunities as she can to bash it or in some way make it seem bad.  She even once called a particular inefficiency in the student government “pure capitalism”.  As an economist, it makes me sad to hear such misdirected remarks.  If I were to respond to her, and to people in general who don’t like capitalism (like Michael Moore, the man who made the documentary “Capitalism: A Love Story”), I might say something like this.

            Why bite the hand that feeds you?  Don’t you know that your standard of living is a gift of the free market?  The very core of capitalism is free people who do what they want that end up making everyone else better off.  Answer me this: why did Steve Jobs start Apple?  Why did he invent the iPod?  He wanted to make money.  That greedy SOB had the audacity to want to gain wealth for himself (something that is highly frowned upon by the more noble communist and socialist economic systems).  Question: was he enriched immensely as a result of all of his inventing?  Absolutely.  Who was even more enriched?  Everyone else.  Steve Jobs and Apple, though not the only mp3 manufacturer in the world, almost singlehandedly gave people a way to listen to music on the go.  Only a few decades ago, people had to be near a large record player or in a concert to hear music, but now everyone has immediate access to all their music regardless of where they are because of innovators like Jobs and others like him.  I would also like to point out that this innovation leads to ever increasing standards-of-living such as the world has never seen before.  Realize that John Rockefeller, possibly the richest man ever, didn’t even have the option to carry his music around like any common person can do today.  That’s a phenomenon of capitalism.  Matt Ridley points out in his excellent book, The Rational Optimist, that luxuries like refrigeration, electric lighting, televisions, and others that even the poorest people in America have access to are luxuries that Cornelius Vanderbilt and the other richest men in history didn't have.

            Let’s move on to another way that the free market makes us better off.  Consider fruit for an example.  Where does it come from?  For me it comes from the cafeteria but originally it comes from orchards, vineyards, etc from all over the world.  It came to within walking distance of where I live by a lot of people who coordinated with each other to pick it from the trees, load it into trucks and boats, sell it to the grocery stores, and be bought by Gordon College before finally being brought to the cafeteria ready to be purchased by me.  By the way, and this is a really big deal, notice that I have a choice of several fruits year round.  There’s another trick called refrigeration.  When in history have people ever had continuous access to non-seasonal fruit besides this modern age?  The true miracle here is that all of this was done without government coercion.  People simply did it because they wanted to make money.  So I end with the “pure capitalism” that my friend missed; this is a quote from Adam Smith’s The Invisible Hand, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest.”  This is a heavy subject and perhaps the topic of another essay, but for now I highly recommend considering the spontaneous coordination of millions of individuals in "I, Pencil."  This is quite possibly the biggest miracle of the modern world. 

Read More...