Hidden Factors in Economic History

 I'm intrigued by the idea that some hidden factors account for economic gains:

• The invention of eyeglasses. That must have significantly improved the capabilities of a segment of the population 
• The change from women as housewives to women as teachers to women as professionals.  Those changes raised the average intelligence of the (paid) workface, while lowering the average for the teaching profession.
• The opening of "virgin land"--meaning the exploitation of fertility accumulated over years
• The invention of the container ship.  (Good book on that.)

[Updated 1: The invention of writing of course was important, as were the inventions of libraries, and public libraries, and lenses which were prerequisite for glasses and then Ben Franklin's bifocals.

Updated 2:  The adoption of uniform time zones in the 1880s]

 

Telephones with TV = Zoom Meetings

 I wrote earlier on my memories of various trials of adding pictures/TV to the telephone--all of which failed.  

GovExec has a piece which may summarize the change from the pandemic:

"“The most important outcome of the pandemic wasn’t that it taught you how to use Zoom, but rather that it forced everybody else to use Zoom,” Autor told me. "We all leapfrogged over the coordination problem at the exact same time.” Meetings, business lunches, work trips—all these things will still happen in the after world."

It's an important point--just knowing that people with whom you need to communicate use the new method is great.  It's rather like 20 years ago when you knew someone might have an email address, but maybe they only remembered to check it once in a blue moon, so you'd use the telephone instead of email.  

Covid-19 Impacts on Society

 This FCW article argues that Covid-19 should impact the government's priorities on IT. Ir's part of a larger set of speculations over the long term impacts. Maybe:

• broadband access is more important so everyone can work and study from home?
• people who for the first time were forced into using online services will continue to use them, and expect their availability?
• on-line shopping is growing and the old brick and mortar department stores, and smaller outfits, are obsolete?
• lots of restaurants going out of business, more delivery services, and perhaps more home cooking?
• more family togetherness?

Women Advance? Some Evidence

It's interesting to follow the posts on the FSA Facebook Group for a number of reasons.

Sometimes posters in the group ask for help on various issues, questions of policy, software, approaches to handling service during the pandemic. Sometimes it's just sharing news, funny stories, etc.

In the last week there was a work issue which seems to have been solved by some software developed by a county employee, which a number of people asked for.  Back in the day that sort of thing happened as well.  A couple difference from 30-40 years ago:

•  the existence of the Facebook group.  I don't think we had a formal sharing site before the SCOAP QandA's in the late 80's and Jeff Kerby's BBS around 1990 or so. There's more lateral communication these days as opposed to running things up and down the ladder of the hierarchy.
• the gender of the person creating the solution. In the old days the creators tended to be males (I'm thinking of doing programs for programmable calculators around 1980 and queries for the System/36.  I might be wrong on this--it might be I just noticed or remember the men more and/or the female creators were operating in a more informal environment.

I think both differences are good. 

Today's Tractors

It's amazing how far out of touch I can get.  Was discussing this morning the likely cost of a modern tractor.  I guessed 6 figures.  My first search turned up this ad for a used John Deere, a 2016 model. Asking price is $300K+.  Further searching showed a lot more progress in guidance and precision than I expected.  Also checked wikipedia and their entries seem somewhat out-of-date.

The Power of the Past

This is a tweet from today. 

You honestly have to admire the confidence of Harvard business school grad students pic.twitter.com/HwfzTs0HpC

— Ronan (@rfitz77) September 25, 2020

 The Harvard business school students misjudged the power of the past.  IMHO the established retailers had power because they'd accumulated capital, both financial and real capital, plus the network capital of networks of suppliers and customers.  But while this present capital was enabling, it was also constricting.  In a situation where openness to the new and learning from experience was all-important, the pathways laid down in the past were no longer adequate; they were misleading.  It's called the "Innovator's Dilemma". 

The Slow Progress of Videophone/Videoconferencing

 I'm not sure whether "videophones" is a comprehensive enough term but I'll go with it. I'm referring to the idea of being able to see the person with whom you are talking over long distance.  ("Long distance" for the young means the rest of the US beyond roughly 20-40 miles from your position which incurred a charge per minute,)

I vaguely remember participating in a test in ASCS in the 1970's--I think an innovative deputy administrator for management sprang for it.  It didn't work--too expensive, too little advantage.  Again in the 1980's I think there was a trial, maybe five or six managers in DC and Kansas City had special phones with the idea it would replace our trips back and forth.  It didn't work--too new, too much of a change, too awkward. Again the 1990's there was a trial, but this time it was televised conference calls, with a TV camera covering a conference table with maybe 10-12 seats. Again this was for DC-KCMO conferencing.  It worked better, although the facility had to be reserved at each end.  It was competing against email by this time, not something that the 1970's trial had to face.  I don't remember whether it was still in operation at the time I left.

Up to this point the process was using special phone/camera equipment--really "videophones".  I don't know for sure whether the 1990s were using the internet to communicate, likely not. Fast forward through the 2000's and the development of Skype until you reach 2020 and the wide use of Zoom, and competing services. 

Apparently it works now because almost everyone has the equipment--computer/smartphone with camera and broadband access--to participate. So there's not much hassle to setting up a call. And with the pandemic video conferencing becomes the only way to go.  Email with cc's to everyone works in some situations, but when you want back and forth conversations among a group, conferencing is the only way.  

Social Capital Equals the Dead Weight of the Past?

 In this century the term "social capital" has become popular.  (For some reason I can't embed the ngram viewer from Google, so you'll just have to take my word for it.)

The idea is that people accumulate relationships and knowledge which improve the functioning of society.  It's a positive term.  

The other side of the coin is seeing much the same phenomena as "the dead weight of the past", as Marx did in this quote. Or, as Lincoln wrote: " The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

One example from my lifetime: Germany and Japan recovered relatively quickly from the destruction of WWII partly because they had social captial.  Their people had knowledge, and they had institutions which could operate.  In the last century that was often compared with the situation in developing countries, where the people lacked the knowledge and the institutions.

However I can look at the other side of the same example: much of the social capital of pre-WWII Japan and Germany was useless or dangerous in the post-war situation.  They had to discard some and keep and exploit other aspects.

I think we're finding the same thing as we exploit algorithms in automation--the algorithms are based on past experience, so they reflect the past, both good and bad.  

The Wrong Question: Are Algorithms Racist?

Frequently I see posts/articles which say that computer algorithms are racist.  When I bother to read them, the logic is fairly simply--garbage in, garbage out.  The algorithms are being developed using the conventional wisdom of whatever the subject is, and the conventional wisdom is racist.

I don't challenge any of that, but I'd insist the question is: so what?

Usually I take the message of the pieces to be--toss the algorithm out, it's biased, racist, undesirable.

But the true question is one of comparison: will using this algorithm instead of the existing process mean less racist results?  My guess is usually the algorithm is likely to produce more consistent results, and usually less racist results.  I see that happening because the algorithm would replace a more haphazard, variable process which evolved over time, and because the algorithm is being developed by people who are generally younger and more "woke" than those involved previously.

The second key question is: if we start to use the algorithm how likely is it that the algorithm can be improved?

Do We Get More Innovation With Federalism?

There have been some stories during the pandemic focusing on local and private efforts to innovate in response.  I don't remember them all, but there have been stories on individuals sewing face masks or setting up organizations to provide help and companies changing over to produce ventilators, face mask, personal protection equipment, coronavirus tests, etc.  Nasal swabs is the most recent one I've noticed; in this case people are using 3-D printers to produce them.

As an aside, I was surprised by a mention in the article of how well-established 3-D printing had become.

Back to innovation:  I wonder whether such stories could be found in any society, the desire to help and the spirit of innovation being innate in humans?  Or does the relatively decentralized nature of American society and the federalism of our government create a favorable atmosphere for such innovation which can't be matched by most other societies?  Or is the key how advanced the economy and technology of the society?

The Limits on Websites

I remember when everyone but everyone was going to be on the web.  I thought that, at least for a while.  But then I started becoming skeptical. Partly this was from my experience with FSA--some of my bright ideas flopped, didn't gain the user acceptance that they needed.  Then I became conscious of the feedback loop: if you build it and the users don't come, you won't maintain.  And finally of the culture problem.

A case study: I buy things at the Merrifield Garden Center and the Home Depot.  Both have websites; HD's is better than Merrifield because you can order online for home delivery or pickup at the store. But unlike Safeway, where I also shop, neither site has a Covid-19 page/announcement when you login. 

It's an indication that for the managers involved, thinking early on of their web presence is yet to become a habit.

Innovation--Uses of Social Media

I think it's true that whenever things change some humans adapt to it.  It's like invasive species in biology--when a new ecological niche opens some opportunistic species will take advantage of it.

Anyway, what seems to be going on today is, given the challenge of Covid-19, humans are finding ways to use the internet and social media to counter its effects.  Using Amazon to order supplies, using Zoom for online learning, having a community sing over media, joining friends for online meals.

These uses aren't unprecedented, I'm sure, but tweaks on existing uses and expansion to new audiences.  These uses and audiences are likely to persist even after Covid-19 becomes a normal part of the world's health picture.

Kevin Drum has a post today arguing the greater speed of information exchange now as compared to 1918's Spanish flu explains a greater economic impact.  I'd agree, but also point to the advantages this speed offers--we can learn from the esperiences of others much quicker than in 1918.

The Importance of Hidden Improvements

Economic historians have an ongoing debate about the reasons for the Industrial Revolution and why it happened first in the UK and Netherlands.

One thing which occurs to me is the importance of hidden inventions: the sort of things which are important but haven't gotten attention, things like:

• the invention of eyeglasses
• the improvement of lighting--when did the whaling industry develop, was it to provide whale oil to light the lamps of the UK and US? 
• the development of quarantine as a means to counter infectious diseases
• the accumulation of people--the greater density of population leading to more interchange of ideas
• the spread of literacy meaning easier communication of ideas among people and over time.

Innovation as an Invasive Species/Infectious Disease

There's a lot of concern over inequality, over polarization of American society, etc.

In part I think we're having trouble with the advent of the Internet and of social media. I'd observe that in the past human society has taken time to adjust to innovation.  When railroads came along people were thrown into close contact with strangers in a new situation for extended periods of time.  It took time to develop norms and habits to deal with this, not to mention the need to standardize time keeping.

I'd suggest a good metaphor for innovation is to consider it an invasive species or a new infectious disease.  Initially the species or disease makes rapid inroads because humans don't have any developed immunity or there are no natural enemies..  Over time these develop.

I think this is true for society, as well.  Humans learn, eventually.  And they adjust, eventually.

Is the Navy Going Sailor-less?

Is a sailor a sailor if she doesn't sail the seas?

"The Navy in its 2020 budget request asked Congress for the first installment on a $4-billion acquisition of 10 large unmanned surface vessels and nine unmanned submarines. Boeing is developing the robotic submarines, using its 51-feet-long Orca submersible as a starting point."

From this article, via Lawyers, Guns & money.

Interesting that Boeing is involved--an example of how new technology can disrupt established patterns?

Adapting to the New: the Case of Weather Reports

Politico had this post on how the weather forecasting/reporting system developed and gained acceptance in Great Britain.

I'm convinced that any significant change in society, particularly in technology, requires a period of adjustment, as people  come to understand the change, and develop new norms and new habits to accommodate it.

One example was the advent of railroads, particularly passenger trains.  I've a vague memory of a discussion of this--one issue was class. IIRC stagecoaches had a class divider--the richer rode inside, the poorer outside.  Passenger trains made travel cheaper, increasing the number of poorer people traveling.  But at least initially everyone was thrown together in a coach.  That required people to adjust their habits and expectations (though I believe in Britain and France they soon instituted a class system, more universally than in the U.S.)

I think of it as social learning.  And I think it should lessen our anxiety over changes.  Remember the "crack" epidemic?  People learned the costs of crack, and the epidemic waned.  That's what happens in an open society where information flows readily.

New Frontiers--of Pot

JFK used "New Frontiers" as the theme for his administration, opposing the idea of new frontiers to to Fredrick Jackson Turner's idea that the frontier had closed in 1890. 

What's interesting to me is the idea of "invasive species" as a metaphor for identifying new ecological niches as the result of innovation.  The easiest example is computers, or perhaps the internet.  But we also have innovation in markets: sometimes they're fads, like emus or bison for meat or bagel shops,  sometimes they're real, like pizza in post-WWII and avocados today.

A current new frontier is legalized marijuana.  What fascinates me is how the industry will develop; will there be parallels with other agricultural commodities or will it be totally unique?
See this post from Colorado.

The Transplant Metaphor

I'd draw some parallels between transplanting plants and transplanting ideas.

This post is triggered by the concerns over Chinese "thefts" of intellectual property, and also by reading a book on the Industrial Revolution in Britain.  The author of The Most Powerful Idea in the World emphasizes the interactions and connections which created the revolution.  

As any gardener knows, it's tricky to transplant a plant. Some are very difficult to transplant; in all cases it has to be the right time of year.  Usually plants need soil and climate in their new location close to those where they originated/  When they don't have the right conditions, they wither and die.

I'd argue similar conditions hold for many ideas. It's more clear when you consider such ideas as democracy, market economy, social and political freedom.  Usually they transfer from one country to another only with considerable modifications.  Consider the operations of democracy in Kenya or India.  When you come to more technological institutions or ideas, we assume they can be transferred easily, but not in many cases.  

Consider history in what we used to call the Third World.  In many cases optimistic first world types financed shiny new things, railroads, roads, bridges.  But without the connections to other parts of society there wasn't the money to maintain them.  In Afghanistan, hurdles to the US training an effective Afghanistan army and air force included the lack of literacy among many recruits and the absence of a mechanism to get salaries from the government treasury to the common soldier without fraud.

I'd argue there are similar problems with science and technology.  Even in the US, lots of cities have aimed to create a new Silicon Valley.  Aimed to, but haven't had major success.  Part of the problem is history, part is the fact of competition--we already have a Silicon Valley, part is the lack of the unique set of conditions.which created Silicon Valley in the first place.

All of the above makes me more relaxed about intellectual property issues than most people.

Will Autonomous Cars Save Parking Spaces in the City?

It's assumed the answer to my question is "yes"--some recent articles arguing for changing zoning requirements in the city to reduce the number of parking spaces required.

I'm not so sure.  As long as people commute from the suburbs to the city for their jobs, it seems to me parking is going to be a problem.  Yes, in some cases I can imagine a Reston commuter to DC getting a car at 7 for a 30 minute drive to DC, the car then returning to Reston to pick up another commuter at 8 for another 30 minute drive.  But then it's going to need to be parked until the evening.  So if the two individuals were each driving solo into the city and parking now, that would reduce the number of parking spots needed.  But that's a special pattern

Granted, you can imagine with autonomous cars and a drive sharing app, we could have much more flexible drive sharing so the number of people in the car rises from 1 to 2 or more on average.  And there likely will be realignment of jobs and homes based on the availability of autonomous cars.

My bottom line: the change requires people to change their habits, meaning it's going to take a while before the impact on parking spaces is felt. 

What 5G Can Do for: Dairy

Technology Review has a short post on a test of 5G and cows, in Britain.  Cows wear 5G collars which transmit biometric data and open gates to milking parlors.

(I'm not clear why 4G wouldn't work for this, but connecting fancy technology and cows has a certain reader appeal. )