Tag Archives: economics

Amazon and the Future of Books

A recent New Yorker article about book publishing in the era of Amazon Kindles and Apple iPads indicated that Amazon is thinking about cutting book publishers out of the loop completely and striking deals directly with authors. Such deals would allow Amazon to price e-books however they wanted and to provide more generous royalties to authors. Sounds great, right? Cheaper books and richer authors.

Sure, in the short run, for certain authors. But in the long run, this is a highly destructive strategy. Destructive for the book industry, and even for Amazon itself. What Amazon will do is poach the big name authors, the ones who don’t need publishers any more. John Grisham, Stephen King, Danielle Steel, and other authors of such stature can sell books no matter who publishes them. They can move to Amazon, bump their royalty rate from 15% to 50% and make a ton of money.

But the publishing business, like much of entertainment, uses the hits to subsidize the misses. Simon and Schuster, for example, reinvests the money it makes publishing Stephen King and uses it to find authors like Susanne Dunlap, who might be the next Stephen King. If the big authors leave their publishing houses to go to Amazon, then the publishers won’t have the money to find and support emerging authors. The publishers will likely go out of business.

This will be bad. Books entertain us, they teach us, they can be a way for a culture to bond over shared values. A society without new literature is not a society I want to live in. Moreover, this will be bad for Amazon in the long run. Eventually, Stephen King and the other big authors will die, and if the publishers are out of business, who will discover the new authors, the Stephen Kings of tomorrow? Nobody. Then Amazon’s book business will also die, since there will be no new books.

You might try to analogize this to the music business, with Napster disintermediating the record labels, but that analogy is flawed. New music can be absorbed quickly: listen to 2-minute samples of three songs and you’ll have a sense for a band. This is why new music is being effectively crowd sourced. But spend 6 minutes reading a passage from a new novel and you will have no idea if you will like the novel as a whole, or any other piece by that author. The current system of literary agents and publishing houses works to discover and nurture new authors. Moreover, the current system improves authors’ works by editing them. Most authors need editors, as the recently publicity about Raymond Carver’s editor has shown. In Amazon’s world, who will play that role?

The Myth of the Sophisticated Investor

This article in The Big Money discusses how Goldman Sachs’ defense in the Abacus CDO case – that the buyers were sophisticated investors – isn’t entirely accurate, since those sophisticated investors (banks and pension funds) get a significant amount of money from regular folks like you and me. This is true, but it only gets at half the story. In the context of Wall Street, banks and pension funds are not considered the most sophisticated players.

The reality is that Wall Street has a hierarchy, and it’s measured by compensation. Generally speaking, the smartest people go to where they can make the most money. So if you are really sharp, you’re not likely to end up managing a pension fund’s investments and being a civil servant making $200k per year. You might settle for being a bond portfolio manger at a bank, making $500k. But if you are really smart and aggressive – in other words, a sophisticated player – you are going to end up at an investment bank putting together deals that can pay you several million dollars per year.

So Goldman’s “these were big boys” defense has two flaws. One, as The Big Money points out, the big boys got their money from the little guys. But two, the buyers may have been big boys, but the Goldman bankers pushing the CDOs were men. Speaking metaphorically, of course.

Economists: Incredibly Stupid for Smart People

The New Yorker recently (I am perpetually 4-6 weeks behind in my New Yorker, so I consider the March 1 issue to be recent) profiled Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist and NY Times columnist. A section of this article made me realize that economists, despite being generally very smart and well-educated, are just incredibly stupid. And I say this as someone who was an econ major in college and very seriously considered going on for a Ph.D.

Krugman was exploring why there were geographic specialties in business: carpets produced in Georgia, cars in Detroit, technology in Silicon Valley, etc. This was an outgrowth of his work on international trade, for which he won the Nobel. He saw that once a company started in a place, an entire ecosystem built up in that place. Trained workers, relevant support businesses (eg. lawyers), and transportation infrastructure – all this tended to create an economy of scale which drew similar businesses to the area.

To this you undoubtedly say, as I did, “duh.” That theory just describes common sense. Which Krugman admits: he explained this idea to a non-economist friend “who replied in some dismay, ‘Isn’t that pretty obvious?’ And of course it is.” But Krugman was the first to mathematically model this common sense phenomenon. Before that, “because it had not been well modeled, the idea had been disregarded by economists.”

So just to be clear: even if a phenomenon is so obvious that my 16-year old nephew could figure it out, mainstream economists, all with Ph.D.s from Ivy League schools, choose to ignore it because a model for it doesn’t exist. No wonder the country just went through a financial crisis. We all knew there was a housing bubble. It was obvious to me and everyone I talked to that Starbucks baristas and migrant farm workers and cocktail waitresses can’t afford $750,000 homes. But the economists at Treasury and the Fed who were supposed to be watching this? Their models didn’t incorporate these sorts of housing hijinks, and so they ignored the gathering storm.

Economists: smart enough to understand Bayesian math, but too stupid to realize that meth heads can’t afford houses.

Taxes and Small Business

With tax day taking place last week, I’ve been thinking about the impact of taxes on the economy, and in particular about the conservative talking point that lowering taxes on small businesses will unleash growth and create jobs.

This is related to, but different than, another classic conservative point: that lower income tax rates will create more tax revenue. Regular readers know well my disdain for this theory (the Laffer Curve), which has never been supported by any research. Read my posts here and here to see more of my laughing at Laffer.

In the case of small business taxes, I decided to build a little model and see what impact reduced taxes would have. You can see the results below:

Reduced taxes on small business

In this case, we have the same small business generating $1,000,000 in annual revenues and $250,000 in annual pre-tax income. Right now, at a 40% tax rate, this business delivers $150,000 to its owner. If taxes were cut in half, to 20%, the business owner would make $200,000 instead. Now, our business owner might be forward thinking, looking to invest in his business, and use the extra $50k to hire a new worker. But more likely, he is going to use that extra $50k to put an addition on his house, or buy a new car, or pay his kid’s college tuition. In short, tons of small business owners are not going to use their tax break to hire people and expand, but rather to buy stuff.

Less Health Care Will Lower Costs

Interesting piece from the NY Times about how if we plan to cut health care costs (which EVERYONE agrees we have to do) it is going to mean changing the general view that more care is always better. The facts indicate that more care is often not better, and is certainly more expensive.

If you want to see a prior post about health care rationing, it’s right here.

NY Times Copies Me. Again.

This time on the theme that much of Wall Street innovation does not actually benefit society. I’ve written about that here, here and here. And in today’s Times Magazine, they note that the current Wall Street trading mentality more closely resembles a casino than the capital allocation function that Wall Street was founded to perform. I commented on the Times’ prior copying of me here.

Where Does Wall Street Add Value?

I had lunch today with a guy I share office space with. He is a partner at a small investment bank and has spent his entire career at various investment banks, helping companies raise capital. He is part of Wall Street, and Wall Street pays for his house and his kids’ private schools. And yet even this insider, when our conversation turned to proprietary trading and hedge fund, he remarked “What do those guys really add to society? They don’t build anything. They don’t allocate capital. They just make money from gaming the market.”

It’s true. When we discussed Renaissance Technologies’ 45% annual return since 1988, I noted that there are 90 PhDs, mostly in physics and computer science, working there. Think of the great things those guys might invent if they were trying to grow something other than their bank accounts.

Goldman Sachs Helps Bankrupt Greece

Here is economist Simon Johnson’s take on the news that Goldman Sachs helped Greece hide the overwhelming debt that is currently forcing the European Union to bail out the birthplace of democracy.

Why Health Care is a Disaster

Today’s Wall Street Journal had a must read story with an example of why health care costs are out of control, and why a significant overhaul is going to be needed to fix them. In 2007 a major study demonstrated that in most cases, inserting a stent (a $15,000 procedure) to help chest pain was no more effective than using drugs alone. The study laid out the circumstances in which this was the case, and made clear that performing a stress test to determine the cause of the chest pain was a good idea before inserting a stent. The head of the American College of Cardiology called the study a “blockbuster.” Awesome: fewer surgical procedures, cheaper health care, same outcome. Good news, right?

Wrong! The study made no change in the number of stent procedures in the US. Why? Well for one thing, cardiologists make $900 per stenting procedure, which is why the average interventional cardiologist makes $500,000 per year, up 22% over the last decade after adjusting for inflation. As the author of the study put it, “What’s going to continue to drive practice is reimbursement.” But if the only challenge was the greed of doctors (regular Thoughtbasket readers know how I feel about doctors who see their practice as a path to riches), that could be addressed. Insurance companies could just pay less.

But insurance companies face a competitive problem: if one cuts payment for stents, maybe customers will go to another insurance company that doesn’t. Plus, since insurance companies usually mark up the cost of procedures anyway, they often don’t have a great incentive to push down the price doctors charge.

When Washington state tried to use the study to change its Medicaid rates, and wanted additional data, the stent makers and cardiologists in the state (including the cardiologists at the University of Washington…employees of the state!) refused to cooperate. Washington had to give up.

And patients get some blame too: as one cardiologist put it, if your doctor says “let’s try drugs first, and then maybe we’ll stent later,” you are likely to just find a doctor who will stent immediately. Americans tend to expect an immediate fix from their doctors.

So doctors, insurance companies and patients all essentially conspire to have unnecessary treatments that cost about $5 billion per year. That is $5 billion, each year, or 5% of the total cost of the health care bill currently in Congress. If something so simple and so clear is so hard to fix, how do we expect to bring other health care costs down?

Corporate Boards Need Better Members

Felix Salmon at Reuters savages Ruth Simmons, the President of Brown University and a member of Goldman’s board of directors. He points out how completely unqualified she is to provide governance to a financial firm, and how she seems more interested in the benefits her board membership can bring to her than she is in her fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. His points are true for many members of corporate boards. Board members need to provide tough, knowledgeable oversight, not a comfortable pillow for management’s decisions. The lack of strong boards is a major component in both corporate malfeasance and ludicrous executive pay schemes.