nhaliday + white-paper + scale + rot   2

Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers | The Heritage Foundation
6 facts about the U.S. military's changing demographics: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/13/6-facts-about-the-u-s-military-and-its-changing-demographics/
Profile of U.S. veterans is changing dramatically as their ranks decline: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/11/profile-of-u-s-veterans-is-changing-dramatically-as-their-ranks-decline/

Income representation of US military enlisted recruits, 2006-2007, by census tract median household income
Enlisted Recruits Are More Likely to Come from Middle- and Upper-Class Neighborhoods

Why don't more people serve? The US is launching a commission to find out: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/01/12/why-dont-more-people-serve-the-us-is-launching-a-commission-to-find-out/

The “warrior caste” of military families that fight America’s wars.: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/the_warrior_caste_of_military_families_that_fight_america_s_wars.html
article is usual diversity cant (increasingly mind-blowing/unhinged), but Razib's take is interesting:
every few years article about how officer corps of amer. military is starting to become endogamous. they serve us. but history can teach us
unless human nature changed, when there is a "them" vs. "us" when it comes to guns, eventually ppl with guns stop serving start taking

clarification: https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/08/02/when-the-ancestors-were-cyclops/#comment-3354
news  data  demographics  race  education  military  institutions  org:ngo  martial  meta:war  defense  white-paper  multi  org:data  trends  list  usa  population  scale  rot  gibbon  pro-rata  africa  latin-america  asia  domestication  distribution  chart  age-generation  time-series  gender  cohesion  diversity  conquest-empire  foreign-policy  hmm  the-bones  putnam-like  twitter  social  commentary  discussion  backup  gnon  unaffiliated  right-wing  duty  class  class-warfare  elite  paying-rent  org:lite  speculation  us-them  the-south  clown-world  gnxp  scitariat  analogy  history  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  poast  optimate  counter-revolution  sulla  honor  tribalism  american-nations 
february 2017 by nhaliday
Too much of a good thing | The Economist
None of these accounts, though, explain the most troubling aspect of America’s profit problem: its persistence. Business theory holds that firms can at best enjoy only temporary periods of “competitive advantage” during which they can rake in cash. After that new companies, inspired by these rich pickings, will pile in to compete away those fat margins, bringing prices down and increasing both employment and investment. It’s the mechanism behind Adam Smith’s invisible hand.

In America that hand seems oddly idle. An American firm that was very profitable in 2003 (one with post-tax returns on capital of 15-25%, excluding goodwill) had an 83% chance of still being very profitable in 2013; the same was true for firms with returns of over 25%, according to McKinsey, a consulting firm. In the previous decade the odds were about 50%. The obvious conclusion is that the American economy is too cosy for incumbents.

Corporations Are Raking In Record Profits, But Workers Aren’t Seeing Much of It: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/07/corporations-are-raking-in-record-profits-but-workers-arent-seeing-much-of-it/
Even Goldman Sachs thinks monopolies are pillaging American consumers: http://theweek.com/articles/633101/even-goldman-sachs-thinks-monopolies-are-pillaging-american-consumers
Schumpeter: The University of Chicago worries about a lack of competition: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21720657-its-economists-used-champion-big-firms-mood-has-shifted-university-chicago
Some radicals argue that the government is now so rotten that America is condemned to perpetual oligarchy and inequality. Political support for more competition is worryingly hard to find. Donald Trump has a cabinet of tycoons and likes to be chummy with bosses. The Republicans have become the party of incumbent firms, not of free markets or consumers. Too many Democrats, meanwhile, don’t trust markets and want the state to smother them in red tape, which hurts new entrants.

The Rise of Market Power and the Decline of Labor’s Share: https://promarket.org/rise-market-power-decline-labors-share/
A new paper by Jan De Loecker (of KU Leuven and Princeton University) and Jan Eeckhout (of the Barcelona Graduate School of Economics UPF and University College London) echoes these results, arguing that the decline of both the labor and capital shares, as well as the decline in low-skilled wages and other economic trends, have been aided by a significant increase in markups and market power.


Measuring markups, De Loecker explained in a conversation with ProMarket, is notoriously difficult due to the scarcity of data. In attempting to track markups across a wide set of firms and industries, De Loecker and Eeckhout diverged from the standard way in which Industrial Organization economists look at markups, the so-called “demand approach,” which requires a lot of data on consumer demand (prices, quantities, characteristics of products) and models of how firms compete. The standard approach, explains De Loecker, works when it is tailor-made for particular markets, but is “not feasible” when studying markups across many markets and over a long period of time.

To do that, De Loecker and Eeckhout use another approach, the “production approach,” which relies on standard, publicly-available balance sheet data and an assumption that firms will try to minimize costs, and does not require other assumptions regarding demand and market competition.


Markups, De Loecker and Eeckhout note, do not necessarily imply market power—but profits do. The enormous increase in profits over the past 35 years, they argue, is consistent with an increase in market power. “In perfect competition, your costs and total sales are identical, because there’s no difference between price and marginal costs. The extent to which these two numbers—the sales-to-wage bill and total-costs-to-wage bill—start differing is going to be immediately indicative of the market power,” says De Loecker.

Markup increases, De Loecker and Eeckhout find, became more pronounced following the 2000 and 2008 recessions. Curiously, they find that economy-wide it is mainly smaller firms that have the higher markups, which according to De Loecker is indicative of widely different characteristics between various industries. Within narrowly defined industries, however, the standard prediction holds: firms with larger market shares have higher markups as well. “Most of the action happens within industries, where we see the big guys getting bigger and their markups increase,” De Loecker explains.


The authors are correct that this can easily account for the apparent US productivity slowdown. Holding real productivity constant, if firms move up their demand curves to sell less at a higher prices, then total output, and measured GDP, get smaller. Their numerical estimates suggest that, correcting for this effect, there has been no decline in US productivity growth since 1965. That’s a pretty big deal.

Accepting the main result that markups have been marching upward, the obvious question to ask is: why? But first, let’s review some clues from the paper. First, while industries with smaller firms tend to have higher markups, within each small industry, bigger firms have larger markups, and firms with higher markups pay higher dividends.

There has been little change in output elasticity, i.e., the rate at which variable costs change with the quantity of units produced. (So this isn’t about new scale economies.) There has also been little change in the bottom half of the distribution of markups; the big change has been a big stretching in the upper half. Markups have increased more in larger industries, and the main change has been within industries, rather than a changing mix of industries in the economy. The fractions of income going to labor and to tangible capital have fallen, and firms respond less than they once did to wage changes. Firm accounting profits as a fraction of total income have risen four fold since 1980.


If, like me, you buy the standard “free entry” argument for zero expected economic profits of early entrants, then the only remaining possible explanation is an increase in fixed costs relative to variable costs. Now as the paper notes, the fall in tangible capital spending and the rise in accounting profits suggests that this isn’t so much about short-term tangible fixed costs, like the cost to buy machines. But that still leaves a lot of other possible fixed costs, including real estate, innovation, advertising, firm culture, brand loyalty and prestige, regulatory compliance, and context specific training. These all require long term investments, and most of them aren’t tracked well by standard accounting systems.

I can’t tell well which of these fixed costs have risen more, though hopefully folks will collect enough data on these to see which ones correlate strongest with the industries and firms where markups have most risen. But I will invoke a simple hypothesis that I’ve discussed many times, which predicts a general rise of fixed costs: increasing wealth leading to stronger tastes for product variety. Simple models of product differentiation say that as customers care more about getting products nearer to their ideal point, more products are created and fixed costs become a larger fraction of total costs.

Note that increasing product variety is consistent with increasing concentration in a smaller number of firms, if each firm offers many more products and services than before.



Variable costs approach zero: http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/variable-costs-approach-zero/
4. My guess is that, if anything, the two-Jan’s paper understates the trend toward high markups. That is because my guess is that most corporate data allocates more labor to variable cost than really belongs there. Garett Jones pointed out that these days most workers do not produce widgets. Instead, they produce organizational capital. Garett Jones workers are part of overhead, not variable cost.

Intangible investment and monopoly profits: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/09/intangible-investment-monopoly-profits.html
I’ve been reading the forthcoming Capitalism Without Capital: The Rise of the Intangible Economy, by Jonathan Haskel and Stian Westlake, which is one of this year’s most important and stimulating economic reads (I can’t say it is Freakonomics-style fun, but it is well-written relative to the nature of its subject matter.)

The book offers many valuable theoretical points and also observations about data. And note that intangible capital used to be below 30 percent of the S&P 500 in the 70s, now it is about 84 percent. That’s a big increase, and yet the topic just isn’t discussed that much (I cover it a bit in The Complacent Class, as a possible source of increase in business risk-aversion).


Now, I’ve put that all into my language and framing, rather than theirs. In any case, I suspect that many of the recent puzzles about mark-ups and monopoly power are in some way tied to the nature of intangible capital, and the rising value of intangible capital.

The one-sentence summary of my takeaway might be: Cross-business technology externalities help explain the mark-up, market power, and profitability puzzles.

Why has investment been weak?: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/12/why-has-investment-been-weak.html
We analyze private fixed investment in the U.S. over the past 30 years. We show that investment is weak relative to measures of profitability and valuation — particularly Tobin’s Q, and that this weakness starts in the early 2000’s. There are two … [more]
finance  business  economics  prediction  macro  news  trends  org:rec  org:biz  org:anglo  winner-take-all  wonkish  market-power  industrial-org  competition  current-events  madisonian  scale  rent-seeking  usa  class-warfare  multi  org:mag  left-wing  compensation  corporation  rhetoric  policy  regulation  org:ngo  stagnation  white-paper  politics  government  chicago  tech  anomie  crooked  rot  malaise  chart  study  summary  capital  labor  distribution  innovation  correlation  flux-stasis  pdf  ratty  hanson  commentary  cracker-econ  gray-econ  diversity  farmers-and-foragers  roots  marginal-rev  supply-demand  marginal  randy-ayndy  nl-and-so-can-you  nationalism-globalism  trade  homo-hetero  econotariat  broad-econ  zeitgeist  the-bones  🎩  empirical  limits  garett-jones  management  heavy-industry  books  review  externalities  free-riding  top-n  list  investing  software  planning  career  programming  endogenous-exogenous  econometrics 
march 2016 by nhaliday

bundles : abstractdismalityframemetapatternsvague

related tags

africa  age-generation  american-nations  analogy  anomie  asia  backup  books  broad-econ  business  capital  career  chart  chicago  class  class-warfare  clown-world  cohesion  commentary  compensation  competition  conquest-empire  corporation  correlation  counter-revolution  cracker-econ  crooked  current-events  data  defense  demographics  discussion  distribution  diversity  domestication  duty  econometrics  economics  econotariat  education  elite  empirical  endogenous-exogenous  externalities  farmers-and-foragers  finance  flux-stasis  foreign-policy  free-riding  garett-jones  gender  gibbon  gnon  gnxp  government  gray-econ  hanson  heavy-industry  history  hmm  homo-hetero  honor  industrial-org  innovation  institutions  investing  iron-age  labor  latin-america  left-wing  limits  list  macro  madisonian  malaise  management  marginal  marginal-rev  market-power  martial  mediterranean  meta:war  military  multi  nationalism-globalism  news  nl-and-so-can-you  optimate  org:anglo  org:biz  org:data  org:lite  org:mag  org:ngo  org:rec  paying-rent  pdf  planning  poast  policy  politics  population  prediction  pro-rata  programming  putnam-like  race  randy-ayndy  ratty  regulation  rent-seeking  review  rhetoric  right-wing  roots  rot  scale  scitariat  social  software  speculation  stagnation  study  sulla  summary  supply-demand  tech  the-bones  the-classics  the-south  time-series  top-n  trade  trends  tribalism  twitter  unaffiliated  us-them  usa  white-paper  winner-take-all  wonkish  zeitgeist  🎩 

Copy this bookmark: