Wow! Or Maybe Just Sort
Of. Have new information technologies 'changed everything'?
They do make a swell jukebox.
by George F. Will
Newsweek April 16, 2001 Edition: U.S. Edition Section:
The Last Word Page: 64
Victoria Will, Princeton sophomore, is in
her dormitory room noodling on her computer when it says "ding."
Glancing at its screen, she says, matter-of-factly, "Bettina is
sending me a message." Ms. Will's father, assuming Bettina is a
friend e-mailing from another college, asks, "Where is Bettina?" Ms.
Will points to the wall in front of her: "Next door." Why, asks her
father, doesn't Bettina just walk the 10 feet to Ms. Will's room?
Ms. Will's answer, a look of bemused condescension, expresses her
opinion that the question betrays an antiquated person's
incomprehension of the New.
How much does all this new stuff matter?
Have new information and communication technologies really produced
a "new economy" and "changed everything"?
Cisco, which makes communications
equipment, handles 68 percent of its orders online and 70 percent of
its service calls are completed online, saving $1.4 billion
annually, a sum equal to 7 percent of Cisco sales. This is a nice
efficiency, but hardly evidence of a fundamentally new economic
order. Or even a decisive business advantage. Cisco stock is down 83
percent from its peak last March.
Some say, perhaps rightly, that the
information technologies produced revolutionary advances in
productivity in recent years. However, these advances may be a
statistical sleight-of-hand. Most of the increase in nonfarm
productivity has been in the manufacture of durables. Now, suppose
much of the increase in productivity ascribed to computers has been
an increase in productivity in the production of computers, and that
accounting practices record a better computer at a constant price as
an increase in manufacturing volume and a decline in price.
Timothy Taylor, managing editor of the
Journal of Economic Perspectives, writing in The Public Interest
quarterly, notes that with a "humble" 2 percent annual per capita
economic-growth rate, the average standard of living doubles in 36
years, quadruples in 72 years and rises about 50-fold in two
centuries. The Industrial Revolution raised the growth rate
approximately 2 percentage points--from essentially zero to 2--and
if the Information Revolution were to raise it an additional 2, the
result would be "a phenomenal shift in the human condition"--per
capita growth of 4 percent per year over two centuries would
increase the standard of living 2,500-fold. If new technologies
produce that result, they will have been revolutionary. Until
then...
Given the magic of compounding,
old-fashioned but steady can produce gaudy results. Under Warren
Buffett's guidance over the past 36 years, Berkshire Hathaway's
per-share book value has grown from $19 to $40,442 (23.6 percent
compounded annually). In his "chairman's letter" for the company's
2000 report, Buffett includes this drollery: "We have embraced the
21st century by entering such cutting edge industries as brick,
carpet, insulation and paint. Try to control your excitement."
Berkshire Hathaway's cutting-edginess also includes See's Candies
and Dairy Queen. It seems there is still money to be made in old
things.
One hundred years ago, around 10:30 a.m.
on Jan. 10, 1901, near Beaumont, Texas, on a hillock called
Spindletop, the first great gusher of the East Texas oil fields
roared in. Before long, the population of Beaumont was such that
water was selling for $6 a barrel while oil was selling for 3 cents
a barrel. That was something new, and it led to a lot of new things,
including the petroleum and vulcanized rubber and internal
combustion energy New Economy. Which also was a poured concrete New
Economy.
Robert Shiller is the Yale economist
whose book "Irrational Exuberance" was published last March, just as
the stock market began to vindicate the book's warnings about a
burst bubble to be followed by a freefall. (Nasdaq's apogee was on
March 10, 2000--13 months and $4 trillion ago.) Shiller argues that
the Interstate Highway System has been more consequential than the
Internet. The interstate led to low-density suburban living, the
revolution in retailing called the mall, "greenfield" office and
production facilities, distribution efficiencies that make possible
just-in-time manufacturing that minimizes destabilizing run-ups and
run-downs of inventories. Has the "information superhighway" done as
much?
The quantifications and computations
required to make such judgments are, to say no more, problematic,
but consider: Have the new technologies, with their admittedly
spectacular reductions of "information costs," really been more
revolutionary, either in reducing costs or altering lives, than
Britain's early 19th-century rapid development of cheap postal
services made possible by railroads and macadamized roads?
Timothy Taylor, who is 40, notes that his
grandmothers, who were born around 1900 and lived into the 1990s,
were born into a Midwest still largely drawn by horses and lit by
kerosene. In their lifetimes they experienced the coming of
electrification and plumbing, machines for washing clothes and
dishes and refrigerating food, automobiles and highways, telephones,
antibiotics, air travel and home entertainments, including radio and
recorded music to television and movies. Taylor says that based on a
comparison of the first 40 years of his grandmothers' lives and the
first 40 of his life--"what they saw between 1900 and 1940 and what
I have lived through since 1960"-- it is not clear that he will
experience more technological, social and economic change than they
did.
The new information and communication
technologies have contributed much to, among other things, the
repose, convenience and amusement of Bettina and many others.
Including Ms. Will, who, to amaze her father, caused her computer to
break into song by finding her father's requested song in someone's
"file" (it was not in Ms. Will's computer's file of 900 songs) in
Spokane, Wash. Impressive. But has this impressive--what?--jukebox
"changed everything"? Doubtful.
|