Gyroscopic Investing

Cowen is a professor of Economics at George Mason, and has written this short monograph, that states that the reason we are not growing robustly, is essentially that we have eaten all of the low hanging fruit responsible for our country's long economic growth, and that we may be entering a prolonged period of poor or nonexistent growth until we or someone can create or discover new fruit ( e.g., energy technology). He discusses the fact that our biggest growth areas recently either do not have effective market pricing for their services and outcomes, like government and medicine, or in the case of the financial service industry, either do not create products that improve the standard of living of a society at large, or leverage their way into real harm. He also discusses how the internet boom has created companies that have huge market caps, and provide great service to society, but create comparatively few jobs when compared with more traditional industries.

He writes in an easily read, conversational style, and some of you may enjoy this.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Stagnation- ... 076&sr=1-1

Link?

From what I understand, this is available as a low-priced e-book.  It's on my list of things to read but I haven't purchased or read it yet.  However, I did enjoy Cowen's appearance on Russ Robert's podcast where he discusses the ideas behind the book.

The premise is basically that the growth from technology of the mid-to-late 20th century was the equivalent of grabbing up "low-hanging fruit" and that we should not expect it to be replicated in the coming years.  Furthermore, he believe that a lot of the new technologies that have emerged and will emerge (like the internet) can produce a lot of quality of life improvements without necessarily boosting GDP or jobs very much.  It struck me as a pretty nuanced narrative, and not exceedingly "negative" per se.  More just his take on the data and trends.

I'm kind of a "to infinity and beyond!!" optimist by nature so the podcast was sobering without being overly alarming.  I think that technology will continue to do amazing things in the years to come but his predictions on GDP impact rang true to me.  I see big problems with entitlements coming because of this.

The space program is a great example of this low hanging fruit principle.

In the 1960s there were enormous strides forward, culminating in the manned moon missions.  After that, I would say the program has been more or less running in place (if not falling behind) for decades.  Consider this: to even replicate the moon missions from the late 1960s-early 1970s today would probably require 10 years or more of preparation if we started today.  That's sort of weird (since the first time around it only took 10 years or so).

MediumTex wrote: The space program is a great example of this low hanging fruit principle.

In the 1960s there were enormous strides forward, culminating in the manned moon missions.  After that, I would say the program has been more or less running in place (if not falling behind) for decades.  Consider this: to even replicate the moon missions from the late 1960s-early 1970s today would probably require 10 years or more of preparation if we started today.  That's sort of weird (since the first time around it only took 10 years or so).

That's interesting.  I'd really like to see that tried.  I feel like it would get done much more quickly if it became a serious priority.  A smart phone of today makes any Apollo-era computer system look like a complete joke.  And hey, astronauts can now enjoy drinking their own pee this time around!  We've really got everything going for us.

I've wondered what would happen if it were announced that the first individual, corporation or government entity to put a small-ish number (say 3 or 4 dozen) of live human beings on Mars would earn internationally-recognized "ownership" of the planet for whatever purpose they wished.  (Talk about the ultimate speculation.)  How quickly would it happen and who would grab the brass ring?

Lone Wolf wrote:

MediumTex wrote: The space program is a great example of this low hanging fruit principle.

In the 1960s there were enormous strides forward, culminating in the manned moon missions.  After that, I would say the program has been more or less running in place (if not falling behind) for decades.  Consider this: to even replicate the moon missions from the late 1960s-early 1970s today would probably require 10 years or more of preparation if we started today.  That's sort of weird (since the first time around it only took 10 years or so).

That's interesting.  I'd really like to see that tried.  I feel like it would get done much more quickly if it became a serious priority.  A smart phone of today makes any Apollo-era computer system look like a complete joke.  And hey, astronauts can now enjoy drinking their own pee this time around!  We've really got everything going for us.

I've wondered what would happen if it were announced that the first individual, corporation or government entity to put a small-ish number (say 3 or 4 dozen) of live human beings on Mars would earn internationally-recognized "ownership" of the planet for whatever purpose they wished.  (Talk about the ultimate speculation.)  How quickly would it happen and who would grab the brass ring?

One key difference today is that there is less money sitting around for discretionary items like moon missions.

That's part of the overall difficulty as well, and one of the reasons it might not be feasible.

Someone once told me that the space program was basically a waste of resources that has public support only because it implies that human beings will one day be able to fly around the universe using more resources instead of having to stay here on Earth and make do.  

I don't entirely agree with this, and I think projects like the Hubble telescope and the robots we've sent to Mars are very important and interesting.  

However, I don't really see why we need to keep flying to the Moon.  

Adam1226 wrote: However, I don't really see why we need to keep flying to the Moon. 

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but what I am talking about is more like an aging athlete saying "I could run a 4.0 40 any time I wanted to.  I just don't happen to want to right now."

The truth is he may believe he can run a 4.0 40, but if he got out there and actually tried it he might be surprised at all of the headwinds he would encounter.

In many ways, I think that 500 years from now people will look back and view the moon missions as very much a high water mark for a certain way of looking at things, especially with respect to the capacity for technology to allow humans to transcend their habitat, as opposed to more effectively occupying their habitat.

Adam1226 wrote: However, I don't really see why we need to keep flying to the Moon.  

The engineering and technical prowess that started in the space program led to a revolution in the computer, air travel, and even manufacturing industries in America.  There are a million benefits that having a good space program leads to.  You can't just say "the goal of putting someone on the moon is not important."  It's not the act of putting someone on the moon itself, but all of the inventions and technical progress that lead to that accomplishment.  The computer systems and rocket propulsion systems may have started in NASA, but the technology is shared with American companies, and benefits all of us.

Please see this outstanding list of all the NASA spinoffs for more information:

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Storm wrote:

Adam1226 wrote: However, I don't really see why we need to keep flying to the Moon.  

The engineering and technical prowess that started in the space program led to a revolution in the computer, air travel, and even manufacturing industries in America.  There are a million benefits that having a good space program leads to.  You can't just say "the goal of putting someone on the moon is not important."  It's not the act of putting someone on the moon itself, but all of the inventions and technical progress that lead to that accomplishment.  The computer systems and rocket propulsion systems may have started in NASA, but the technology is shared with American companies, and benefits all of us.

Please see this outstanding list of all the NASA spinoffs for more information:

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

This is going to be a bit controversial, and I wish to step on no ones toes, but I hear this argument a lot, especially when I tell someone that I think most of space exploration is a waste of money.  Would it not be possible to achieve those same spin-off technological breakthroughs at lower cost if we had set out not to explore space, but invest in basic research instead?

I guess my main issue with the space program is twofold: one is that we currently can't afford it (should we really borrow money to send up another spacecraft?), and two is that I am not sure it is even Constitutional, however much I might enjoy looking at photos from Hubble.  I grant that some national security interests may necessitate some level of a space program, but IMHO the current level is beyond that.

There were two documentaries on PBS in the late 1990s (Triumph of the Nerds and Nerds 2.0) that chronicled the invention of the personal computer and then the Internet (both of these documentaries can be found on YouTube).

Although the integrated circuit ("computer chip") was invented by private industry, its use in military systems and mainframe computers during the 1960s made the infant semiconductor industry possible.  The inventions of the handheld calculator and digital watch in the early 1970s were the first commercially viable uses for the IC outside of the military and mainframe applications.  The technology then evolved rapidly into what we have today because companies were driven by the profit motive of serving mass markets.  Sputnik kicked it off and the Pentagon/NASA/IBM kept it going (in the beginning).

I keep learning about Peak Oil and how our world economy will come to a quick halt as we run out of cheap energy.  Then I start learning about The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World by Michael Spence, which suggests the future may be quite rosy (especially for the Asian economies, which is why I like to invest in large multinational firms that pay a rising stream of dividends).

I don't know what to believe, but my experience tells me all of these viewpoints are wrong and all of them are right (to some extent).  I'll just keep plugging away at what I'm doing and let the chips fall where they may, making adjustments as necessary when things change.

When I was younger, I believed space travel was cool and had a secret desire to be an astronaut.  But now that I'm older, I realize the space shuttle is 5,000 subsystems flying in formation, each built by the lowest bidder.  I don't care if others want to go into space, but I'm happy to keep my feet planted firmly on the ground. 

i think space exploration has benefits to offer, but i wonder about manned space missions, robotics and rovers seem so much safer and less expensive to send, i would think they are a much better bang for the buck