The Master Switch by Tim Wu

Master Switch

I chose to read ‘The Master Switch’ by Tim Wu due to its tagline, ‘the rise and fall of information empires.’ The main theme of the book is how each one of the information technologies have gone through a cycle: From openness to closed control by monopoly/ cartel followed by disruption from new/ different information technology.

The book traces each one the major information technologies such as telephone, AM radio, FM Radio, Television, Digital television, Cable Television, Motion picture, etc. from their tech cradles to their baby steps as tinker toys of hobbyists, to a new source of gold rush for entrepreneurs and finally ending as the ‘goose that lays the golden eggs’ caged by monopolists/ cartels. A recurring theme of the book is how the originals ideals of inventers, innovators and entrepreneurs and the full potential of a new information technologies get strangled in legal and regulatory cobwebs and crushed under the economic juggernaut of entrenched players (read monopolists and cartels controlling old information technologies which were ripe for disruption).

Through various vignettes across five sections, the book traces the sad saga of how the egalitarian ideals of inventors get crushed by economic-empire building ambitions of people like Theodre Vail, Adolf Zukor, etc. Along the way author also lays in great details the dangers of important industries being controlled by a handful of players including the ‘Production Code’ imposed on Hollywood from mid 1930s to 1960s, the role of telecom players in surveillance regimes, etc.

The book is an interesting read as it takes us on a time travel to the very cross-roads where the crusades to keep important information technologies open were lost. On the lines of the famous poem ‘The Road Not Taken’ by Robert Frost, this book is about the technological road not taken and the economic model not embraced. Needless to say in these different historic moments the seeds of change for modern life were sown.

One keeps wondering from time to time on how history would have been different: had Julius Cesar not been assassinated, had Dara Sikoh prevailed over Auranzeeb, had Abraham Lincoln not been assassinated or more recently had Bernie Sanders won the nomination instead of Hillary Clinton. In a similar vein the author also rues from time to time on how what could have been oases of technology openness have instead turned into walled castles under the siege of monopolists and cartels.

The main aim of the author is not to take us through a journey of suspended disbelief but to drive home the point that the openness of internet is under constant attack. While we are thankful to these information technologies for making our lives better, easier and richer the author wants us to reflect about an alternate universe in which: open model had prevailed over closed model, the vision of innovators had prevailed over the ambitions of capitalists, the larger good of the society had prevailed over the economic interests of entrenched players. The author’s warning is not to take the openness of the internet for granted and to understand that powerful forces are at play to convert the internet also into another walled garden. At stake is not only the economic model embedded in the internet but the very basis of our future for while humans shape technologies in the short run, technologies shape humans in the long run.

Some interesting Quotes from the Book:

  • History shows a typical progression of information technologies: from somebody’s hobby to somebody’s industry; from jury-rigged contraption to slick production marvel; from a freely accessible channel to one strictly controlled by a single corporation or cartel—from open to closed system.
  • It is an under-acknowledged truism that, just as you are what you eat, how and what you think depends on what information you are exposed to.
  • From AT&T’s first meeting with Justice, we see for the first time something that will occur again and again in the history of communications, the state’s calculated exercise of discretion over whether to bless or destroy the monopoly power, deciding in effect what industry it will allow to be dominated.
  • In the course of a single decade, film went from one of the most open industries in the United States to one of the most controlled. The flip shows how abruptly industrial structure can change when the underlying commodity is information.
  • In the language of innovation theory, the output of the Bell Labs was practically restricted to sustaining inventions; disruptive technologies, those that might even cast a shadow of uncertainty over the business model, were simply out of the question.
  • The best antidote to the disruptive power of innovation is overregulation. That is to say, the industry learned how to secure the enactment of seemingly innocuous and sensible regulations that nonetheless spelled doom for any rival.
  • Three important waves of innovation followed the great consolidation of broadcasting in the 1920s: mechanical television, electronic television, and FM radio transmission. And despite the importance of each technology, what is so striking is that none managed to produce an independent industry capable of challenging the dominant Radio Trust, comprising primarily RCA, NBC, and NBC’s industrial allies, CBS, General Electric, and Westinghouse.
  • We fancy having in the United States the most open of markets for innovation, in contrast to the more controlled economies of other nations. In truth, however, the record is decidedly uneven, even given to excesses that would shame a socialist, with the federal government, at the behest of an entrenched industry, putting itself in charge of the future.
  • Industry structure, as I have suggested, is what determines the freedom of expression in the underlying medium.
  • While television is supposed to be free, it has in fact become the creature, the servant, and indeed the prostitute, of merchandising
  • Cable was born commercial, while the Internet was born with no revenue model, or any need of one. Its funding came in research grants, making it, for a long time, the information media equivalent of a public park.
  • There is no understanding communications, or the American and global culture industry, without understanding the conglomerate.
  • In fact, the combination of Apple, AT&T, and Hollywood now held out an extremely appealing prospect: Hollywood’s content, AT&T’s lines, and Apple’s gorgeous machines—an information paradise of sorts, succeeding where AOL–Time Warner had failed.
  • Google is the Internet’s switch. In fact, it’s the world’s most popular Internet switch, and as such, it might even be described as the current custodian of the Master Switch.
  • Google is not a switch of necessity, such as the telephone company was, but rather a switch of choice.
  • Those industries that supply the means of trade in information, goods, or cash are more obviously vital even than, say, a country’s sole producer of sugar. Practically, this focus has led to four basic industries being identified as “public callings”: telecommunications, banking, energy, and transportation.
  • For it is the switch that transforms mere communications into networking—that ultimately decides who reaches what or whom. It is the Master Switch, as Fred Friendly reminds us, that will decide who is to be heard.
  • If one allows that the Internet is our key means of conveyance, the “common medium” of our national life and economy, net neutrality is the twenty-first century’s version of common carriage.
  • Put most simply, net neutrality is what prevents the telephone and cable industry from killing Google, Amazon, Wikipedia, blogs, or anything else that might incur their displeasure.
  • The owner of an iPod or iPad is in a fundamentally different position: his machine may have far more computational power than a PC of a decade ago, but it is designed for consumption, not creation.
  • Technology has reached a point where the inventive spirit has a capacity for translating inspiration into commerce virtually overnight, creating major players with astonishing speed, where once it took years of patient chess moves to become one, assuming one wasn’t devoured.
  • The Internet with its uniquely open design has led to a moment when all other information networks have converged upon it as the one “superhighway,” to use the 1990s term.
  • There is no escaping the reality that we have evolved into a society in which electronic information represents the substrate of much of daily life. It is a natural outcome of our having advanced past the mechanical age.
  • Romance of the Three Kingdoms: An empire long united, must divide; an empire long divided, must unite. Thus it has ever been, and thus it will always be.
  • Leopold Kohr: “there seems to be only one cause behind all forms of social misery: bigness.”
  • For what he (Friedrich Hayek) found dangerous about the centralizing tendencies of socialism applies equally well to the overbearing powers of the corporate monopolist.
  • “It’s the same old story,” he (Milton Mueller) would say, years later; “the inventor gets the experience, and the capitalist gets the invention.”
  • The Kronos Effect: the efforts undertaken by a dominant company to consume its potential successors in their infancy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rich – Poor Divide: Growing Inequality

About a couple of days ago I came across a news article and a blog post that serve as the inspiration for this post. The news article is by non-profit organization Oxfam and it says that the richest 1% of the world is most likely to control 50% of global wealth by 2016. The report is interestingly titled: ‘WEALTH: HAVING IT ALL AND WANTING MORE.’ The executive summary of the report reads:

Global wealth is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a small wealthy elite. These wealthy individuals have generated and sustained their vast riches through their interests and activities in a few important economic sectors, including finance and pharmaceuticals/healthcare. Companies from these sectors spend millions of dollars every year on lobbying to create a policy environment that protects and enhances their interests further. The most prolific lobbying activities in the US are on budget and tax issues; public resources that should be directed to benefit the whole population, rather than reflect the interests of powerful lobbyists.

One key finding of the report caught my eye: ‘The very richest of the top 1%, the billionaires on the Forbes list, have seen their wealth accumulate even faster over this period. In 2010, the richest 80 people in the world had a net wealth of $1.3tn. By 2014, the 80 people who top the Forbes rich list had a collective wealth of $1.9tn; an increase of $600bn in just 4 years, or 50% in nominal terms. Meanwhile, between 2002 and 2010 the total wealth of the poorest half of the world in current US$ had been increasing more or less at the same rate as that of billionaires; however since 2010, it has been decreasing over this time.’ It seems to me that the global recession and country specific recessions since 2008 have not had much impact on the wealth of the global superrich. Another interesting information from the report: ‘In 2010, it took 388 billionaires to equal the wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population; by 2014, the figure had fallen to just 80 billionaires.’ The wealthy are getting wealthier by the day.

The report also finds that, ‘Companies from the finance and pharmaceutical sectors spent millions of dollars in 2013 on lobbying.’  All these lobbying has resulted in favorable results for the companies in these sectors at the expense of tax payers. Again to quote from the report: ‘While the financial sector has recovered well as a result of this bailout, median income levels in the USA are yet to return to their pre-crisis levels. The ongoing cost to the tax payer for “systematically important financial institutions in other words those that are too big to fail has been estimated by the IMF to be $83bn every year.’  The report goes on to say, ‘In the US, the two issues which most lobbying is reported against are the federal budget and appropriations and taxes. These are the public’s resources, which companies are aiming to directly influence for their own benefit, using their substantial cash resources. Lobbying on tax issues in particular can directly undermine public interests, where a reduction in the tax burden to companies results in less money for delivering essential public services.

Another interesting observation from the report: ‘The three pharmaceutical companies (GSK, Johnson & Johnson and Novartis) that are members of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) have made the largest contribution to the Ebola relief effort, have collectively donated more than $3m in cash and medical products. But the amount of money that has been spent on Ebola and other activities that have a broader benefit to society needs to be looked at in the context of their expenditure on corporate lobbying to influence for their own interests. These three companies together spent more than $18m on lobbying activities in the US during 2013.Did I read that right: $18 MN for lobbying in U.S. but only $3MN to fight Ebola, a disease that was killing roughly 1 in 2 of the infected people in the current outbreak?

Some of the remedies suggested by Oxfam to alleviate such extreme inequality include:

  • Make governments work for citizens and tackle extreme inequality
  • Pay workers a living wage and close the gap with skyrocketing executive reward
  • Close international tax loopholes and fill holes in tax governance

I was interested in looking at examples of difference in tax rates between the wealthy and the rest when I ran into a videos in which none other than Warren Buffett, one of richest men in the world, had claimed in 2007 (if I’m not wrong) that he is taxed at a lower rate than people who work for him!!!

Looks like things have not changed since then, a proof for which I came in the blog post ‘The Taxman Cometh’ by ‘I Pledge a Fallegiance’. He quotes the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy study on taxation in the United States that finds that: ‘in 2015 the poorest fifth of Americans will pay on average 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes, the middle fifth will pay 9.4 percent and the top 1 percent will average 5.4 percent.’ The author concludes that: ‘It seems that States and localities have regressive tax systems because they tend to rely more on sales and excise taxes (fees tacked onto items like gas, liquor and cigarettes), which are the same rate for rich and poor alike. Even property taxes, which account for much of local tax revenue, hit working- and middle-class families harder than the wealthy because their homes often represent their largest asset.’ All this makes the author conclude: ‘poverty is a waste product of wealth.

Years ago when I was chatting with some of MBA batch mates, one of them said that USA has made an important contribution to mankind by introducing the concept of wealth creation to the world. He said that because of this contribution by USA, accumulation of wealth is no more a zero-sum game and one person does not have to plunder another person to increase his wealth. He claimed that this concept of ‘wealth creation’ is the fairest system possible. Looking at the findings of Oxfam and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, it doesn’t look the current world’s approach to wealth creation is fair by any yardstick.

I have always found it interesting that the government would let corporations to deduct their expenses first and then levy income tax on what is left of their revenue but would not follow the same taxation approach when it comes to individual tax payers. Clearly just like in a corporation, some of the expenses for an individual are also mandatory/ inevitable. So shouldn’t they be deducted first before levying any income tax? I am starting to wonder if transaction taxes would be a fairer taxation system (on the common man) than income taxes.

World Development Report 2015: Understanding mind, society and behavior

My only worry is that it will be read more diligently by private marketers selling wares and politicians running for office than by people designing development interventions.” This is what the Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank, Kaushik Basu had to say about the World Development Report 2015 published about a fortnight ago. The full report can be downloaded from the World Bank Site. The report is interestingly titled “Mind, Society, and Behavior.”

The central argument of the Report is that policy design that takes into account psychological and cultural factors will achieve development goals faster. The two main goals of the report are:

  • To change the way we think about development problems by integrating knowledge that is now scattered across multiple disciplines such as behavioral economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, neuroscience, and political science.
  • To help development practitioners use the richer understanding of the human actor that emerges from the behavioral sciences in program design, implementation, and evaluation.

The report has some interesting finding including:

  • Poverty constitutes a cognitive tax that makes it hard for poor people to think deliberatively, especially in times of hardship or stress
  • An experimental cash transfer program which automatically saved a part of the funds on behalf of beneficiaries, and then disbursed them as lump a sum at the time when decisions about school enrollment for the next year were being made, resulted in increased enrollments for the following year
  • The likelihood of default on loans became three times less likely with a simple change in the periodicity of meetings between microfinance clients and their repayment groups to weekly rather than monthly.
  • Boys from backward classes were just as good at solving puzzles as boys from the upper castes when caste identity was not revealed