Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: IBM

US Chicken Paw Exports to China

Yesterday’s headlines about the US taking China to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for unfair auto and auto parts subsidies took me to chicken feet and The Economist’s Sinodependency Index. Knowing the major firms that depend on China for revenue might help us further assess our relationship.

Approximately 20 years ago, chicken paws, used primarily for animal feed, were worthless. Now though, with Perdue producing more than a billion chicken feet a year, paw exports annually return $40 million in revenue. The reason is China.

A delicacy in China, chicken feet are a perfect U.S. export. US chickens are fat and juicy because we grow big chickens. In addition, their “natural scarcity” (only 2 per chicken) bestows some prestige on diners who order them.

Similarly, Intel, Apple, IBM and GE generate considerable revenue from China. Called a Sinodependency Index, The Economist displayed the relative revenue dependence on China of 135 firms in the S&P 500. Their goal was to show the extent to which China has woven its presence within the fabric of world trade.

Although some of their statistics were rough because of each firm’s revenue breakdown, The Economist believed that their Index conveyed the information effectively. In a copy of their chart below (interactive with percents if you visit their site here), you can see their color coding for industry and size coding for how a firm’s revenue compared to the other 134 in the index. The top 10 in their list, in size order, are: Intel, Apple, IBM, GE, Caterpillar, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Yum Brands, Philip Morris, Boeing.

As economists, we could not conclude without mentioning comparative advantage. First explained by 19th century economist David Ricardo, comparative advantage says that worldwide productivity increases when nations specialize and export the good or service for which they sacrifice the least to make. But, what to do when a nation employs unfair trade practices like subsidizing their exports to make them cheaper and adding duties to imports to make them more expensive?

My Sources and Resources: A wonderful podcast and post from Freakonomics was the source of my chicken feet facts while you can look directly at The Economist’s Sinodependency chart, their article and a link to the math behind the Index here. For more on the current trade dispute in the World Trade Organization (WTO), here is one article from Bloomberg. And here, this EconLife post presents more on a past trade dispute with China that involved chicken paws and is the source of 2 sentences in this entry.

Trade Dependency on China From the Economist

135 Firms From S&P 500: Revenue From China from the Economist

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Golf_human capital formation...000019059879XSmall

Has the value of a woman changed at Augusta National Golf Club?

Samuel Palmisano, Louis Gerstner and John Akers are former IBM CEOs with Augusta National Golf Club green blazers. Until now,  the CEOs of all major corporate sponsors of the Masters at Augusta were given club membership and the member’s green jacket.

Until now?

While the CEOs of the other 2 major sponsors, AT & T and Exxon Mobil, are expected to be wearing their green blazers, the new head of IBM will not. The reason? Virginia Rometty is the new CEO of IBM. Since it was founded close to 80 years ago, the club has refused to accept women.

Augusta’s policy started me thinking about the changing “value” of women. In The Price of Everything, Eduardo Porter says that as women increasingly entered the labor force, American society profoundly changed. One cause of the change was the new price of women’s labor. Once women worked outside the home, they became more “valuable.”

Our bottom line: Everywhere, as female labor force participation rates increased, labor markets, marriage “markets,” maybe even exclusive club memberships have been transformed by the changing “value” of women.

My sources: This Bloomberg article, the IBM website for CEO info, The Price of Everything by Eduardo Porter and The Essence of Becker.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

16430_3.19_000010421717XSmall

Imagine the challenge of implementing the first Social Security system in 1937. 27 million employees and their employers had to be taxed. The basic idea was to collect the money and then redistribute it to current retirees. So everyone got an ID number. However, there were no computers. How to process so huge a quantity of data? The best that existed was the punched card tabulating machine.

This is where IBM enters the picture. The U.S. government used IBM’s data processing tabulator equipment and knowhow to implement the system.

Processing data, IBM evolved during 100 years. Described by The Economist, they, moved from punch card tabulators to magnetic tape systems, mainframe computers, PCs, and now, business services and consulting.

Their accomplishment is unusual. Many firms stick with the people, the organization, the equipment, the supply network that fuels their success. As a result, newcomers with better ideas replace them. The Economist says that because IBM adhered to a flexible concept–data processing for businesses and government–they could innovate, survive and thrive.

The Economic Lesson

Economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) tells us that innovation leads to a “paradox of progress” that he called “creative destruction. The word to associate with Schumpeter is entrepreneur. For Schumpeter, the entrepreneur is the innovator whom we find in small and large businesses. Increasingly, though, bureaucracy takes over and kills creativity. As a result, new firms replace outdated industries. (In this Teaching Company/History of Economic Thought course from Dr. Timothy Taylor, Lecture 8 on Schumpeter is excellent.)

It is surprising that IBM was not eliminated by creative destruction.

An Economic Question: Predicting that they will exist in 100 years, The Economist names Apple and Amazon as firms that will avoid creative destruction. Do you agree?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Uncertainty can slow economic growth.

Playing against Jeopardy champs Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter, Watson, the IBM computer won.

Imagine three podiums. One is labeled Ken, the middle one Watson, and the third one, Brad. IBM assured everyone that Watson had no internet access and all three players had to use their mechanical buzzers. Host Alex Trebek ran the game as he always had. Categories? For this round the contestants could choose from: Literary Character APB, Beatles Names, Olympic Oddities, Name the Decade, Final Frontiers, Alternate Meanings.

The game soon revealed Watson’s strengths:

Memory: Having “gobbled” up information from books, movie scripts, encyclopedias, dictionaries, countless sources, Watson knew it all and won’t forget anything.

Reaction time: Watson was fast. (And he was programmed to buzz only when he had the answer while the humans sometimes buzzed just before they thought of it.)

Decision-making: With wagering a part of the game, Watson had to decide what to bet. He had sufficient information about the facts and past games to know how much would be appropriate.

You might enjoy this TED talk about Watson.

The Economic Lesson

With countless business, medical, and consumer applications where Watson’s skills are valuable, “he” can affect all of us.  Physicians, for example, could consult Watson for speedy medical diagnoses that could include a “confidence” number indicating whether the statistics are convincing.

As economists, Watson takes us to spillovers and positive externalities.  Originally involving 2 entities, Watson’s impact will ripple outward to benefit many.

So really, everyone, not just Watson, has won.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment