Firma invitada La lógica Trumpista choca con la lógica de la nueva economía–Steven Spear

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Steven Spear

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Steven Spear

From Retina

En las primeras semanas de la Administración Trump, han surgido dos polémicas separadas con asuntos concomitantes. Una es la supuesta protección del suelo estadounidense frente a una amenaza extranjera, en forma de una muy polémica prohibición de los viajes a EE UU de ciudadanos de siete países mayoritariamente musulmanes. La segunda es la intimidación de Trump a los fabricantes para que aumenten la presencia de sus fábricas en Estados Unidos y la reduzcan en el resto de lugares.

Implícitas en ambas cuestiones hay dos visiones claramente diferentes sobre cómo conseguir una seguridad y prosperidad duraderas para EE UU. Una postura es que competimos mediante la localización y la acumulación de cosas: recursos, instalaciones, y el acceso a ellas. La postura alternativa es que una ventaja sostenida depende de la superioridad sostenida en la generación, identificación y aplicación de buenas ideas en un mundo cada vez más globalizado.

Según el primer punto de vista, “transaccional”, la competitividad se apoya en la conservación de la ventaja posicional y mediante la construcción de barreras que eviten que molestos competidores tengan acceso a mercados y clientes a los que uno ya está intentando atender y para evitar que los clientes actuales se marchen a fuentes alternativas de bienes y servicios. Puede que no sea una coincidencia que alguien que construyó su carrera comercial en el sector inmobiliario, caracterizado por el mantra “localización, localización, localización”, tenga esta visión de la competencia.

Read More »

Opinion: MIT-led team is aiming to build a better cryptocurrency – Sandy Pentland

Sandy Pentland, MIT Sloan Information Technology Professor

From MarketWatch

New technologies that make it possible to reinvent our financial system have exploded over the past decade.

Bitcoin BTCUSD, ethereum and other cryptocurrencies are proof that there’s a market for alternatives to the big, powerful players. And yet, it’s unclear how these cryptocurrencies will affect the economic landscape. Problems like bubbles, financial crashes and inflation aren’t going away any time soon. (Ahem, note recent events.)

But in the future, things could be different. These digital currencies and their supporting infrastructure hold great promise for deepening our understanding of the monetary circuit. With newfound clarity, we can build tools for minimizing financial risk; we can also learn to identify and act on early-warning signals, thus improving system stability. In addition, this new level of transparency could broaden participation in the economy and reduce the concentration of wealth.

A crypto alternative

How might this work? Leading cryptocurrencies, with bitcoin being perhaps the most famous, or infamous, example, have considerable logistical limitations. An alternative is needed. Read More »

AI and the productivity paradox – Irving Wladawsky-Berger

MIT Sloan Visiting Lecturer Irving Wladawsky-Berger

MIT Sloan Visiting Lecturer Irving Wladawsky-Berger

From The Wall Street Journal

Artificial intelligence is now applied to tasks that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans, matching or surpassing human level performance. But, at the same time, productivity growth has significantly declined over the past decade, and income has continued to stagnate for the majority of Americans. This puzzling contradiction is addressed in “Artificial Intelligences and the Modern Productivity Paradox,” a working paper recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

As the paper’s authors, MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson, MIT PhD candidate Daniel Rock and University of Chicago professor Chad Syverson, note: “Aggregate labor productivity growth in the U.S. averaged only 1.3% per year from 2005 to 2016, less than half of the 2.8% annual growth rate sustained from 1995 to 2004… What’s more, real median income has stagnated since the late 1990s and non-economic measures of well-being, like life expectancy, have fallen for some groups.”

After considering four potential explanations, the NBER paper concluded that there’s actually no productivity paradox. Given the proper context, there are no inherent inconsistencies between having both transformative technological advances and lagging productivity. Over the past two centuries we’ve learned that there’s generally a significant time lag between the broad acceptance of new technology-based paradigms and the ensuing economic transformation and institutional recomposition. Even after reaching a tipping point of market acceptance, it takes considerable time, often decades, for the new technologies and business models to be widely embraced by companies and industries across the economy, and only then will their benefits follow, including productivity growth. The paper argues that we’re precisely in such an in-between period.

Let me briefly describe the four potential explanations explored in the paper: false hopes, mismeasurements, concentrated distribution, and implementation and restructuring lags.

Read More »

Artificial intelligence and the future of work – Thomas Kochan

MIT Sloan Professor Thomas Kochan

MIT Sloan Professor Thomas Kochan

From InfoTechnology

Artificial intelligence is quickly coming of age and there remain lingering questions about how we will manage this change.

AI will eliminate some jobs, there’s no question, but it will also create some new ones. So the first question we will face as business people, workers and citizens is about balance: are we going to create more jobs than we eliminate or not?

The second and much more fundamental question is: how are we going to proactively manage our AI investments so we can use AI to create new jobs or career opportunities for the future? And how will we make sure those jobs reach out to various sectors of our society increasing our overall wealth and well being and not overly increasing the inequities that already exist in our society.

I believe if we think about it strategically and if we engage more people in the design of AI systems, we’ll be able to make this transition successfully. It will require a proactive strategy. The American public and people all over the world have been shown the negative consequences of not being proactive—take global trade for example. The benefits of global trade have not been widely shared and we are now witnessing the effects of the anger and frustrations this has produced in the movement to more extreme politics and the deeper social divisions laid bare by recent events. We can’t make the same mistake about the future developments of technology.

Read More »

Millennials don’t save for enough retirement, but Congress can help – Robert Pozen

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Robert Pozen

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Robert Pozen

From The Hill

“Young people are not saving enough.”

“They will have to double their savings to retire at a reasonable age.”

These quotes represent the conventional wisdom about our nation’s millennials, the more than 80 million Americans between the ages of 20 and 36. However, the savings picture for millennials has become more complex, according to recent data. This cohort of young people is saving more, though for short-term goals instead of retirement.

To promote retirement savings, Congress should pass the Automatic Individual Retirement Account (IRA) Act, legislation that was introduced in the House in 2015, for millennials and other Americans without a retirement plan at their workplace.

Millennials, especially the younger ones, are now building up their savings to cover emergencies for the first time since the financial crisis. More than 30 percent of Americans ages 18 to 26 have saved enough to cover three to five months of living expenses, according to a survey conducted earlier this year by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

A spokesman for Bankrate.com, the survey’s sponsor, explained, “Millennials have a savings discipline that the preceding generations lacked.” Despite much lower levels of earnings, millennials save on average 19 percent of their annual income, compared to 14 percent for both generation X (those in their late 30s to early 50s) and baby boomers (those in their late 50s to late 60s).

Read More »