Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube

Macro Roundup

  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
Select topics to choose: articles that mention them (broader) or articles mainly about them (focused)
  • Mentions 0
  • Primary focus 0
Showing all 7,294 Macro Roundup articles
When you search for any topic (like GDP, Inflation, or Banking), choose:
Choose search scope

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Driverless cars inspire a new gold rush in California

AI Summary. Investment in driverless cars reached an all-time high of $750m in a single quarter, with automakers making large acquisitions including General Motors' $1bn purchase of Cruise and Uber's $680m purchase of Otto. The business model remains unclear, and the industry faces regulatory hurdles and talent shortages.

Leslie Hook Financial Times
Date Posted:
May 24, 2017
Is Database:
Database

Auto companies will be winners from driverless cars due to capital & know-how to build service fleets, says @LeslieHook in the Financial Times.

Auto companies will be winners from driverless cars due to capital & know-how to build service fleets, says @LeslieHook...

Is record investment in driverless cars outpacing a clear business model?

Core argument: Investment in the driverless car industry reached an all-time high of $750m in the first quarter, with Ford and GM investing heavily as they view autonomous vehicles as both a threat and an opportunity.

The driverless car industry is experiencing rapid growth, with investment reaching an all-time high of $750m in Q1. Major automakers like Ford and GM are investing heavily, viewing autonomous vehicles as both a threat and an opportunity. This has led to significant acquisitions, such as GM's $1bn purchase of Cruise and Uber's $680m acquisition of Otto. Despite the hype, the business model remains unclear, and the industry faces challenges like regulatory hurdles and talent shortages. However, the potential for disruption in the multitrillion-dollar transportation sector is immense, positioning auto companies to leverage their capital and expertise to build service fleets, ultimately emerging as winners in the driverless car revolution.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Investment in the driverless car industry reached an all-time high of $750m in the first quarter, with Ford and GM investing heavily as they view autonomous vehicles as both a threat and an opportunity.
  2. GM's $1bn purchase of Cruise and Uber's $680m acquisition of Otto rank among the significant acquisitions in the autonomous vehicle sector.
  3. The business model for driverless cars remains unclear and the industry faces regulatory hurdles and talent shortages, even as the multitrillion-dollar transportation sector stands open to disruption.

Leslie Hook and Tim Bradshaw, "Driverless cars inspire a new gold rush in California," Financial Times, May 24, 2017, https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url

Driverless cars inspire a new gold rush in California

It is a breezy spring day in Willows, California, and a motley collection of cars is preparing to take on the winding course at the Thunderhill Raceway. But unlike most auto races, this isn’t a test of the skill of the person sitting behind the wheel. These cars are driving themselves. The entrants in the Self Racing Cars challenge range from navigation technology start-ups and component suppliers to budding software companies and students. In a narrow sense, the race is a failure: after two days of practice, most teams never manage to make it around the course fully autonomously. Still, there is electricity in the air. Programmers buzzing from energy drinks make tweaks to their codes while investors stroll in the parking lot to check on their companies. Self-driving cars are the hottest thing in Silicon Valley, and this race is a way for the smallest, boldest start-ups to show their stuff. “You are seeing a Cambrian explosion of different possibilities, as each different start-up explores a slightly different space or path through the problem,” says organiser and investor Joshua Schachter, boldly comparing the proliferation of driverless car start-ups with the appearance of complex animals on earth. Last year there were just three entrants in the race. This year, there are 10 — just one indicator of the youth and the rapid growth of the driverless sector. Entrepreneurs and investors are rushing to cash in on a trend that has already made several fortunes, and autonomous vehicle start-ups seem to pop up almost every day. Investment in the sector reached an all-time high of $750m in the first quarter of this year, according to CB Insights.

But even enthusiasts are beginning to worry that the sector might be overhyped. Carl Bass, one of the competitors in last month’s race and a Silicon Valley veteran, is among them.“There is such a crazy thing going on in the market right now around autonomous vehicles,” he says as he hops into his self-driving go-kart. “It is kind of like if you can spell ‘self-driving’ you can sell it for a billion dollars.”Yet it is not just Silicon Valley money pouring in. The world’s top automakers such as Ford and General Motors have joined Google’s parent Alphabet, Uber and other tech companies in funding research for self-driving technology. For the automakers, autonomous vehicles pose an existential threat. Instead of owning cars, consumers in the driverless age will simply summon a robotic transportation service to their door. One venture capitalist says auto executives have come to him saying they know they are “screwed”, but just want to know when it will happen. This desperation has prompted a string of big acquisitions, which in turn has fuelled the hopes of the fortune-seekers in Silicon Valley. Last year GM paid $1bn for Cruise, a self-driving car start-up, while Uber paid $680m for Otto, an autonomous trucking company that was less than a year old. In March Intel spent $15bn to buy Israel’s Mobileye, which makes self-driving sensors and software.

As in past tech hype cycles, the business model for driverless cars is not clear, nor is the timeline for how long it could take the market to develop. At the moment, driverless cars have nearly mastered highway driving but still struggle in complex urban environments, and there are huge legal and regulatory questions to be worked out. But such details do little to diminish the promise of the technology, say entrepreneurs and investors in the sector. “This is going to be earth-shattering for the industry,” says Sebastian Thrun, one of the pioneers of self-driving cars at Google. “Transportation is a multitrillion dollar industry. I would argue that, given the potential of this technology, we are under-hyping it.”Other driverless tech evangelists echo this view. “This is almost like something that should be a mission of the human species, instead of a company,” says James Wu, chief executive of mapping start-up DeepMap. “It can benefit everybody and save lives.”In the near term, one of the biggest challenges for the sector is a severe talent shortage. People with expertise are in high demand, giving them extraordinary leverage. Instead of taking a job with a salary, they launch start-ups, then sell out to a company that wants to hire them. This lucrative route has come to be known as the “acqui-hire”.

The purchase prices of recent acquisitions work out to “roughly a $10m price tag per person,” says Mr Thrun, who is often referred to as the godfather of self-driving cars. “It is a lot of money.” He hopes the price tag will fall as more engineers gain the necessary skills, noting that the self-driving car seminar he co teaches at Udacity has had more than 25,000 applicants. The most controversial acqui-hire was when Uber snatched up a small trucking start-up, Otto, founded by Anthony Levandowski, a former Google engineer. Mr Levandowski was an early member of Google’s self-driving team, now known as Waymo, earning more than $120m in bonuses for his work.But outside Waymo he was worth even more. Mr Levandowski started discussions with Uber before leaving Waymo; when he founded Otto, it was purchased by Uber for $680m in equity in just six months. (The events that surround Mr Levandowski’s departure are the subject of a lawsuit, which alleges that Uber infringed on Waymo patents and stole trade secrets. Uber has denied wrongdoing).With headline deals like these, investors such as Amy Gu, a partner at venture capital firm Hemi Ventures, fear that the sector may be attracting the wrong type of entrepreneur. “I think a lot of people are attracted to the industry purely by the capital that is flowing in, instead of by their desire to figure out this problem,” she says. While she is still investing in autonomous start-ups, she says she seeks companies that have a revenue model rather than just an exit strategy. Self-driving engineers say the frenzy has complicated life for them too — and poses risks in terms of safety and reputation. US regulators have so far been fairly permissive about testing autonomous vehicles, but many worry that one terrible accident by an overambitious start-up would quickly change the environment. Testing of autonomous vehicles is already legal in more than a dozen states, and federal guidelines were issued last year.

Some of these start-ups operate in a kind of paranoid secrecy, so that their competitors do not know what they are doing, or even who works for them.Zoox, based in Menlo Park in the San Francisco Bay area, has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in venture funding without ever showing its technology or its “robo taxi” design in public. David Liu, founder of self-driving start-up PlusAI, says he has seen rivals try to draw new employees with the promise of a quick acquisition. “You have a couple of guys who worked in Tesla or Apple or Google before, they start a company and expect to be sold in six months,” he explains.This mindset is often accompanied by unfounded marketing claims that, he worries, could damage the credibility of the entire industry.***Automobiles are a heavily regulated industry, and carmakers in Detroit often speak a different language to entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. Established carmakers are terrified of missing out, but also afraid of damaging their brands by moving too quickly. Start-ups, in turn, can be overly dismissive of the carmakers’ expertise.

A widespread assumption is that as autonomous vehicles become accepted, people will stop buying cars altogether and instead use autonomous transportation fleets that they can summon by smartphone. In the tech world, there are three main contenders working on services like these: Waymo, Uber and Tesla. Tesla has already been pushing the boundaries with intelligent driving assistance in its cars. Waymo and Uber are testing robo-taxis, albeit with a human still sitting in the driver’s seat.It is unclear where the clutch of new autonomous vehicle start-ups will fit in. With no path to the consumer, most are not able to generate revenue, and some are struggling. Several engineers specialising in artificial intelligence, an area that is core to autonomous driving, told the Financial Times they had recently left the sector because of doubts about its viability. “In the actual gold rush, you knew there was gold out there somewhere, and people were able to mine it,” says Josh Hartung, chief executive of Poly-Sync, which makes software for autonomous vehicles.

In the autonomous gold rush, it’s less obvious whether there is any gold there, he says. “There is effectively zero revenue that is being produced by this industry,” he points out. “You’ve got this massive, multi-billion-dollar science project, that’s basically on VC life support, until such a time as somebody ships and makes money.”Even when self-driving technology becomes ready, regulation, public acceptance and developing a viable business model will form barriers to widespread implementation. “I think people have underestimated some of the forces that will resist driverless vehicles,” says Mr Bass. At a time when many politicians are obsessed with saving jobs from robots, a technology that is poised to put millions of drivers out of work has plenty of natural enemies. “Silicon Valley may have underestimated the Teamsters,” he says, referring to the powerful labour union.

Such worries seem almost beside the point at the Self Racing Cars competition. Several attendees compare the race with the Homebrew Computer Club, the hobbyist group where Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak first came up with their version of the personal computer. Like the advent of the PC, the prize here is potentially vast, promising to revolutionise the way people and goods are transported. “Everybody’s big dream is, I want to be the next million-dollar or billion-dollar, start-up,” says Anthony Navarro, head of the student self-driving car team from Udacity, which had just six weeks to develop the software for itsautonomous car. “There’s opportunities to be your own CEO.”As the sun starts to hang low in the sky at the racetrack, Mr Navarro and other students gather for a pep talk from George Hotz, 27, the founder ofself-driving software start-up Comma.ai. Although they are bleary-eyed from all-night coding sessions, they listen intently. As he addresses the group, it is the words on Mr Hotz’s T-shirt that seem to say it all: “We are gonna be so rich,” reads the slogan on the back, alongside his company logo.

Steve Comment: the legal aspects are really hard. no easy answer to the trolley problem

Anand Comment: Conversation over bourbon in Ed’s office I agree with the caveat that there could be potential network benefits - is this a winner take all scenario or are the systems open enough? Also, I am sure it is NOT a commodity…wait till a “junior miner” kills an innocent bystander and apple’s car doesn’t. this is not copper! Why do we use waze and not some other mapping technology? Also, maintenance costs are down dramatically in a EV world, see figure 7 of attached report (nobody talks about combining IC gas engines with autonomous driving even though you can). The three elements autonomous, EV and uber type sharing arrangements are the “combined” holy grail.

Steve Comment: Agree with Ed, Though my understanding is street mapping is really expensive, one reason why google has such a lead. Also ultimately the self driving car software is just a commodity, basic price for entry

Ed Comment: Can't the technology for controlling the car be independent of the tech that allows you to use your time in the car? I don't see how one gives an advantage in the other, unless street mapping is prohibitive expensive, which seems doubtful. My guess is that producing self driving cars (and or maintaining the fleet) will produce similar poor returns for producing cars today because there are no customer switching costs from buying / using a different car.

Anand Comment: We should talk about this live. Cant type so much....you are missing the bigger picture, I think

Steve Comment: suppose interactive entertainment (Snapchat or whatever) can now compete with passive entertainment (talk radio or whatever) but I don't see it has a giant business opportunity, look at fatality rates. people are already texting as they drive, Apple radio is already here...

Anand Comment: in a very different way!! you cant play with your phone while driving -- you can listen to Howard Stern!! people want to play with there phones and do VR and all sorts of nonsense!

Steve Comment: "...apple/google/fb etc will invest in autonomous simply because they want to “monetize your time” while you are not driving..." that "600 billion hours" has already been monetized by Howard Stern over 40 years ago!

Driverless cars inspire a new gold rush in California (FT)

"...In the autonomous gold rush, it’s less obvious whether there is any gold there, he says. “There is effectively zero revenue that is being produced by this industry,” he points out. “You’ve got this massive, multi-billion-dollar science project, that’s basically on VC life support, until such a time as somebody ships and makes money.”..."

Steve Commen: reminded me of this chart from Grants. transition to car and truck from horse and mule was essentially completed in 25 years. The Ford Motor Co. was incorporated in 1903. It was during the Coolidge presidency— at about the time of Lindbergh’s solo flight across the Atlantic—that American automobiles finally outnumbered American horses and mules. Would also add that I'm still hard pressed to find the productivity improvements here, if Uber gets rid of drivers they then have to take on the fleet maintenance, they become a car rental company.

Source: "Sacred cows in the Road,"Grants Interest Rate Observer, April 21, 2017

Anand Comment: Too early to call Easier to identify extremes -- winners (e.g., lithium plays like ALB - not unrecognized by the market) and clear losers (guys who supply powertrain/turbochargers - e.g., continental/valeo/borg warner) Too tough to say whethe OE’s can do this….think about this, apple/google/fb etc will invest in autonomous simply because they want to “monetize your time” while you are not driving. By some estimates, there are 600 billion hours of wasted time spent driving in the US alone per year - aapl/goog/fb etc can somehow (not sure how) monetize that…..how will ford and GM monetize it? This is the reason why folks say if whatsapp was worth $20billion+ to fb, tesla can easily be worth $100b+ based simply on the value of monetizing the hours spent driving. The real cash to be made is NOT on making the vehicle (which is where F and Gm are going as are BMW/Mercedes etc) but figuring out the real value of your time! e.g., when I take uber from the gym to home, I now have time (a few extra minutes) to get on whatsapp. Uber discounted the ride so much that I take them rather than walk or take a cab - similar logic to this autonomous stuff Happy to chat on this - been doing a lot of work on it. Easy enough to make money over next 5 years buying lithium and shorting powertrain/turbocharger guys!!

Ed Comment: You sent me an article that persuaded me that the auto companies will be the winners because everyone else will need an enormous amount of capital and know-how to build and service the fleet. Don't see UBER or Google surmounted that. Perhaps Google could, but the returns have been poor.

  • Startups
  • GDP
    • Financial Markets
  • Productivity
    • Innovation/Research
    • Investment

Thursday, May 25, 2017

President Trump’s Full FY 2018 Budget

AI Summary. A presidential budget proposal outlines $3.6tn in deficit reduction, including $1.5tn in unspecified discretionary cuts and $2.8tn in net mandatory cuts, while cutting revenue by $1tn largely through repealing the Affordable Care Act. Its projected balanced budget by 2027 relies on optimistic growth assumptions contributing $2.7tn in debt reduction.

CRFB Staff Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Date Posted:
May 25, 2017
Is Database:
Database

President Trump’s FY 2018 budget proposes $3.6tn in deficit reduction, including $1.5tn from unspecified discretionary cuts & $2.8tn in net mandatory cuts, while reducing revenue by $1tn.

Does the proposed budget's path to balance rest on optimistic growth assumptions?

Core argument: President Trump's FY 2018 budget proposes $3.6tn in deficit reduction, including $1.5tn from unspecified discretionary cuts and $2.8tn in net mandatory cuts, while reducing revenue by $1tn, mainly from repealing the ACA.

President Trump's FY 2018 budget proposes $3.6tn in deficit reduction, including $1.5tn from unspecified discretionary cuts and $2.8tn in net mandatory cuts, while reducing revenue by $1tn, mainly from repealing the ACA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projects debt reduction from 77% of GDP ($14.8tn) to 60% of GDP ($18.6tn) by 2027, with a balanced budget by 2027, down from a 3.1% GDP deficit ($603bn) in 2017. Spending is projected to decrease from 21.2% of GDP ($4.1tn) to 18.4% of GDP ($5.7tn), while revenue is expected to grow from 18.1% of GDP ($3.5tn) to 18.4% of GDP ($5.7tn) by 2027. However, these estimates rely on optimistic economic projections, contributing $2.7tn to debt reduction, and assume deep unspecified non-defense discretionary cuts, with no details on the tax plan, suggesting potential instability in achieving these targets.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. President Trump's FY 2018 budget proposes $3.6tn in deficit reduction, including $1.5tn from unspecified discretionary cuts and $2.8tn in net mandatory cuts, while reducing revenue by $1tn, mainly from repealing the ACA.
  2. The Office of Management and Budget projects debt falling from 77% of GDP ($14.8tn) to 60% of GDP ($18.6tn) and a balanced budget by 2027, compared with a 3.1% of GDP deficit ($603bn) in 2017.
  3. The budget's targets rely on optimistic economic projections contributing $2.7tn to debt reduction, deep unspecified non-defense discretionary cuts, and a tax plan for which no details are provided.

“…The budget proposes about $3.6 trillion of deficit reduction, including $1.5 trillion from largely unspecified discretionary cuts, $2.8 trillion in net mandatory cuts, $1 trillion less in revenue - mainly from repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - and $300 billion in interest savings….According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the budget would reduce debt from 77 percent of Gross Domestic Product ($14.8 trillion) today to 60 percent of GDP ($18.6 trillion) by 2027….OMB also estimates the budget will balance by 2027, down from a deficit of 3.1 percent of GDP ($603 billion) in 2017….To achieve balance, the budget projects spending will shrink from 21.2 percent of GDP ($4.1 trillion) today to 18.4 percent of GDP ($5.7 trillion) by 2027 and revenue will grow from 18.1 percent of GDP ($3.5 trillion) today to 18.4 percent ($5.7 trillion) of GDP by 2027…..The estimates in the President’s budget are based on overly optimistic economic projections, which we recently estimated are responsible for $2.7 trillion of debt reduction. Using the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) growth numbers, we found debt under the budget would likely remain stable, and deficits would remain above 2 percent of GDP…..The budget also relies on a number of unrealistic policy assumptions by assuming deep unspecified non-defense discretionary spending cuts and omitting any details on the President’s potentially costly tax plan….”

CRFB Staff, “President Trump’s Full FY 2018 Budget,” Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget, May 24, 2017, https://www.crfb.org/papers/president-trumps-full-fy-2018-budget

  • Government Spending
  • Comparisons
    • Historical
    • Other Comparison
  • Fiscal Policy
    • Fiscal Deficits
    • Taxation


Loading More Posts

End of content

No more pages to load

© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms