链典4矮降贸多大 高级商务英语阅读 Supplementary Readings for Chapter 2 The New Economy (1) Did Someone Say 'New Economy'? By Scott Patterson June16,2004 LAST WEEK'S NEWS that a border collie named Rico has a vocabulary topping 200 words was intriguing,and a little strange.But rest assured-Rico isn't ready to compete for your accounting job just yet(there's a guy in India ready to do that).Dogs are a long way from understanding math, much less the complex economic theories found in books such as Roger Alcaly's "The New Economy:And What It Means for America's Future,"which just came out in paperback.That's too bad for Rico,because "The New Economy"is a surprisingly insightful,optimistic primer on the powerful economic forces transforming the world today.(The hardcover version was published in 2003.) First,a note on the title."New economy"is a much-maligned catchphrase from the dot-com bubble that basically meant we were all going to get rich by buying shares of Pets.com.Alcaly,a former senior economist with the Federal Reserve and manager of equity investments for Mount Lucas Management,a New Jersey investment firm,is aware of the negative connotations of the phrase, and that's one of the reasons he chose it. "The title was intended to be a little ironic,"says Alcaly,"because in the late 1990s,when the bubble was inflating in tech stocks and particularly dot-com stocks,everybody justified the bubble by saying that this was a new economy."What people have forgotten after the collapse of the bubble and the recession of 2001-02,he says,is that there was a kernel of truth to the concept of a new economic model."There was a change in the way the economy did business,in the way companies are organized and in the flexibility and coordination of financial markets,"he says. 第1页共13页
高级商务英语阅读 Supplementary Readings for Chapter 2 The New Economy (1) Did Someone Say 'New Economy'? By Scott Patterson June 16, 2004 LAST WEEK'S NEWS that a border collie named Rico has a vocabulary topping 200 words was intriguing, and a little strange. But rest assured — Rico isn't ready to compete for your accounting job just yet (there's a guy in India ready to do that). Dogs are a long way from understanding math, much less the complex economic theories found in books such as Roger Alcaly's "The New Economy: And What It Means for America's Future," which just came out in paperback. That's too bad for Rico, because "The New Economy" is a surprisingly insightful, optimistic primer on the powerful economic forces transforming the world today. (The hardcover version was published in 2003.) First, a note on the title. "New economy" is a much-maligned catchphrase from the dot-com bubble that basically meant we were all going to get rich by buying shares of Pets.com. Alcaly, a former senior economist with the Federal Reserve and manager of equity investments for Mount Lucas Management, a New Jersey investment firm, is aware of the negative connotations of the phrase, and that's one of the reasons he chose it. "The title was intended to be a little ironic," says Alcaly, "because in the late 1990s, when the bubble was inflating in tech stocks and particularly dot-com stocks, everybody justified the bubble by saying that this was a new economy." What people have forgotten after the collapse of the bubble and the recession of 2001-02, he says, is that there was a kernel of truth to the concept of a new economic model. "There was a change in the way the economy did business, in the way companies are organized and in the flexibility and coordination of financial markets," he says. 第 1 页 共 13 页
链男牛经海食多大 高级商务英语阅读 Alcaly focuses on productivity growth as the primary indicator that things have indeed changed. The widespread adaptation of information technologies throughout the U.S.economy has led to a surge in productivity in recent years,a trend he says will be sustainable for a generation. SmartMoney.com asked Alcaly for his insights on how the economy is changing,which companies epitomize the business model of the future and whether or not he agrees with the phrase"greed is good." SmartMoney.com:You present a pretty optimistic view of the future.After all we've been through in the past few years-the dot-com crash,Sept.11,the war in Iraq-have you encountered a lot of resistance to your argument that we're in a sustained,long-term period of growth and prosperity? Roger Alcaly:Absolutely.My book couldn't have been published at a worse time in terms of receptiveness.Obviously the period we've been through hasn't been pleasant.But what I'm talking about in the book is a longer-term view.It's clear that the short-term effects of the crash and all the complications that have resulted from the terrorists and the war in Iraq have been bad for the economy.But it doesn't in my view interrupt this incredibly robust long-term growth prospect because of the way the economy has changed over the course of the last 20 years,or even longer. That's the big point. SM:Most people equate "new economy"with the dot-com bubble hype that we were entering a period that transcended business cycles.How does your concept of today's new economy differ from that? RA:The title was intended to be a little ironic,because in the late 1990s,when the bubble was inflating in tech stocks and particularly dot-com stocks,everybody justified the bubble by saying that this was a new economy.There were some pretty crazy ideas about what that meant-the business cycle was obsolete and stocks always go up-and that was nuts.What I tried to do,and I think people haven't been willing to look at it clearly,was say that,yes,all that was crazy,and the 第2页共13页
高级商务英语阅读 Alcaly focuses on productivity growth as the primary indicator that things have indeed changed. The widespread adaptation of information technologies throughout the U.S. economy has led to a surge in productivity in recent years, a trend he says will be sustainable for a generation. SmartMoney.com asked Alcaly for his insights on how the economy is changing, which companies epitomize the business model of the future and whether or not he agrees with the phrase "greed is good." SmartMoney.com: You present a pretty optimistic view of the future. After all we've been through in the past few years — the dot-com crash, Sept. 11, the war in Iraq — have you encountered a lot of resistance to your argument that we're in a sustained, long-term period of growth and prosperity? Roger Alcaly: Absolutely. My book couldn't have been published at a worse time in terms of receptiveness. Obviously the period we've been through hasn't been pleasant. But what I'm talking about in the book is a longer-term view. It's clear that the short-term effects of the crash and all the complications that have resulted from the terrorists and the war in Iraq have been bad for the economy. But it doesn't in my view interrupt this incredibly robust long-term growth prospect because of the way the economy has changed over the course of the last 20 years, or even longer. That's the big point. SM: Most people equate "new economy" with the dot-com bubble hype that we were entering a period that transcended business cycles. How does your concept of today's new economy differ from that? RA: The title was intended to be a little ironic, because in the late 1990s, when the bubble was inflating in tech stocks and particularly dot-com stocks, everybody justified the bubble by saying that this was a new economy. There were some pretty crazy ideas about what that meant — the business cycle was obsolete and stocks always go up — and that was nuts. What I tried to do, and I think people haven't been willing to look at it clearly, was say that, yes, all that was crazy, and the 第 2 页 共 13 页
碰男华经海贸多大号 高级商务英语阅读 bubble was bound to collapse with a lot of collateral damage,but there was something more important going on that will have a huge impact and that will last for a least a generation.There was a change in the way the economy did business.in the way companies are organized and in the flexibility and coordination of financial markets.All of that,combined with the way companies changed their methods of operating,has produced a change in the rate of productivity. SM:You say productivity growth is the best measurement of an economy.Why so? RA:It's the only standard that makes sense,and it's an incredibly powerful one.The important thing [to consider]with productivity growth isn't the short-term movement-it's the long-term trend. What I try to argue is that,whereas productivity had been growing from the early 1970s to the mid-'90s at about 1 1/2%a year,it has subsequently grown twice as rapidly.And I think the rate that is sustainable for the long term-and by that I mean by about a generation-barring external catastrophes that nobody can predict,is about 3%a year.That has incredibly important implications for the economy and for standards of living. SM:What has been the biggest factor in contributing to the growth in productivity that started in the mid-1990s? RA:It appeared in the 1990s,but it was the result of things that had been developing for at least 10 to 20 years before that.It was new technologies in the information and communications industries based on microelectronics and fiber optics.Of equal importance was the way that companies reorganized themselves to take advantage of those new technologies. SM:One of the poster children of the new economy,you say,is Dell Computer(DELL).How does Dell exemplify the new business model? RA:Yes,the prototype of a new economy model is Dell,which really is a middleman between suppliers and customers.A lot of their [computer monitor]screens are made in Mexico.The computer is assembled at other factories.The only time it comes together is when you assemble it at home.I tried to show in the book how this pattern is historic,how the economy periodically goes 第3页共13页
高级商务英语阅读 bubble was bound to collapse with a lot of collateral damage, but there was something more important going on that will have a huge impact and that will last for a least a generation. There was a change in the way the economy did business, in the way companies are organized and in the flexibility and coordination of financial markets. All of that, combined with the way companies changed their methods of operating, has produced a change in the rate of productivity. SM: You say productivity growth is the best measurement of an economy. Why so? RA: It's the only standard that makes sense, and it's an incredibly powerful one. The important thing [to consider] with productivity growth isn't the short-term movement — it's the long-term trend. What I try to argue is that, whereas productivity had been growing from the early 1970s to the mid-'90s at about 1 1/2% a year, it has subsequently grown twice as rapidly. And I think the rate that is sustainable for the long term — and by that I mean by about a generation — barring external catastrophes that nobody can predict, is about 3% a year. That has incredibly important implications for the economy and for standards of living. SM: What has been the biggest factor in contributing to the growth in productivity that started in the mid-1990s? RA: It appeared in the 1990s, but it was the result of things that had been developing for at least 10 to 20 years before that. It was new technologies in the information and communications industries based on microelectronics and fiber optics. Of equal importance was the way that companies reorganized themselves to take advantage of those new technologies. SM: One of the poster children of the new economy, you say, is Dell Computer (DELL). How does Dell exemplify the new business model? RA: Yes, the prototype of a new economy model is Dell, which really is a middleman between suppliers and customers. A lot of their [computer monitor] screens are made in Mexico. The computer is assembled at other factories. The only time it comes together is when you assemble it at home. I tried to show in the book how this pattern is historic, how the economy periodically goes 第 3 页 共 13 页
莲类4将发多大号 高级商务英语阅读 through these sort of great leaps forward.They are always a combination of a new technology that has incredibly broad applicability and the development of a business model that can exploit that new technology.There have been only three or four of these things in the last 200 years.The first was the industrial revolution,which was based on steam power and a shift to factory production. The second was at the turn of the 20th century,which was based on electric power and the development of the mass production model by Henry Ford.And now we have this information-technology revolution were seeing today. SM:You also point to Wal-Mart(WMT)as a model new-economy company. RA:Right,they were one of the pioneers in adapting information technologies to make their business more efficient.They also redesigned their whole distribution system.They built these massive stores,and to service groups of them they had their own distribution centers.They took over the supply function basically,and coordinated with the most advanced information systems. They were pioneers with all the information scanners.Now they're moving on to the radio-frequency tracking system,which I guess is the next big thing.And that's sort of the fundamental point.It's their use of technology-the technology is an enabling device SM:You argue that only during the last few years have we seen the information-technology revolution adding to productivity.To quote one of your chapter headings,"Why did it take so long?" RA:When you look at the gestation period with the development and utilization of electricity,it was very long,just as it was in our case.The transistor was invented in 1947,and we didn't get personal computers until the early 1980s.And we didn't learn how to use them effectively until the mid-'90s.That's when it started showing up in the data.There's a very interesting analogy between the phase in of electric power and the phase in of microelectronics.The first electricity generating plant was in Manhattan,which was set up in 1882.But productivity didn't begin to surge until after World War I.The reasons for that were similar to the reason why it took so long for computers to have a big impact on the economy.It took time for electric power to be widely distributed,and companies had to bring electric power into their factories,which had been built to utilize steam 第4页共13页
高级商务英语阅读 through these sort of great leaps forward. They are always a combination of a new technology that has incredibly broad applicability and the development of a business model that can exploit that new technology. There have been only three or four of these things in the last 200 years. The first was the industrial revolution, which was based on steam power and a shift to factory production. The second was at the turn of the 20th century, which was based on electric power and the development of the mass production model by Henry Ford. And now we have this information-technology revolution were seeing today. SM: You also point to Wal-Mart (WMT) as a model new-economy company. RA: Right, they were one of the pioneers in adapting information technologies to make their business more efficient. They also redesigned their whole distribution system. They built these massive stores, and to service groups of them they had their own distribution centers. They took over the supply function basically, and coordinated with the most advanced information systems. They were pioneers with all the information scanners. Now they're moving on to the radio-frequency tracking system, which I guess is the next big thing. And that's sort of the fundamental point. It's their use of technology — the technology is an enabling device. SM: You argue that only during the last few years have we seen the information-technology revolution adding to productivity. To quote one of your chapter headings, "Why did it take so long?" RA: When you look at the gestation period with the development and utilization of electricity, it was very long, just as it was in our case. The transistor was invented in 1947, and we didn't get personal computers until the early 1980s. And we didn't learn how to use them effectively until the mid-'90s. That's when it started showing up in the data. There's a very interesting analogy between the phase in of electric power and the phase in of microelectronics. The first electricity generating plant was in Manhattan, which was set up in 1882. But productivity didn't begin to surge until after World War I. The reasons for that were similar to the reason why it took so long for computers to have a big impact on the economy. It took time for electric power to be widely distributed, and companies had to bring electric power into their factories, which had been built to utilize steam 第 4 页 共 13 页
喇牛煙将多大是 高级商务英语阅读 power.And when companies first started bringing electric power into their plants,they didn't do away with steam power initially because there was a lot of uncertainty.So for a while they had both going,just as we first were using paper records even as we were integrating computers.So you had duplicate activities going on,and that initially depressed productivity. SM:One of the more intriguing arguments you make is that the leveraged-buyout wave of the 1980s and the rise of the junk-bond market helped improve economic efficiency.But many people see that as the time of Gordon Gecko's"greed is good." RA:Exactly.There are two points I'd make.Most things are multifaceted.Good things that work often get pushed to far.We just saw that with the bubble in the 1990s.People got carried away. You had the similar kinds of corporate manipulations that went on in the 1980s.What happened was that the 1950s and '60s was the culmination of an electric-power revolution.The limitations of that old model became apparent in the '70s,which was compounded by the oil-price shocks.At that point,a lot of U.S.companies had become so fat and bureaucratic and lazy that their market positions were being eroded,by the Japanese in particular.They began to change from the competitive threat by the Japanese,and that got carried further in the '80s by the hostile-takeover and leveraged-buyout phenomena,which I view as part of the process of the dismantling of these ineffective organizations whose valuable assets could be redeployed elsewhere.The buyout firms and the hostile corporate raiders were taking the companies they were acquiring and selling off the pieces to other companies in the same industries that could integrate them and improve their efficiency. (2) The New Economy Was a Myth,Right? By James Surowiecki The new economy of the late 1990s was an invention of the media and Wall Street."So writes Jeff Madrick in a paper recently published by Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.As Madrick sees it,the "new economy"was an ill-defined concept used to justify a stock market bubble. Proponents exaggerated changes in the American economy,overestimated the benefits of 第5页共13页
高级商务英语阅读 power. And when companies first started bringing electric power into their plants, they didn't do away with steam power initially because there was a lot of uncertainty. So for a while they had both going, just as we first were using paper records even as we were integrating computers. So you had duplicate activities going on, and that initially depressed productivity. SM: One of the more intriguing arguments you make is that the leveraged-buyout wave of the 1980s and the rise of the junk-bond market helped improve economic efficiency. But many people see that as the time of Gordon Gecko's "greed is good." RA: Exactly. There are two points I'd make. Most things are multifaceted. Good things that work often get pushed to far. We just saw that with the bubble in the 1990s. People got carried away. You had the similar kinds of corporate manipulations that went on in the 1980s. What happened was that the 1950s and '60s was the culmination of an electric-power revolution. The limitations of that old model became apparent in the '70s, which was compounded by the oil-price shocks. At that point, a lot of U.S. companies had become so fat and bureaucratic and lazy that their market positions were being eroded, by the Japanese in particular. They began to change from the competitive threat by the Japanese, and that got carried further in the '80s by the hostile-takeover and leveraged-buyout phenomena, which I view as part of the process of the dismantling of these ineffective organizations whose valuable assets could be redeployed elsewhere. The buyout firms and the hostile corporate raiders were taking the companies they were acquiring and selling off the pieces to other companies in the same industries that could integrate them and improve their efficiency. (2) The New Economy Was a Myth, Right? By James Surowiecki The new economy of the late 1990s was an invention of the media and Wall Street." So writes Jeff Madrick in a paper recently published by Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. As Madrick sees it, the "new economy" was an ill-defined concept used to justify a stock market bubble. Proponents exaggerated changes in the American economy, overestimated the benefits of 第 5 页 共 13 页