The 'new economy' : background, historical perspective, questions, and speculations

In a presentation at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s 2001 symposium, “Economic Policy for the Information Economy,” Professor J. Bradford DeLong of the University of California-Berkeley, and Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers suggested that any attempt to analyze the meaning and importance of the "new economy" must grapple with four questions:> First, in the long run, how important will ongoing technological revolutions in data processing and data communications turn out to be? Second, what does the crash of the Nasdaq tell us about the future of the new economy? Third, how should government regulation of the economy change so as to maximize the benefits we reap from these ongoing technological revolutions? And fourth, how will the American economy respond to the shock to public confidence and the destruction caused by the terror attacks of September 11?> In exploring answers to these questions, the authors found the following: The long-run economic impact of the ongoing technological revolutions in data processing and data communications will be very large indeed. The crash of the Nasdaq tells us next to nothing about the dimensions of the economic transformation that we are undergoing. It does, however, tell us that the new economy is more likely to be a source of downward pressure on margins than of large durable quasi-rents. The principal effects of the "new economy" are more likely to be "microeconomic" than "macroeconomic," and they will lead to profound—if at present unclear—changes in how the government should act to provide the property rights, institutional frameworks, and "rules of the game" that underpin the market economy. And finally, the events of September 11 will slow private investment in new technologies, but U.S. military spending is likely to increase, and the increase in military spending will be concentrated on high-technology data-processing and data-communications products. On balance, therefore, the changes in economic structure that fall under the category “new economy” are not likely to be much affected.

Equipment Investment and Economic Growth: How Strong Is the Nexus?

macroeconomics, Equipment Investment, Economic Growth, Nexus

How Does Macroeconomic Policy Affect Output?

macroeconomics, Macroeconomic Policy, Output

The Field Baler: Operation and Costs

Few farm machines have met with such rapid acceptance as the field baler. Baling machines have been in existence for many years, but were usually considered as a necessary part of the equipment needed to process hay for shipment. It was not likely that the individual farmer thought baling a necessary step in preparing hay for farm consumption. Today, the field baler, with pick-up attachments and self-tying mechanisms, has became a farm tool to process the hay crop to be feel on the farm. The hay baler compresses the product and facilitates its transportation. Loose hay weighs from 4 to 5 pounds per cubic foot, but when baled weighs from 12 to 14 pounds per cubic foot. The held baler also is used in a system of farming operations whereby the hay is cured, baled, and hauled in the summer months to the shipping point or feed yard, thus eliminating the winter hauling problems of former years. Many custom operators make baling possible for individuals who do not own their own machines. At present there are several makes of twine-tie and several brands of wire-tie field balers. Some are driven by power take-off, and others by mounted motors. Following the World War II period, a machine was marketed to make cylindrical bales wrapped with twine. Today this machine is in common use and is of the power-take-off driven type

Electric Light and Power Systems for the Farm

This bulletin deals primarily with the analysis of power systems available for farm usage. Tests were conducted by assessing both gasoline-electric and wind-electric power sources. Cost of operation, service availability, and the current status of power system usage among South Dakota farms were also examined as part of the study

Rammed Earth Walls

Rammed earth construction, as a building process, dates far back into history. The knowledge of how to build with this material was brought to America from Europe. There are records of homes and churches in the eastern United States which were built of rammed earth and have stood for more than 100 years. Rammed earth construction is usually associated with a build it yourself program of construction in which earth, the building material, costs nothing, and in which the owner provides much of the labor of construction. Led by the Department of Agriculture, many of the state agricultural experiment stations of the Great Plains area constructed test walls and buildings in the 1930\u27s. All stations concerned found that the material could be used, the buildings were substantial, and construction involved much labor. Most of the stations built only one or two small buildings. The South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station constructed five buildings and a number of test walls and protective walls and studied many soil mixtures and combinations. Work continued from 1929 to 1940. The structures have been in use from 20 to 25 years. Additional conclusions, which were not fully realized as early bulletins were published, can now be reported. Inquiries concerning rammed earth construction continue to come from various parts of the United States and foreign countries. This publication reviews briefly the various considerations in using rammed earth as a building material. It gives the physical properties of rammed earth, describes the construction procedures, reviews the characteristics of the finished buildings, and suggests some ways for further mechanizing the process. Favorable and questionable features are discussed to guide those who might consider rammed earth construction for their own building projects

Field Ensilage Harvester, Operation and Costs

Since the invention of the field ensilage cutter in 1913 there has been a slow but steady acceptance by the Midwestern farmer. Up to 1925 there had been some 3000 machines manufactured. This was still 5 to 10 years before the advent of the power-takeoff (PTO) equipped tractor and the rubber-tired tractor, which partly explains its slow progress at first. During part of the depression years of the \u2730 s, production statistics were not made available. But in 1944 the annual production of row crop field ensilage harvesters was 237; in 1946, 7,034; and in 1949, 19,357.2 The earliest successful method of filling silos with corn silage was to cut the standing corn with the corn binder, use teams and racks to haul the bundles to the silo, and cut and elevate the corn with the standard ensilage cutter. This was a successful method but for one thing-the hard physical work involved for the men handling the heavy corn bundles. Contrasted with this is the field ensilage harvester method. Here the field harvester cuts the standing corn and chops it in one operation, delivering the ensilage to a trailed wagon or to a truck driven along with the harvester. The ensilage is then hauled to the silo, elevated or blown into the upright silo or dumped into the pit or trench silo. All handling of heavy corn bundles has been eliminated, although the unloading of the wagons, and tramping of the silage still takes considerable man power. The binder method has one slight advantage over the field harvester method in that the binder can be started first and supply a quantity of corn ahead of the silo filling operations. When both were running, a short stoppage of one machine would not hold back the work of the other. This is not true of the field cutter and the blower at the silo, for the operation of one depends on the operation of the other. The corn binder with the bundle elevator helped to eliminate some of the lifting of bundles, but some operators felt that the racks had to travel too far for a load in light corn. The 2- row corn binder with its elevator reduced the wagon travel per load. This machine when operating in tall hybrid corn produced a rack loading problem. Farmers remember this rack loading job from a 2-row binder in hybrid corn as hard and unpleasant. In 1932 Schwantes and Torrance3 found a 20 percent reduction in cost of the field harvester method of ensiling corn over the binder and ensilage cutter method. The major saving was from reduced labor. This, however, was in the days of steel-wheeled tractors and field harvesters with operating speeds of two to three miles per hour. Not all of the tractors had power-take-off drives at that time. Hauling was also done with teams and ordinary wagons, with resulting small loads and slow travel. In spite of the machines of those times, there was a reduction of cost, but the chief benefit was the elimination of the drudgery of handling the bundles