There is a higher than-zero risk that inside every big book, there is a smaller book yearning to escape. I wouldn't want to make any broad statements about when that applies, but I <i>do</i> say it applies to <i>The Market Power of Technology</i>. This is a comprehensive piece of work that aims to unearth truths about the power wielded by the large technology companies that rely on proprietary information and its consequences on North American society.

Kurz's book is primarily an academic piece written for fellow economists, of which I am <i>not</i>. Luckily, Kurz has made efforts in the name of accessibility to allow for a non-technical reading. There is a suggested reading list.
On the one hand, this is great, because otherwise, I might've discarded the majority of the book despite its many non-technical chapters.

On the other hand, this is a clear testament to the potential book within the book. The non-technical chapters aren't all enclosed in <i>one</i> chapter, but spread across them: you can read the introduction (chapter 0); sections 1.1 through 1.5 in chapter 1, except for subsection 1.5.5; sections 4.3, 4.4, though skip 4.5, and read section 4.6 in chapter 4; the first three sections in chapter 6; wrap it up with chapters 8 through 10 for a nontechnical policy discussion.

It is commendable that Kurz has worked to make, and I paraphrase, "the relatively simple conclusions of the examinations and what they say about public policy [...]" accessible to a broader audience.

<b>Anyway</b>, I received a pre-proof advance reader copy.

I have read the introductory chapter, chapter 1 and chapter 4. I've enjoyed and struggled through this book for several months, both immensely curious about the subject matter and yet hesitant about the extra energy it takes to read academic texts in a leisurely context.

If I were to attempt summarising <i>the point</i> – nay, maybe <i>one of many points</i> – that Kurz makes, then it would be that due to a plurality of reasons we are in a second gilded age and the lackadaisical regulatory landscape coupled with the power of, among others, patents, contribute to an ever-increasing wealth inequality that undermines democracy, resulting in something other than the equitable equilibrium for everyone's benefit that capitalism "was meant to be". Well, at least if you asked Kuznets, or perhaps Adam Smith.

<b>There's a lot</b> to read. At times, I have struggled to make headwind with the book. There's so much to it. More than 400 pages of largely academic prose. Complete chapters of technical economic analysis. Snuck-in sections of technical analysis in-between otherwise non-technical sections.

Being a pre-proof copy, there are naturally spelling mistakes. Doesn't matter. What's a bit more tedious, and which detracted from the reading, is the non-linear nature that pops up in the non-technical reading. Some passages remind you of <i>that point</i> which will be discussed <i>in that section</i>. That's all well and good when that's the first time you've been informed of it, but after I've seen the same reference to a specific section and topic multiple times, I <i>do</i> get a little bit edgy.

I could mention that the non-technical reading is academic, but I already have. It is what it is. It's not useful to say that an academic work written by an academic reads like an academic text. It would be a great accomplishment if the non-technical parts were just a little bit less <i>technical</i>.

If anything, this is my primary disappointment thus far: while Kurz is preaching to the choir (<i>I am the choir</i>) on the subject of harsher regulations and the importance of preventing the consolidation of market power into the hands of the few, I would like to see this material reach a wider audience. I don't think this book is likely to reach that wider audience, but it should.

There are parts of the book that allude to its North American setting. This includes a penchant for caution towards things socially democratic in nature or, pray it isn't so, anything that could be construed for socialism. That said, this is a part I am uncomfortable making any stance on as I have not read the policy discussions later in the book – only the policy discussions mentioned briefly in the first chapters.

That said, in a U.S. context quotes such as these might be construed as left-wing extremism if you were to ask the right G.O.P. member:

<blockquote>
Many wealthy individuals do not have large current income but instead, own assets in the form of common stocks of firms that pay small or no dividends. A 52% corporate tax rate is then, in effect, a tax on high-income individuals who, without the tax, receive their income in the form of capital gains on their stock portfolios. A high corporate tax rate <u>lowers asset prices, reduces capital gains, and thus effectively lowers wealth inequality</u>.
</blockquote>

Let's not touch the questions of whether it is sensible for individuals to have their *primary income* be capital gains from stock portfolios or interest for that matter, payments allegedly for the opportunity cost of lending money.

<b>Still</b>, I'm pretty happy thus far.

While Kurz has a clear opinion about market power and its negatives, there is a <i>positively</i> academic attitude towards the separation between the observed and the possible treatments. Historical context is critically important and enjoyably presented as Kurz identifies causes and effects through the lens of his integrated theory.

Clarifications of different ideas that should not be confused with one other are also seen on multiple occasions.

<blockquote>
[The] promotion of innovations does not mean society supports the consolidation of market power resulting from waves of innovations.
</blockquote>

Nothing is stopping you from exploring the economists and their works that Kurz's theory contradicts. More than anything, you are encouraged to evaluate their exact claims. This is as expected in an academic setting, but it is far more accessible than what a journal article would be, even though it's still not as accessible as it could or <i>should</i> be.

Workers' unions also receive a mention, as well as analysis, in the book. Do unions contribute to the reduction of market power? Yes.

There are also a few mentions of welfare programs as these need to be mentioned when we discuss both wealth inequality as well as approaches to wealth redistribution. I find it interesting that the objective criteria of <I>age</i> are viewed as a significant contributor by Kurz to the popularity and longevity of welfare programs, such as Social Security and Medicare when viewed through the lens of the welfare programs in Norway.

There is no doubt that universal welfare programs have a few meta-benefits that should be considered by the more pragmatic socialists: flat-rate benefits that are tailored to those who need it the most* will always disproportionally aid those who need it the most. Those who do not need the benefit won't receive much, relative to their own wealth.
This is a feature, not a bug. It can be greatly beneficial for us to provide benefits to the few who <i>in no way, shape or form</i> need the benefit, as the redistributive effect can be much greater despite the initial optics.

Going back to the book we find the following snippet a few pages after Kurz talks about the popularity of universal programs:

<blockquote>
From a political perspective, I see the success of this coalition as driven by three central factors: <u>the unpopularity of direct redistribution</u>, the rising power of labour, and racial bias and religious sentiments harnessed by the rising conservative movement.
</blockquote>

Which one is it? Were the direct redistribution programmes popular or unpopular? They can't be universally popular <i>and</i> unpopular at the same time.

This sense of a book written over a longer period, dealing with such a mass of topics, questions and intensely factual <i>and</i> political matters makes this a book that feels like a heritage forest. There are footsteps in different directions on different paths that have all contributed to the forest we see today.
I'm just not sure I want to try to walk all the different paths at the same time. Could I get a single red thread to follow? I'm alright if we circle back and visit that beautiful willow once more at a later point in time when I can better appreciate it. Much like my reviews, it needs an editor's hand.

Mordecai Kurz shines a light, nay, a myriad of lights on the market power of technology. What is market power? What is technology? As a technologist, I thought I might be excused for thinking I knew the answer to the latter pretty well and chose to use my weekly question allowance on the former.

Are you interested in technology in a broader scope than IT? Do you want to get familiar with economical terms and possibly end up together with me in the lower quartile of the Dunning-Kruger scale? If you have the motivation to indulge Kurz' on this journey you will find the fruits of thought-provoking nature rewarding, although not your most likely Monday morning read. It takes two. That is, it takes two attempts to read a page after you get distracted by the sound in the kitchen.

THE MARKET POWER OF TECHNOLOGY by Mordecai Kurz is a lengthy tome which sees to provide "Understanding [of] the Second Gilded Age." Kurz, Joan Kenney Professor of Economics Emeritus at Stanford University, expounds upon six years of research in this scholarly text. He outlines three sections: the first few chapters cover basic theory, macroeconomic implications, and twentieth-century market power; then there are several about applications (diffusion of innovations; asset prices, plus R&D and technological competition); the final few chapters discuss potential policy impacts. One reviewer from Harvard comments, the book "is rigorous in its theoretical and empirical underpinnings, yet radical in its policy implications." Kurz maintains that "market power is a durable feature of a technologically growing economy ... [and thus] a free-market economy contains a fundamental dynamic force that eliminates competition and threatens the foundations of democracy." He notes his own long-standing interest in income distribution problems and wealth inequality and goes on to opine that the original Gilded Age and America since the 1980s are similar in that "economic growth was propelled by a rapid rate of innovations ... combined with passive, laissez-faire public policy that allowed the mechanism of growing market power to operate without restraint." Court cases from the 1920s, foundational texts from the 1940s and 1950, along with numerous recent papers and scholars are cited in the bibliography which comprises slightly less than ten percent of the overall book.