I've referred to the Alchemist Fallacy quite a few time over the years, most recently in the context of mining the moon or asteroids or somesuch but haven't highlighted the paper where I first saw the term.
It's by
Yale's Professor Nordhaus, one of the heavyweights.
(if you glance through
his c.v. you'll find at least three Nobel Laureates he's co-authored with, among other stuff)
Via the Social Science Research Network:
27 Pages
Posted: 5 Oct 2005
William D. Nordhaus Yale University - Department of Economics; Cowles Foundation, Yale University; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Date Written: April 2, 2005
Abstract
The present study examines the importance of Schumpeterian profits
in the United States economy. Schumpeterian profits are defined as those
profits that arise when firms are able to appropriate the returns from
innovative activity. The paper derives the underlying equations for
Schumpeterian profits. It then estimates the value of these profits for
the non-farm business economy and for major industries. It concludes
that only a miniscule fraction of the social returns from technological
advances over the 1948-2001 period was captured by producers, indicating
that most of the benefits of technological change are passed on to
consumers rather than captured by producers. These results indicate that
the bubble of new-economy stocks in the 1990s resulted from the
alchemist fallacy.
Alchemy was an ancient art devoted to discovering a miraculous
substance that would transmute common
metals into gold. Most recently,
this philosophy resurfaced with the
view that the “new economy” could
spin rapid technological change into profits and fantastic stock values.
Many have scoffed at the idea that
base metals can be transmuted into
precious ones. However, that is not
the alchemist fallacy. Many far more
miraculous things have arisen than such a physical transformation. Rather,
the alchemist fallacy is to think that, once such a process for producing gold
is discovered, gold would retain its
scarcity, and the discoverers would be
rich beyond belief.
The modern analog to alchemy is
the new economy, which indeed
provides miraculous productivity growth along with a dazzling array of
new goods and services. The phenomenal
increases in computer power over
the twentieth century, for example, were
far more rapid than anything in the
historical record. Many
financial analysts apparently believed that a
substantial part of the economic value of the innovations in new-economy
firms would be captured by the innovators, and this in part drove the stock
market boom of the dot.com firms
and the NASDAQ market sector. The
result was the rise in the value of
computer-related firms from virtually
nothing to over $4 trillion in early 2000.
The present paper investigates whether in fact investors in the 1990s
once again succumbed to the alchemist fallacy. The United States economy
did indeed benefit from rapid technological change over the last decade.
Were innovators able to capture a significant fraction of the benefits from
new technologies? Alternatively, were most of the benefits of improved
productivity passed on in
lower prices? These are among the topics studied
below.
I. A Model of Appropriability and Schumpeterian Profits
A. Background
Endogenous growth theory, alon
g with the theory of induced
innovation, has developed important new approaches to understanding the
role of innovation in economic growth. Joseph Schumpeter introduced
modern approaches in his pathbreaking book,
The Theory of Economic
Development.
The formal theory of induced i
nnovation arose in the 1960s in
an attempt to understand why technological change appears to have been
largely labor saving.
3
More recently, theories of induced technological
change were revived as the new growth
theory, pioneered by Robert Lucas
and Paul Romer.
This has blossomed into a
major research field, with a
wide variety of theories and applications.
The underlying idea to be developed
in this section is straightforward.
Numerous individuals and firms in
a modern economy are engaged in
innovative activities designed to produce new and improved goods and
services along with processes that reduce the cost of production. Some of
these are formalized in legal ownership
of intellectual property rights such
as patents, copyrights, and trademarks, while others are no more than trade
secrets or early-mover advantages. Some
of the innovative activities produce
extra-normal profits (called Schumpeterian profits), which are profits above
those that would represent the normal return to investment and risk-taking....
...MUCH MORE (27 page PDF) Here is the
SSRN download page.
Like another of our fav. economists, Professor Shiller, Nordhaus also hangs his hat at the
Cowles Foundation. which, as we've noted has been home to Econ. Laureates (Robert Shiller, Tjalling Koopmans, Kenneth Arrow, Gerard Debreu, James Tobin, Franco Modigliani, Herbert Simon, Lawrence Klein, Trygve Haavelmo, and Harry Markowitz) at a rate approaching, but inferior to, that of Cambridge's Cavendish Lab,
29 Laureates, mainly in physics, at last count but then the econ version isn't one of the original Nobels and hasn't been around as long.
Some of our previous mentions of the alchemist fallacy.
From 2015's
"It is Now Legal to Own an Asteroid in the U.S."
You know the first things they want to mine are those things with the
highest price per ounce back on earth which ex-truffles and saffron
probably means the so-called precious metals.
However, with all that gold and platinum coming back, you might want to bone up on Another Post On Glass, This Time With "The Alchemist's Fallacy" (And Professor Nordhaus).
The miners will probably also keep an eye peeled for Californium-252 at $27 million per gram, but finding any is a bit of a long shot, 8 grams known to date....
And
Platinum Extends 6 1/2-Year Lows as Asteroid With $5.4 Trillion Worth of the Stuff Whizzes Past Earth
See also:
"The Price of Gold in the Year 2160"
And "
We Are About to Start Mining Hydrothermal Vents on the Ocean Floor" (now with added alchemist's fallacy"
The thing is, such an enormous increase in supply would crash the
market, something the ancient alchemists didn't mention when they were
pitching their lead-into-gold private placements to their version of
accredited investors, the princely class, back in the day.
It is for this reason that the astro-miners have changed their
approach and are now talking about looking for oxygen, water, nitrogen
and
other elements that can be used to take us farther into the universe.
Presumably to sell to Elon Musk to speed him on his way.