DOCSLIB.ORG

American Enterprise Institute Web Event — Is the 'Great Stagnation' Over? Introduction: James Pethokoukis, Dewitt Wallace

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
American Enterprise Institute Web Event — Is the 'Great Stagnation' Over? Introduction: James Pethokoukis, Dewitt Wallace American Enterprise Institute Web event — Is the ‘great stagnation’ over? Introduction: James Pethokoukis, DeWitt Wallace Fellow, AEI 2:05 PM Discussion Panelists: Tyler Cowen, Holbert L. Harris Chair of Economics, George Mason University Michael R. Strain, Director, Economic Policy Studies, AEI Catherine Tucker, Sloan Distinguished Professor of Management Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dietrich Vollrath, Professor and Chair of Economics, University of Houston Moderator: James Pethokoukis, DeWitt Wallace Fellow, AEI Tuesday, April 6, 2021 2:00–3:00 p.m. Event page: https://www.aei.org/events/is-the-great-stagnation-over/ James Pethokoukis: Hi, I’m Jim Pethokoukis, and welcome to today’s AEI event, “Is the ‘great stagnation’ over?” Since the early 1970s, Americans have seen disappointing levels of economic growth, productivity growth, and apparently technological progress, at least compared to the immediate postwar decades. However, there seem to be new reasons for optimism. As the COVID-19 pandemic begins to recede, short-term economic projections are extremely optimistic. And 2020 was an impressive year for technological progress, featuring rapid vaccine innovation, the use of AI for discovering new antibiotics, positive developments regarding nuclear fusion, and a new age of human spaceflight for the United States. The media are also starting to catch on. A few recent headlines: The New York Times, “The coming technology boom”; from Bloomberg, “The 1920s roared after a pandemic, and the 2020s will try”; from The Economist, “Why a dawn of technological optimism is breaking”; and from The Financial Times, “Goodbye virus-ridden 2020, hello roaring twenties.” So, is the great stagnation really over? And if so, what does that mean? To try and answer these questions, I’ll be chatting with a really great panel. Tyler Cowen is the Holbert L. Harris chair of economics at George Mason University, and he serves as chairman and faculty director of the Mercatus Center. He’s the author of several books, including 2011’s “The Great Stagnation.” Catherine Tucker is the Sloan Distinguished Professor of Management Science and Professor of Marketing at MIT Sloan School of Management. She’s also the cofounder of the MIT Cryptoeconomics Lab and co-organizer of the Economics of Artificial Intelligence Initiative. Dietrich Vollrath is professor of economics and chair of the Department of Economics at the University of Houston. He is also the author of “Fully Grown: Why a Stagnant Economy Is a Sign of Success,” released last April. And finally, Michael Strain is director of Economic Policy Studies here at AEI, as well as the Arthur F. Burns Scholar in Political Economy. And he’s the author of “The American Dream Is Not Dead: (But Populism Could Kill It),” released last year. One thing finally, before we begin: We’ll be doing a Q&A at the end of this event. So please, please, submit your questions as soon as possible on Twitter with the #AskAEIEcon, that’s AskAEIEcon. You can also submit a question via email by contacting the email address listed in the event description. So, to begin, I’m going to start with Tyler, since you wrote a book called “The Great Stagnation” and a big reason why I’m probably doing this panel, it’s been 10 years since you published that book. What was your argument at the time about the great stagnation and why we were stagnating? Tyler Cowen: At the time, I suggested that our previous technologies had in some regards run their course. So, if you take powerful machines and fossil fuels and put them together as a kind of general-purpose technology, we did everything we could with that. So, we invented cars and then everyone, almost everyone had a car. And then cars got better, but along some origins, cars just didn’t get all that much better. I think the odds are we are today on the cusp of another revolution based on new general-purpose technologies, which I would define as some mix of internet, computers, and computational power. So, in 2011 when I published the book, I thought the great stagnation would end within the next 20 years, and odds are that’s what we’re seeing today is the great stagnation ending. James Pethokoukis: And this is for anyone who wants to jump in: Is there a general consensus for — what period are we talking about? Are we talking since the early ’70s? Are we talking really since the end of the internet boom? First of all, when we talk about stagnation, are both of those applicable? And do we have a good reason why they happened to begin with? Tyler gave one set of reasons, is that the general consensus? Michael R. Strain: Well, can I just key off Tyler’s comment about the time period we have to look forward to? I am very confident in my view that the great stagnation, such as it was, is not permanent. There is a whole lot of innovation happening, new technologies being created. And it’s true that we haven’t found the best uses for all of those new technologies and all of those new inventions, but I’m very confident that at some point we will. So, that’s what I mean when I say I don’t think stagnation is a permanent condition. But whether or not we figure out how to use all this great new innovation in the next three years, five years, 10 years, you know, there I’m feeling less confident about any prediction that I might make. And so, I think Tyler actually framed it well. You know, at some point in the next 20 years, this is going to end, we’re about halfway through that period, I guess I would agree with that. I’d be surprised if we woke up in the year 2031 and hadn’t figured out how to use a lot of this new technology. And in fact, we just saw a great use of some new technology and a great use in coronavirus vaccines and that’ll have a huge impact on productivity. But whether or not this happens in 2023 or 2025 or 2027, I think when you start getting to that level of granularity, it becomes harder and harder to make predictions. James Pethokoukis: Is the reason for this — and I ask this to Catherine — is the reason for this confidence, do you think, mostly because that’s kind of how it’s always worked before? We’ve come up with great new ideas — took a little while to figure out how to use them, how to spread throughout the economy, eventually, they made big differences. Are we just kind of assuming that these new technologies are just kind of like the ones in the past and we’ll have that eventual impact, whether it’s next year or 10 years from now? Catherine Tucker: Now, this is such a wonderful question. So, I’m something which is called a “digital economist,” and we’ve spent the last 20–25 years trying to excuse why it is that all the technologies we studied have been everywhere apart from the productivity figures. And we’ve got two major explanations. One is that we’re just not measuring it right. Google Maps appear nowhere in the productivity figures. Google Maps are just wonderful, right? And we’re just missing out on these innovations. And then if people aren’t convinced by that argument, we then say, “But look at electricity, look at steam.” It’s just natural the trajectory of general-purpose technology, you expect 20–30 years of really what we’re going to call “constant experimentation” before it appears in the productivity figures. So, I think that aligns with a lot of what the panel is saying. Dietrich Vollrath: Yeah, I agree, I think Catherine really hit that correctly in the sense that I think if you look historically, most of these big events, or if you think of these central general-purpose technologies, we think of them as arising immediately and the moment electricity came around, everything changed. But that was a decades-long event, I mean, to the point that, you know, I mean, we were electrifying rural America into the ’40s and ’50s and even into the ’60s. These are decade-long changes. So the fact that we haven’t seen massive productivity growth out of computing, say, or the internet doesn’t necessarily mean it wouldn’t come. And as Tyler was mentioning, it may just be that we’re finally to the point where we really figured out how to use it, right? It’s been experimenting. Catherine Tucker: Yes. I mean, the way I’ve always liked as a technology economist to think about it is we thought that the light bulb — we thought that electricity was initially about the light bulb and about illumination, and the productivity impact of that wasn’t amazing. On the other hand, putting electricity into factories, that is a real productivity revolution. So I think so much of, you know, what you’re calling the experimentation period, we don’t even — for 20 years, maybe we’ve just been using the technologies for things which aren’t showing up in the productivity figures. Michael R. Strain: And Jim, to answer your question more directly, I agree with all that. My optimism is not driven by some sort of kind of vague, “This is how it’s always happened in the past.” I mean, if you look at specific technologies, you know, we’re getting much better at batteries, we’re getting much better at therapies like vaccines, we’re getting much better at artificial intelligence, you can go onto YouTube and find videos of driverless trucks going down the highway.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Using Cost-Benefit Analysis to Review Regulation1
    Using Cost-Benefit Analysis to Review Regulation1 Tyler Cowen (George Mason University) 1. Introduction One set of proposals for regulatory reform calls for the government to apply cost-benefit analyses to new regulations, or to apply such analyses to old regulations. Cost-benefit analysis is an analytic procedure which estimates the net economic value of a given policy or project. It converts all costs and benefits into a monetary metric and then measures whether the benefits outweigh the costs. Cost-benefit analysis may be characterised by the following concrete procedures: • take most of the world as a given, and ask whether a single policy change would be desirable; • specify all relevant benefits and costs of that policy; • measure those benefits and costs in dollar terms; • take those measurements from evidence on market demand and supply functions, as given by economics; • discount future costs and benefits accordingly to their location in time, according to appropriate economic formulae; • come up with a final figure for net benefits or net costs, using the information generated.2 Under the proposals considered in this chapter, regulations that did not pass a cost-benefit test would be struck down, not enacted, or at least required to undergo some further process of scrutiny. We consider these proposals by asking three questions. First, does cost-benefit analysis feasibly evaluate the quality of regulations (section 2)? Second, does cost-benefit analysis provide a morally acceptable means of judging regulatory policy (section 3)? Third, is there a feasible institutional machinery for giving cost-benefit significant influence over the regulatory process? (section 4) 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Mere Libertarianism: Blending Hayek and Rothbard
    Mere Libertarianism: Blending Hayek and Rothbard Daniel B. Klein Santa Clara University The continued progress of a social movement may depend on the movement’s being recognized as a movement. Being able to provide a clear, versatile, and durable definition of the movement or philosophy, quite apart from its justifications, may help to get it space and sympathy in public discourse. 1 Some of the most basic furniture of modern libertarianism comes from the great figures Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard. Like their mentor Ludwig von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard favored sweeping reductions in the size and intrusiveness of government; both favored legal rules based principally on private property, consent, and contract. In view of the huge range of opinions about desirable reform, Hayek and Rothbard must be regarded as ideological siblings. Yet Hayek and Rothbard each developed his own ideas about liberty and his own vision for a libertarian movement. In as much as there are incompatibilities between Hayek and Rothbard, those seeking resolution must choose between them, search for a viable blending, or look to other alternatives. A blending appears to be both viable and desirable. In fact, libertarian thought and policy analysis in the United States appears to be inclined toward a blending of Hayek and Rothbard. At the center of any libertarianism are ideas about liberty. Differences between libertarianisms usually come down to differences between definitions of liberty or between claims made for liberty. Here, in exploring these matters, I work closely with the writings of Hayek and Rothbard. I realize that many excellent libertarian philosophers have weighed in on these matters and already said many of the things I say here.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Business: a Love Letter to an American Anti-Hero | Tyler Cowen
    BOOK REVIEW Big Business: A Love Letter to an American Anti-Hero By Tyler Cowen 2019 ST. MARTIN’S PRESS, 249 PAGES Reviewed by Camille Vazquez yler Cowen’s latest book, “Big general director of the Mercatus Center, Business: A Love Letter to an adjunct scholar for the Cato Institute, American Anti-Hero,” is both timely author, columnist, and much more. “Big Tand approachable. A book of this caliber Business” came as a response to recent is to be expected from Cowen, given his alarming polls showing, among other wealth of knowledge and experience, which things, that 51 percent of young people do includes serving as an economics professor not support capitalism and, unsurprisingly, at George Mason University, chairman and similar numbers carry across different The JOURNAL of The JAMES MADISON INSTITUTE first, we should lower our standards for judging their morality, and second, these businesses should strive to be more socially responsible. To begin, Cowen raises the point that were it not for the innovation from businesses, we would be without the technology for many forms of transportation and utilities, pharmaceuticals, clothing, food, communication devices, and access to online information. Additionally, businesses provide countless jobs and salaries that allow us to purchase what we need. The idea that businesses act as our great providers is instrumental to leading Cowen into his second argument, which is that there is an inherent cognitive dissonance between our need for businesses and our negative perception of them. Cowen explains that the root of this cognitive dissonance stems from our tendency to anthropomorphize businesses, thus creating a false perception that demographics.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Rate of Scientific Progress Slowing Down?
    Is the rate of scientific progress slowing down? Tyler Cowen Ben Southwood August 5, 2019 Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank Bryan Caplan, Patrick Collison, Sandra DePleijt, Daniel Leech, Fergus McCullough, Michael Nielsen, Pseudoerasmus, Anton Howes, Jose Luis Ricon, Alex Tabarrok, and the members of the Fulton Street Society. 1 Introduction Some of the biggest debates over the last decade have focused on the rate of progress, both economic and scientific. As is common in times of economic crisis or slowdown, commentators have focused on what might have gone wrong. Several individuals have charged that rates of technological innovation are slowing down in the Western world. Silicon Valley entrepreneur and venture capitalist Peter Thiel made one of the biggest initial splashes, by suggesting that the recent contributions of the tech world were considerably overvalued. “They promised us flying cars, and all we got was 140 characters” (stated in various permutations) was his now-famous proclamation. Economist Michael Mandel, then a columnist for ​Business Week​, emphasized that rates of productivity growth in the American economy seemed to be slowing, and that this may have contributed to the financial crisis. Tyler Cowen, one of the authors of this paper, published a 2011 bestselling book entitled ​The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better​, pushing this issue into the public debate. Later, economist Robert Gordon at Northwestern wrote ​The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Since the Civil War​, working through the history of American innovation since the nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Silicon Valley Has Not Saved Us from a Productivity Slowdown ­ the New York Times
    3/27/2017 Silicon Valley Has Not Saved Us From a Productivity Slowdown ­ The New York Times https://nyti.ms/1QRTW3A The Uphot Silicon Valley Has Not Saved Us From a Productivity Slowdown Economic View By TYLER COWEN MARCH 4, 2016 American middle class wages haven’t been rising as rapidly as they once were, and a slowdown in productivity growth is probably an important cause. In mature economies, higher productivity typically is required for sustained increases in living standards, but the productivity numbers in the United States have been mediocre. Labor productivity has been growing at an average of only 1.3 percent annually since the start of 2005, compared with 2.8 percent annually in the preceding 10 years. Without somehow improving productivity growth, living standards will continue to lag, this widely held narrative concludes. Still, not everyone views the situation this way. For instance, Marc Andreessen, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur and venture capitalist, says information technology is providing significant benefits that just don’t show up in the standard measurements of wages and productivity. Consider that consumers have access to services like Facebook, Google and Wikipedia free of charge, and those benefits aren’t fully accounted for in the official numbers. This notion — that life is getting better, often in ways we are barely measuring — is fairly common in tech circles. Until recently, this debate was inconclusive. It consisted mainly of anecdotes, with individuals describing how important advances like the Internet were — or https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/upshot/silicon­valley­has­not­saved­us­from­a­productivity­slowdown.html?_r=0 1/4 3/27/2017 Silicon Valley Has Not Saved Us From a Productivity Slowdown ­ The New York Times were not — to them personally.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Does Freedom Wax and Wane? Some Research Questions in Social Change and Big Government
    Why Does Freedom Wax and Wane? Some Research Questions in Social Change and Big Government Tyler Cowen Tyler Cowen. “Why Does Freedom Wax and Wane? Some Research Questions in Social Change and Big Government.” Mercatus Working Paper, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, 2000. ABSTRACT The 20th century has seen some of the greatest restrictions on liberty of any period in human history, as well as significant liberalizations and improvements. These questions do not always hold a central place in mainstream academic dis- course, but there are scholars who seek to explain how and why these changes have occurred. This paper attempts to make this research accessible to a broader audience. It presents relevant research on social change and concludes that Western societies are not headed off the proverbial economic cliff. Even though governments may be larger and more bureaucratic than before, they largely con- tinue to support freedom because failure to do so could destroy the entire system. Moreover, market-oriented economies have demonstrated a lasting ability to out- compete alternatives, such as communism. Technological changes and advance- ments hold a promise for greater freedom and prosperity across the world. JEL codes: B25, B59, D72, H10, H60, K10, L51, 057, P11, P16, Q58 Keywords: classical liberalism, constitution, corporations, deregulation, economic development, environmental regulation, free market, globalization, liberty, mass media, New Zealand miracle, public choice, rational irrationality, social change, Thatcher revolution, Tullock paradox, Westminster system AUTHOR’S NOTE Mercatus first put this piece out in 2000. We all thought it was worthwhile to revisit these issues, given the uncertain course of liberty in today’s world.
    [Show full text]
  • How Do Economists Think About Rationality? Tyler
    How Do Economists Think About Rationality? Tyler Cowen Department of Economics George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 [email protected] November 24, 2001 The author wishes to thank Bryan Caplan, Robin Hanson, David Schmidtz, and Alex Tabarrok for useful comments. I. Introduction It is commonly believed that the rationality postulate, whatever that may mean, stands at the core of economic theory and much of social science research. Many economists go so far as to define their science in terms of the rationality assumption. I therefore try to spell out how working economists approach rationality, with the goal of explaining the practice of economic science to philosophers and other social scientists. I do not survey the enormous literature on the methodology of economics.1 Much of this literature focuses on philosophy of science rationales (or lack thereof) for rationality assumptions. The writers debate instrumentalism, the use of rhetoric to discuss rationality, whether assumptions need be realistic, and whether economic propositions are, or should be, falsifiable, to name a few of the better-known issues. These debates have generated insight, but taken alone they give a misleading picture of what economists do. Often they focus on economics as a whole, or one or two fields, rather than on the increasingly diverse ways that contemporary economists conduct their research.2 Philosophers, on the other hand, commonly believe that economic logic focuses on instrumental rationality, as exemplified by a Humean ends-means logic. That is, economics focuses on how to use means to achieve given ends, but cannot judge the quality or rationality of those ends.
    [Show full text]
  • Tyler Cowen and Tony Keller March 2019 Tony Keller: Since We Called This Talk the Dangerous New Economy, What Are Some Things We Should Be Worried About?
    A Macdonald-Laurier Institute Publication March 2019 Straight Talk: Tyler Cowen is Holbert L. Harris Chair of Economics at George Mason University and Tyler Cowen serves as chairman and faculty director of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. With and colleague Alex Tabarrok, Cowen is coauthor of the popular economics blog Marginal Revolution and cofounder of the online educational platform Tony Keller Marginal Revolution University. A dedicated writer and communicator of economic ideas, Cowen is the author of several bestselling books The global economy is facing a number and is widely published in academic journals and of challenges, from slowing wage the popular media. growth to a possible hard landing for China’s economy. To shed light on Tony Keller is the current economic challenges, and Editorial Page Editor of The Globe and Mail. He what can be done about them, MLI joined the Globe in 1991 is pleased to present this edition of as an editorial writer; in its Straight Talk, which is based on a a career of more than 25 conversation between Holbert L. Harris years he has also served Chair of Economics at George Mason as editor of The Financial Post Magazine, managing University Tyler Cowen and Globe and editor of Maclean’s, and a Mail Editorial Page Editor Tony Keller. financial news anchor on This conversation took place as part of BNN. the Nota Bene Dinner Speaker Series on January 22, 2019 in Toronto. MLI is The authors of this document have worked proud to be a partner in this prestigious independently and are solely responsible for the views series.
    [Show full text]
  • The Epistemic Problem Does Not Refute Consequentialism
    The Epistemic Problem Does Not Refute Consequentialism TYLER COWEN George Mason University Should radical uncertainty about the distant future dissuade us from judging options by referring to their consequences? I argue no. Some short-run benefits are sufficiently high that we should pursue them, even if our long-run estimates possess a very high variance. I discuss the relationship between the epistemic argument and ‘fuzzy’ rankings and also ‘arguments from infinity’. Furthermore, extant versions of the epistemic argument require the assumption that we have no idea about the major consequences of our acts. Even a slight idea about some major consequences will render the epistemic argument less plausible. In most applications of the epistemic argument, long-run uncertainty is not the relevant confounding variable; on close examination the epistemic argument tends to trade on other principles altogether. INTRODUCTION Some commentators have suggested that epistemic problems force us to abandon moral consequentialism. By moral consequentialism, I mean the view that we should judge actions primarily or solely in terms of their consequences.1 But how can we pursue good consequences if we have no serious idea what we are doing? Shelley Kagan summarizes the critical argument as follows: Perhaps the most common objection to consequentialism is this: it is impossible to know the future ... This means that you will never be absolutely certain as to what all the consequences of your act will be ... there may be long term bad effects from your act, side effects that were unforeseen and indeed unforeseeable ... So how can we tell which act will lead to the best results overall – counting all the results? This seems to mean that consequentialism will be unusable as a moral guide to action.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Liability and COVID-19 Recovery
    POLICY BRIEF COVID-19 RESPONSE Legal Liability and COVID-19 Recovery Tyler Cowen and Trace Mitchell May 8, 2020 As hope of a quick end to the COVID-19 pandemic fades, both policymakers and analysts are shift- ing focus to restarting the economy. As of late April, more than 26 million Americans had filed for unemployment.1 Estimates of the cost of every month of partial shutdown are as high as $1.07 trillion in forgone GDP growth. The longer the shutdown continues, the greater is the risk of irre- versible declines in business solvency that, in addition to all of their other costs, would hamper future US public health capabilities.2 Some states are already in the process of reopening. Whether or not these reopenings are prema- ture, they are underway, and Congress and state legislatures need to have the best possible plans ready. One key question concerns legal liability in retail and workplace settings. How can govern- ment policies restore some of America’s GDP and employment while avoiding the most egregious instances of harm to workers and customers? Policymakers are just now starting to consider the issue of legal liability and injury compensation. Singapore recently passed legislation absolving businesses of certain legal obligations (including temporary debt relief ) in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. The British government has set up a fund to compensate the families of healthcare workers who pass away from the disease.3 In the US, Senate Republicans, including majority leader Mitch McConnell, have said that liability pro- tection will be “absolutely essential” in discussions around future recovery legislation.4 Without greater clarity, it will be difficult for many businesses, universities, nonprofits, and other organizations to resume face-to-face operations.5 The Occupational Safety and Health Admin- istration (OSHA) has advised businesses to follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, but it has not said that this will protect them from an OSHA citation.
    [Show full text]
  • Alphachat: Tyler Cowen on “Stubborn Attachments” Cardiff Garcia
    Alphachat: Tyler Cowen on “Stubborn Attachments” Cardiff Garcia “Stubborn Attachments” strikes me as maybe the first Foundational ​ Tyler work. It comes after Culture Tyler – you had a series of books about culture and economics. It comes after a self-help version of Tyler with Discovering Your Inner Economist and a couple of other books, including your food book. And then there was the Stagnationist trilogy. This is different altogether. Why did you write it? Tyler Cowen Let me just say, this is a book about philosophy unlike my other books and it’s actually a book most people shouldn’t read. I wrote this book so that you don't read it but it gives my foundational take on what is right or wrong, how do we think about ethics, how does that translate into policy, how and when should we be agnostic in our beliefs? And those to me are some of the most important questions and most people I see, they’re just not addressing them. Cardiff Garcia You don't want people to read it? ​ Tyler Cowen Not that I don't want you to read it, but I didn’t make any concessions in writing this book. It assumes you know a fair amount about philosophy, it doesn’t explain all of the moves it makes. It’s my views, it’s there, I didn’t release it commercially. Think of it as one of those bonus DVD extras that you get when you order the pack and if you enjoy it, wonderful but don't think it’s like the rest of my books.
    [Show full text]
  • Palgrave Advances in Behavioral Economics
    Palgrave Advances in Behavioral Economics Series Editor John Tomer Co-editor, Journal of Socio-Economics Manhattan College Riverdale USA This groundbreaking series is designed to make available in book form unique behavioral economic contributions. It provides a publishing opportunity for behavioral economist authors who have a novel perspec- tive and have developed a special ability to integrate economics with other disciplines. It will allow these authors to fully develop their ideas. In gen- eral, it is not a place for narrow technical contributions. Theoretical/con- ceptual, empirical, and policy contributions are all welcome. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14720 Sherzod Abdukadirov Editor Nudge Theory in Action Behavioral Design in Policy and Markets Editor Sherzod Abdukadirov Mercatus Center at George Mason University Arlington , Virginia , USA Palgrave Advances in Behavioral Economics ISBN 978-3-319-31318-4 ISBN 978-3-319-31319-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31319-1 Library of Congress Control Number: 2016951439 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
    [Show full text]