How significant has the rise in energy costs to households been over the past 5 years?
The answer might surprise you.
New data released by the commerce department shows that Energy costs have risen nearly 50% as a percentage of a household’s spending. That is significant — its up to more than 6% from 4.2% a few years ago — but its far below prior peaks.
Floyd Norris notes that while the increased fuel costs have a bite, they haven’t derailed the economy:
"The energy cost figures, while up, are far from unprecedented, which may help to explain why the economy has not been more severely affected by the rise in oil prices. Including both household utility costs for electricity and oil, and drivers’ fuel costs, the share for energy use climbed to 6.2 percent of personal consumption expenses.
That is the highest in 15 years, but it is far below the peak of 9.3 percent reached in the first quarter of 1981, during the second oil-price shock. In 1972, before the first oil supply cutoff caused lines at gasoline stations and sent prices soaring, energy costs were also 6.2 percent."
That’s consistent with my overall view — increasingly stretched househoild budget, but by no means exhausted, with short term swings in gasoline prices impacting consumer spending.
On an unrelated note, a Federal Reserve analyst has reviewed the jobless rate, and said it hasn’t been artificially depressed by a failure of many discouraged workers to be counted as unemployed. I’d like to look at this later today . . .
UPDATED March 31, 2006 11:13am
Here’s a chart I whipped up on household energy consumption.
4th-Quarter Growth Put at 1.7%
NYT, March 31, 2006
Back in December 2004, I wrote a column titled "Five Under-the-Radar Trends for 2005". One of the below radar trends I predicted was the acceleration of intellectual property lawsuits. That turned out to be rather prescient.
There are actually two different issues here: The first is, should the USPO
be issuing so many patents, especially those for business methods? Amazon’s One-click buying, and MercExchange’s Buy it now auction are certainly questionable "inventions." That’s an issue for Congress, who needs to adequately fund the Patent Office so they can hire many more patent examiners, rather than merely have an under staffed patent office rubber stamp applications.
The second issue is that once a patent becomes issued, who gets to use it and how? Very often, we see the first issue inappropriately raised as a PR defense in the second. I don’t get the sense that all of the financial media really has a firm grasp on this. There is an entire world of patents, innovation, USPO issues, and large corporate litigants that have not been adequately discussed. Some get it, some don’t. Compare this story: "eBay Takes on the Patent Trolls" with this one "In Patent Case, EBay Tries To Fight Its Way Out of Paper Bag." (For some intercorporate litigation, see Apple against Apple Corps. Ltd., and TiVo’s against EchoStar’s Dish Network).
Incidentally, the term "Patent Troll" was invented by Peter Detkin when he was defending a patent case against Intel. Ironically, Detkin is now managing director with Intellectual Ventures, an intellectual property firm suing patent infringers.
If you recognize the property right inherent in patents, then the term "Patent Troll" is quite meaningless, meant to stir up political opposition to patents. How you use your property is irrelevant to the property right attached to it. What does it matter if you choose to manufacture widgets — or merely license the patent to thos ethat do?
What is actually going on now is a massive land grab underway by large corporations, looking to keep the fruits of entrepreneurs and innovators labor for themselves. These are not meek and vulnerable entities at the mercy of lawyers; rather, these are very astute players seeking to use the patent to further their own goals — often at the expense of innovation.
Take Intel, where Detkin was vice president and assistant general counsel, for example. They are certainly no stranger to patent litigation. As the book Inside Intel makes clear, INTC used its patents as a club to thwart competition in the CPU market for decades. That’s why its taken AMD so long to become a legitimate competitor to the chip giant.
The stealing of entrepreneurial innovation by large firms is fairly common place. My own experience with patent enforcement is that it is an enormously expensive, difficult, time consuming venture, fraught with peril. Consider the case of Robert Kearns, the inventor of the intermittant windshield wiper. In 1967, he received several patents on his design, which he tried to license to the Big 3 in Detroit. They sent him
packing, but later the intermittant windshield wiper somehow found its
way into autos. Long story short, he ended up in litigation for decades before finally winning. Thats decades later.