Posts Tagged ‘business’
“For many Americans, the cost of one drug is the difference between life and death, dignity and dependence, hope and fear”*…
Longtime pharmaceutical executive Amal Naj laments the woeful state of the industry and calls for new leadership to win back public trust…
Some two decades ago, when I mentioned what I did for a living — manufacturing and marketing a wide range of prescription drugs — it elicited appreciative reactions from acquaintances. “I take your products every day,” a number of them would offer; others would mention how a specific medicine had made all the difference to their health and would ask whether a more advanced treatment was in the works; some simply marveled at the industry’s innovations as nothing less than miracles. Then there were some who teased: “Good business; you can charge whatever price.” I considered the quip an acknowledgment that lifesaving discoveries were worth the money. Pharma Man, they called me. It seemed to confer a certain respectability, of the sort reserved for a physician or a scientist or a teacher. There was a presumption in it, too, that I lived by certain ideals and ethics demanded of such an avocation. I was proud of being a Pharma Man.
Alas, I have now slipped precipitously in their eyes. I am seen as an avaricious man inexorably exploiting the misery of fellow human beings for profit — by inventing one new magic potion after another for which they cannot afford not to pay my price, because the only alternative would be pain and suffering, even death. My onetime champions have grudgingly tolerated this collective subjugation for years. But not anymore. Their festering anger has now broken into an open rebellion against the Pharma Man, the benevolent oppressor.
The recent murder of UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson in cold blood, a heinous and deplorable expression of this growing rebellion, cannot be condoned in any way. But the health care landscape is littered with provocations against the Pharma Man which play out daily on national television, in the newspapers, and on social media.
The Pharma Man’s reputation is only going to get worse as President-elect Donald Trump takes office and tries to fulfill his promise to bring down drug prices. And there is the specter of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. bringing his unconventional ideas to American health care in the new Trump administration; he has already publicly called for capping drug prices. Ironically, it had been the Democrats who made the industry — a financial hotbed of Republican support — a whipping boy in blaming America’s failure to deliver affordable health care to its citizens. But Mr. Trump has outshouted them all. He famously declared that pharma companies were “getting away with murder” and singled out Pfizer Inc. and publicly shamed the company and forced the CEO to roll back planned price increases.
As I watched Mr. Trump tower over the CEO at a White House appearance and later triumphantly declare the result of his disciplinary action, I was reminded of my school days when the headmaster would hoist a student by the collar to make the truant admit culpability in front of the class. It was humiliating for the Pharma Man, for I once worked at the company, proud of its pioneering history and its roster of some of the world’s most impactful medicines, a company that would go on to save millions of lives with its Covid-19 vaccine during the pandemic.
But the Pharma Man has earned this new reputation, and then some…
[Naj recounts (some of) the industry practices that have contributed to its fall from grace– familiar, but still striking…]
… It is baffling to me that we as an industry haven’t stepped out in front of the groundswell of national outrage and undertaken systemic changes to our business practices. We continue to conduct our business on the strength of our power over our customers, a power we derive from our possession of the inventions that prevent and treat and cure and which our customers cannot do without. That’s like possessing Tolkien’s One Ring, which gives the possessor unassailable power to rule over and dominate others. We set the price we want. We can cast our spell on doctors to prescribe our medicine and do our bidding. We can banish competitors who attempt to lay claim to our Ring of Power. We have institutionalized this leverage in our business, all the way from drug discovery and development to marketing and sales and distribution. This underpinning of the industry’s colossal machinery is rigged against the patient. No one in the leadership of the pharma industry has raised a voice, let alone stepped up to act, to alter this unfair state endured by their very own customers; it seems there are no hobbits in the industry ready to undertake the treacherous journey to Mount Doom in a quest to destroy the Ring.
We refuse to see how our customers see our business. In their minds, we owe our existence to their misfortunes and mishaps: the unexpected cancer, the heart that suddenly fails, the pancreas that fails to produce enough insulin. Our customers turn to us to help them deal with these events of life and living. Although they know it takes a lot of money and time to come up with a treatment, they also expect the pharma company to make it available to them at an affordable price. After all, they argue, axiomatically, the drug was specifically developed to serve their need, brought on by their unfortunate luck.
They volunteer in tens of thousands, sick and healthy, for a new drug to be tested on them so the company can prove it works and is safe; some can die from the potential side effects. They are the ones who help create the market for the drug. And to dangle it in front of them but out of their reach by charging unaffordable prices is unconscionable. It is hard to argue against that view: the symbiotic existence between our enterprise and our customers imposes a business — not to mention a moral — obligation on us to make the drug affordable to the patient who was instrumental in the development of the treatment in the first place. We also should not ignore the fact that the U.S. government helps out drug development with taxpayer dollars.
Unfortunately, our customers cannot rely on market forces for what the pharma companies won’t offer: a fair deal. Car companies, with their zillion features, battle among themselves to win over customers, and any and all of their cars, irrespective of their features, deliver the same result: transporting the buyer from one place to another. One can purchase any smartphone on the market and it will make the call, send messages, browse the web. But when it comes to drugs, the consumer doesn’t necessarily have alternative choices.
Take, for instance, the cholesterol-lowering drugs, known as statins. Among the seven or so statins developed so far, the most prescribed ones are atorvastatin (Lipitor), rosuvastatin (Crestor), and simvastatin (Zocor). Each statin has its own distinct efficacy and side effects, even though they all lower cholesterol. Physicians prescribe one statin or another based on patient condition and the desired outcome. In effect, the market of cholesterol-lowering agents gets divided into distinct segments of therapy, each offering just one single statin. Within each segment there is no competition to speak of (until the patent expires, allowing the entry of copies of the product, the so-called generics). Although the manufacturers compete with their sales and marketing campaigns to recruit patients to their respective statins, this sort of “competition” doesn’t significantly influence the price, as each product is viewed as distinct and un-substitutable, something that the manufacturers take pains to establish with their scientific papers and promotional materials.
We are known to shamelessly exploit these monopolistic powers. When we lose a patent on a drug, we pay off competitors to keep them from entering the market. (The Federal Trade Commission estimates that these anticompetitive tactics cost consumers and taxpayers $3.5 billion in higher drug costs every year.) Most commonly, we tend to extend patents with minor variations on the original drug, such as a new coating or a slight change in the formulation — this is called evergreening — which offer little or no additional benefits to the patient. (Some 78 percent of the patented drugs marketed between 2005 and 2015 are not new drugs, according to a study published in the Journal of the Law and the Biosciences in December 2018.)…
… A large truth is that our drug pricing is heavily influenced by our single-minded obsession with keeping our shareholders — not patients — happy. This is not unique to the pharma industry; delivering “shareholder value,” the appreciation of the company’s stock price, is an operational mantra of corporations across industries. Whatever earnest exercise a pharma company goes through to set drug prices based on R&D, manufacturing, marketing, and other costs, at the end of the day this is all swept aside by the pressures to achieve quarterly and annual sales and profit targets. Executives’ bonuses are tied to achieving these performance metrics, and their stock grants and options deliver additional riches when the company’s stock appreciates.
The pressures to serve the shareholder have only intensified in the past decade as the health care industry has become a sought-after vehicle for investors for the safe and steady and stellar returns it offers. Pharmaceuticals’ net profit margins are in the range of 15 to 20 percent, compared to 4 to 9 percent for large non-drug companies. A single successful drug can generate billions of dollars in sales, some as much as $15 billion or more annually. Many of our single pills, if incorporated into a company, would rank among the Fortune 500 companies.
Investors bet on our drugs long before they reach the market. They pore over scientific papers and decipher results of early-stage clinical trials of a drug with the zeal of a geologist prospecting for oil. They swarm medical and scientific conferences where the latest findings and opinions about a drug’s progress are presented. Living up to their expectations or, better yet, exceeding them becomes a high priority for companies setting their future financial performance targets. The patient is nowhere in the picture; few in executive suites agonize over whether to lower a price by 10 or 15 percent so many more patients can afford the drug.
The concept of affordability is not an operational imperative in the business, largely because top executives rarely interact with customers — the patients — to be sensitized to their needs, their plight really. In the car and smartphone industries, senior executives go around shaking hands with their customers and host regular conventions to take the pulse of their customers’ desires. In pharmaceuticals, a typical CEO’s calendar is filled with meetings with Wall Street analysts and fund managers, and the job of interacting with the customer is left to prescribing physicians, whom sales reps regularly badger with sales pitches.
But these prescribers we rely on to do our bidding with patients have lost public trust. The opioid crisis exposed a large number of doctors accepting bribes, as much as $100,000 a year, and sexual services to push sales. Although this is the most publicized example of corruption among doctors, there are many others that haven’t drawn much public attention. Nearly all Big Pharma companies have paid fines, some multiple times, to settle charges of bribing doctors. In 2013, Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay more than $2.2 billion in fines to settle charges that it had improperly promoted an antipsychotic drug; the government alleged that the company had paid “speaker fees to doctors to influence them to write prescriptions” and that its sales representatives “told these doctors that if they wanted to receive payments for speaking, they needed to increase” their prescriptions of the drug…
… n the pharmaceutical industry, influence peddling goes much deeper, to the very core of its business — the research and development — unlike in any other industry. Companies recruit leading researchers and academics to guide them during drug development, and to publicly pronounce their expert opinions in medical journals once the drug is successfully launched to the public. As critical as this alliance is to the successful development of a drug, it is now widely questioned because of these influencers’ financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.
ProPublica, a non-profit investigative journalism organization, has exposed several leading researchers and academics for accepting money from pharmaceutical companies which they didn’t disclose — or did so falsely — in connection with the scientific articles they published, some in prestigious journals like the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. Among the prominent researchers ProPublica cited was the chief medical officer of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the nation’s leading cancer institute; he bullishly pitched to the investment community a new cancer treatment being developed by Roche without disclosing his financial ties to the company… If you want to find out if your doctor is receiving any money — how much and for what — from a company whose drug he or she is prescribing to you, you can go to the website Dollars for Docs and type in the name of the doctor. The site is the brainchild of ProPublica. It brings to mind the comparison with the U.S. Justice Department’s National Sex Offender Registry for the identity and location of known sex offenders.
In a world where doctors and researchers and medical academics all work as an army of influencers, the patient exists only as the customer to be influenced. It is a most peculiar aspect of our industry that we market our products to doctors (who help generate sales for us but don’t pay for the products) and we sell to our actual customers, the patients (who pay but have no control over the price they pay). Who decides the price? A very small group of wholesalers called pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs), owned by large insurers — CVS Health (which owns Aetna), Cigna, Humana, and UnitedHealthCare — that have been accused of padding their own profits at the cost of the patients they insure. These middlemen buy drugs on behalf of government and private employers and insurance companies. They negotiate prices with the pharma companies.
It may sound bewildering that the customers who pay for the drugs cannot negotiate directly with the manufacturers, unlike in the rest of the world. Even Medicare, the country’s largest health plan, covering 60 million Americans, can’t. In effect, the market forces of supply and demand — the backbone of all other commerce in America — are shielded from each other by the opaque wall of the middlemen. Imagine if the price of your car or a smartphone were negotiated by a handful of middlemen and you had no choice but to pay.
Today, 44 percent of Americans are either uninsured or underinsured; a 2021 national survey estimated that 46 million people couldn’t afford quality health care. Such news fails to register as profoundly worrisome in the psyches of pharmaceutical executives, largely because they are shielded from the customer by the systemic structure of the industry. Reports in the morning papers of patients unable to buy a lifesaving drug — like the news of Americans with diabetes struggling to procure high-priced insulin — might as well be the day’s weather report to them. Stories of struggles from further afield, like distant corners of Asia and Africa, where patients die because they can’t afford a blood pressure or cancer medicine, have even less of a chance of stirring the collective conscience of the industry.
I am often asked if I think drug prices are high, in the sense that they are unreasonable and exploitative. I’ve had difficulty answering the question in the past with a definitive yes or no, because many of the drugs have had such a profound impact in banishing diseases and prolonging healthy life. Their discovery didn’t come easy. I would respond that the prices reflected the cost of innovation, but that they could be lower. That conditional justification is harder to make these days.
More than 80 percent of the prescription drugs sold in the U.S. are generics, copies of patent-expired drugs. As copies, they have very low development costs. Their main costs lie in raw materials and manufacturing. And that cost is a fraction of the price the consumer currently pays for generics. I should know, because I manufacture many of them. For instance, a box of 30 five-milligram tablets of amlodipine, one of the most prescribed blood pressure medications, costs less than 30 cents to manufacture, and retails for $7 to $8.90 online and in U.S. drugstores, ostensibly discounted from $20 to $30. Simvastatin, a commonly prescribed cholesterol-lowering medication, costs less than 40 cents for a pack of 30 20-mg tablets; it sells at $7.87 to $22.28, discounted from $12 to $30. Even after adding the cost of marketing and distribution, the selling prices of these drugs are astronomical.
The consulting firm Pharmacy Benefit Consultants, which provides prescription coverage services to private and government employers, says the average wholesale prices — before the drug is sold to the patient — have been rising at “shocking rates.” Between the beginning of 2017 and March of 2018, it reports, the average wholesale prices of 450 drugs increased by between 25 and 100 percent. They included sharp increases for branded drugs that lost patents many years ago, such as 19.8 to 31 percent for Zoloft, which lost its patent in 2006, and 31.1 percent for Lipitor, which lost its patent in 2011…
… That is pathetic. Because the genesis of the modern pharma industry is anchored on the idea of delivering medicine at affordable costs. Inventors of insulin and antibiotics — the two most seminal discoveries in pharmaceuticals — refused to patent their inventions so everyone would have access to these lifesaving drugs at low costs. That mission seems not to have inspired the modern-day leaders in the slightest…
It is time for us to step up and make ourselves accountable to our customers, or else it will inevitably be done for us…
An insider calls foul: “The Pharma Man’s Negative Reputation is Fair,” from @rollingstone.com.web.brid.gy. Eminently worth reading in full.
Apposite: How the intent of a prescription drug program meant for the needy has been perverted: “How a Company Makes Millions Off a Hospital Program Meant to Help the Poor” (gift article)
###
As we heal the healers, we might send healthy birthday greetings to Charles Value Chapin; he was born on this date in 1856. A physician and epidemiologist, he was a pioneer in American public health. He co-founded in first bacteriological laboratory in the U.S. (in 1888) in Providence, were he was Superintendent of Health– a position he held for 48 years. In 1910, he established Providence City Hospital where infectious disease carriers could be isolated under aseptic nursing conditions; his success inspired similar health control measures throughout the U.S. A professor (at Brown) and prolific writer, his impact on health policy and practice was so broad that he was hailed as “the Dean of City Public Health Officials.”
“This is a cardboard universe”*…
As we rid ourselves of the detritus of the Holiday season, let us pause to consider its signature component: at the turn of the 21st century, corrugated cardboard accounted for just fifteen percent of the United States recycling stream; today, it’s nearly half. Shannon Mattern on the cardboard box…
… As historian Maria Rentetzi writes (“Cardboard Box: The Politics of Materiality,” in Boxes: A Field Guide), “the cardboard box — the waste of our commercial world — is recycled in such a way as to make visible the disorder in our societies, the faults of capitalism.” It is an abject object that touches all parts of the city, from the granite kitchen island to the sewer grate. And for many of us, the cardboard box is our closest touchpoint to globalized trade, structuring our relations with people in distant places. It brings the logistics chain to our doorstep. The magnificently ripped metal freight container may get the Economist cover shot, but the plain brown box delivers messages to our homes. Its very existence in our homes, Marshall McLuhan would say, is the message. In the immortal words of Walter Paepcke, founder of the Container Corporation of America, “packages are not just commodities; they are communications.”
Let’s unpack that, shall we? Boxes are media in multiple senses of the word. They’re lithographed surfaces designed to be read, and they’re dimensional containers that mediate between outside and inside worlds. They’re “media of transport and information, shapers of public opinion and consumer desire, and means of targeting attention.” And they’re “logistical media” that “arrange people and property into time and space,” that “coordinate and control the movement of labor, people, and things situated along and within global supply chains.” The cardboard box is a minimalist form with maximalist ambitions, an arboreal apparatus made from one of the world’s most abundant renewable resources, then filled with plastic and moved around by copious quantities of oil. It doesn’t just coordinate and control landscapes; it transforms them.
Cardboard’s ubiquity rests on simple claims: I can hold that, and I can go there. The Container Corporation of America was founded in 1926, and upon those claims it built an empire with surprising reach. The CCA made collapsible shipping boxes, and it transformed packaging into a science and an art. It advanced market research, shaped mid-century taste, and altered the chromatic universe through color standards. It employed some of the best graphic designers of the period, and as national borders shifted after the Second World War, it commissioned Herbert Bayer, author of the Universal typeface, to revise the World Geo-Graphic Atlas. Even then, the CCA was remaking that new world to meet its logistical needs, rehabbing mining towns and germinating forests, and orchestrating civic discourse about all of this.
How did a packaging company get into the publishing business — into the containment and distribution of information? How were geographic imaginations changed in the process? Soon we’ll dive into the Paepcke archive, to find answers to those questions. But first I want to show you how a cardboard box is made…
In turn, inspiring and horrifying– the social history of the cardboard carton: “World in a Box,” @shannonmattern.bsky.social in @placesjournal.bsky.social.
For an earlier (R)D focused on Mattern’s work: “To clarify, ADD data.”
* Philip K. Dick, The Dark-Haired Girl
###
As we tape it tight, we might recall that it was on this date in 1910 that a federal official who might slowed the onset of the cardboard box was fired: Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the United States Forest Service, was fired by President William Howard Taft. Pinchot had opposed Taft’s newly appointed Secretary of the Interior, Richard Ballinger, who favored commercial exploitation of federal reserve lands.
During President Theodore Roosevelt’s term, Pinchot had help enable policies for the conservation of natural resources. Roosevelt had designated millions of acres to protect as National Forests. That legacy was threatened, so Pinchot pressured Taft to remove Ballinger from office. In November of 1909, Collier’s Magazine had created a scandal when it accused Ballinger of shady dealings in coal lands in Alaska. When Pinchot criticized both Ballinger and Taft, the president reacted by firing him.
“We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is to learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.”*…
Classical economists posit that investment decisions are driven by rationality — a clear-eyed evaluation of risks and rewards… but then, meme stocks.
Kwabena Donkor, an assistant professor of marketing at Stanford Graduate School of Business has just unveiled some new research that suggests that identity distorts our financial choices, leading us to overvalue investments that reinforce our sense of self…
People don’t just invest with their wallets — they invest with their identity,” says Donkor, a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
In a novel field study involving soccer fans, Donkor and several colleagues uncover evidence of how identity can skew economic thinking. The researchers ran a series of experiments focused on fans who placed nearly 40,000 bets on English Premier League matches during the 2021-22 season. Participants — nearly 800 from Kenya and 1,600 from the United Kingdom — were given a budget and asked to place bets on upcoming matches. They received winnings based on the outcomes of randomly selected games.
Most of the participants were longtime supporters of a particular team. (Manchester United was their top favorite.) They were more optimistic about their favorite teams, betting 20% more on them. They rated their teams as having a 10% to 18% higher chance of victory than other teams, even when presented with forecasts from professional oddsmakers suggesting otherwise. These results persisted even after accounting for factors such as personal beliefs and appetite for risk.
The study also finds that participants placed a lower value on gains not aligned with their identity — what the researchers referred to as an “identity tax.” Fans effectively devalued these neutral bets by 17% to 27%. For poorly performing teams, this “tax” could soar as high as 47%, reflecting a strong emotional impulse to support their favorite team even when the odds were against it
The research, detailed in a paper cowritten with Lorenz Goette of the National University of Singapore, Maximilian Müller of the Toulouse School of Economics, Eugen Dimant of the University of Pennsylvania, and Michael Kurschilgen of UniDistance Suisse, shows that identity-driven preferences explain much of the gap in bettors’ behavior. Simulations showed that distorted beliefs due to identity account for as much as 44% of the difference in fans’ betting behavior. The remainder stemmed from preferences rooted in identity itself — people were willing to sacrifice potential gains to support options that aligned with who they are…
… The study’s findings have far-reaching implications for understanding economic behavior, particularly in areas like consumer finance, brand loyalty, and even political decision-making…
… the research hints at how consumers view different products. Items that align with a person’s identity are likely to be seen as complements rather than substitutes. For example, Donkor says a consumer who identifies strongly with sustainability might view eco-friendly products as essential enhancements to their lifestyle, even if they’re similar to comparable, less expensive goods.
Ultimately, these findings could improve our thinking about the biases that influence our financial lives. As the researchers point out, acknowledging the role of identity in decision-making is one key to designing better policies, creating more effective financial products, and ultimately improving individual welfare. “If we ignore identity,” Donkor concludes, “we miss the bigger picture in decision-making.”…
Understanding the choices that we, and those around us, make: “What Soccer Fans Can Teach Us About Making Irrational Decisions,” from @SIEPR.
* Aldous Huxley
###
As we ponder the price (and as a reminder that there are other kinds of irrational decisions and that sometimes returns do matter to investors), we might recall that it was on this date in 2008 that Bernard “Bernie” Madoff was arrested and charged with defrauding investment clients of as much as $65 billion. A pioneer in electronic trading and chairman of the Nasdaq stock exchange in the early 1990s, he had turned to money management. By 2008, Madoff was running a huge and growing fund that promised its investors high and stable returns… the problem: it was a Ponzi scheme, the largest known Ponzi scheme in history.
“Perhaps the cause of our contemporary pessimism is our tendency to view history as a turbulent stream of conflicts”*…
In (what seems to your correspondent) a techno/progress-studies “update” of the Annales school of historiography) historian Stephen Davies argues that technology and ideas change our lives much more than politics do– and that history should reflect that…
Most of us recognize the following dates and years: 4th July 1776, 14th July 1789, 1914, 1933, 1917, 1215, 1815, and 1066.
But I imagine most readers will fail to identify what’s special about this second list of dates: 5th July 1687, 9th March 1776, and 24th November 1859. Or indeed this third list of dates and years: 22nd January 1970, 26th April 1956, 1st October 1908, and 1960.
Why are these first dates so recognizable and memorable? It is because the events in question (the adopting of the US Declaration of Independence, the fall of the Bastille, the start of World War I, Hitler’s coming to power, the Russian Revolution, the drafting of the Magna Carta, the Battle of Waterloo, and the Battle of Hastings) are seen as critical events or markers in a particular story. They are supposedly events that had a profound subsequent impact on the shape and destiny of society and so shaped the way that later generations lived.
Undoubtedly there is truth in this but what was the nature of the impact that these events had? What, if anything, did they have in common? The clear answer is that these are all political events. As such they are also thought of as being connected, as being key points or landmarks in a particular story that structures the past into a meaningful pattern and makes sense of it. It thus tells us what was important in bringing about both past worlds and the contemporary world and so, by extension, what we should see as important here and now.
This story is of the growth and development of government, the forms it has taken, and in particular the historical evolution of particular states or political entities, such as France, England/Britain, and the USA. Making these dates important and central to our understanding of the past implies that the driving force in history, the thing that shapes and determines the world we are in and that is crucial for our future, is politics and political power. The dates given are all about political power: Who has it, who contests it, and who wins it.
In this political story the important, memorable events are wars, revolutions, elections, the rise of certain kinds of governance and political institutions, and the doings of rulers – kings, emperors, popes, prime ministers, and revolutionaries. The fact that these kinds of dates are memorable and widely known shows us that this is the dominant way of thinking about history and of understanding the past…
… This predominant understanding of history is incorrect for three reasons:
- It places emphasis on the wrong events.
- It judges the relative importance of events incorrectly.
- It ultimately misunderstands which events had the most transformative effects on human life.
The political understanding of history leads us to view our situation in a distorted and inaccurate way. It implies that if you want to address social problems or challenges, then politics (whether electoral or revolutionary) is the only way to do it. It implies that the news and events we should pay attention to are political ones, because those are what will have the greatest impact.
But there may be other, better ways of looking at the past.
Let us return to our second list of dates: 5th July 1687, 9th March 1776, and 24th November 1859. These dates are associated with the publication of major works of intellectual inquiry that changed the human understanding of how the natural world works.
The first of these, 5th July 1687, has been rated as the second most significant date of the last millennium, as it saw the publication of the first edition of Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. The text brought about a revolution in the understanding of the nature and mechanics of the physical world…
[Davies explains the other key dates…]
… These are all landmarks in a quite different kind of story, one in which the driving force is not politics but intellectual inquiry and discovery. This story’s main figures are scientists and philosophers and thinkers, not politicians and generals. The story is about the gradual growth and deepening of human knowledge, and with it understanding and mastery over the physical world…
… However, there are other, even more important dates, if we think of the impact the events associated with them have had on everyday life and the nature of society, that are even less known and considered. Here we have yet another story or way of thinking about history, one that is almost completely ignored.
Consider our third list of dates and years: 22nd January 1970, 26th April 1956, 1st October 1908, and 1960. Even fewer people would recognize these. However, if you want to understand our world, these are more important than those on the first or second list.
What were they, and why so important? They are when the way we lived changed.
The first, 22nd January 1970, was the first commercial flight of the Boeing 747, the first jumbo jet. This was the outcome of an amazing project, led by figures such as the inspirational head of Pan American Airways, Juan Trippe, and Boeing’s coordinating engineer, Joe Sutter. The project involved the creation of several new technologies and came close to bankrupting Boeing. The jumbo jet transformed air travel from a luxury good to a mass-consumer one. In doing so, tourism, migration, trade, and the exchange of ideas have all been transformed. The world we live in is now far more interconnected and integrated because of this breakthrough. The modern global city is a product of the 747 and the aircraft that followed it. Trippe called the 747 ‘a great weapon for peace, competing with ballistic missiles for the future of humanity.’…
[Davies explicates the other dates]
… Why should we count these events as more important and significant than the iconic events in the political understanding? One reason is that politics is, in a sense, downstream of these technological breakthroughs, as politics is determined and driven by the changes in material circumstances and lived experiences that those events brought.
The forms that events such as wars and revolutions or peaceful politics took were both made possible by the kinds of events we are looking at here but were also limited by them. Certain possibilities were not possible or no longer possible because of the changes brought by these events and the way that they also created systems with limits or unavoidable requirements. For example, after the jumbo jet, containing pandemics with quarantines, as was common in the nineteenth century, has become difficult or impossible.
In this materialist way of thinking, it is material lived experience that determines consciousness and shapes things like culture and politics, and so things that influence or shape that material lived experience are what we should give more weight and attention to…
[Davies offers other examples– the telegraph, the telephone, and radio broadcasting, observing that “almost every aspect of our lives today is shaped in some way by these three events and what followed from them.”]
… If the shared element of the first set of dates was the part played by power in human affairs, what unites the latter ones? These are the dates when technological shifts changed our lives. Human beings, through cooperation, exchange, exploration, experiment, and inquiry, can create novel solutions to challenges and problems, with enormous effects. These are cases when those solutions worked, with predominantly good, but also bad, effects.
Certainly, on an initial comparison the fruits of technology seem to have created more good than the battles of history. This would be even clearer if we thought about other events that could be added to this kind of list, such as the discovery of anesthesia and antisepsis, the synthesizing of antibiotics by Ernst Chain and Howard Florey, the fundamental breakthroughs in our understanding of the biology of infectious disease that were brought by Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, or the discovery of the Haber-Bosch process for taking nitrogen from the air to create artificial fertilizer, which reduced the threat of famine and starvation to a historical low.
An understanding of the past in which not just our intellectual successes but our technological breakthroughs occupy pride of place would be very different from the political one that dominates now. Instead of politics and war, and the growth, rise, and decline of states and empires being the focus, the central story would rather be one of human cooperation and inventiveness, innovation and scientific and technological progress and discovery, and the improvement in human well-being than the deeds (often diabolical) of those with power…
If it is the case that human ingenuity solving problems is the most potent force in history, why do so many still fixate upon politics, wars, and revolutions?
Part of the reason is obvious: Those events are dramatic, as unpleasant things often are. A more cynical explanation is that this flatters the self-importance of the most immediately powerful people in society, and also causes the rest of society to see them as more important than they are. It also legitimizes and justifies the actually existing systems and institutions of political power by making it seem that these are the keys to human well-being and advancement.
If our alternative, technology-focused way of thinking about history became the default mode of understanding the past and how our world came to be, rather than the first, many things may change. We might pay less attention to politics and more to technology, science, and business. We would think more about trade and innovation. We might think of technological solutions to social and environmental problems…
… John F Kennedy memorably captured this sentiment in the peroration to his ‘Moon Speech’ delivered at Rice University in Texas in 1961. As he said:
If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.
The vision of history and the optimism for the future that he expressed that day is something we should recover…
Do we misperceive politics to be at the center of history? “History is in the making,” from @SteveDavies365 in @WorksInProgMag.
(Image above: source)
* “Perhaps the cause of our contemporary pessimism is our tendency to view history as a turbulent stream of conflicts — between individuals in economic life, between groups in politics, between creeds in religion, between states in war. This is the more dramatic side of history; it captures the eye of the historian and the interest of the reader… History has been too often a picture of the bloody stream. The history of civilization is a record of what happened on the banks.” – Will Durant
###
As we parse the past, we might recall that it was on this date in 1865 that the 27th (and conclusive) state (Georgia) ratified the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude (except as punishment for a crime). Proclaimed on December 18, it was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted following the American Civil War.
The Emancipation Proclamation (made in September 1862; effective January 1, 1863) had freed all current slaves in the U.S. (though as a practical matter freedom took years longer). The Thirteenth Amendment assured that it would never be reinstated.
“We live in an age when the traditional great subjects – the human form, the landscape, even newer traditions such as abstract expressionism – are daily devalued by commercial art”*…
… But it wasn’t always so. A current exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum in New York is devoted to the work of (often anonymous) artists who illustrated commercial catalogs in the late 19th and early 20th centuries…
Art of Commerce: Trade Catalogs in Watson Library features a selection of the library’s extensive holdings of sale catalogs. Watson Library has almost two thousand trade catalogs published in many countries from the eighteenth century to the present. Objects featured include furniture, jewelry, tiles, ironwork, glasswork, lighting, stoves, tableware, textiles, decorative paper, artist’s materials, fashion, typography, automobiles, and musical instruments. Numerous catalogs illustrate works of art or related objects now in The Met collection.
The library has strong holdings of Art Deco trade catalogs including Modern furniture design = Le dessin moderne des meubles—a colorful furniture portfolio by Czech architect Karel Vepřek—and Van Clef Arpels présentent, an elegantly illustrated accessories publication designed by Draeger Frères, the most innovative graphic designers and printers of the period. Both catalogs are on display in the exhibition.
Trade or sale catalogs — also called commercial or manufacturer’s catalogs —are printed publications advertising products of a particular trade or industry. Sale catalogs were often used in shops or showrooms to promote a company’s products. Examples include the massive Reed and Barton catalog Artistic workers in silver & gold plate from 1885 that illustrates the entire inventory of the company…
Among the more unusual and appealing trade catalogs in the exhibition is a German Art Nouveau-inspired cake decorating book from 1910 and a baby carriage catalog from 1934 offering Art Deco styled tubular steel baby prams. These trade catalogs demonstrate the distillation of major art movements applied to quotidian objects.
The earliest trade catalog in the exhibition is Muster zu Zimmer-Verzierungen und Ameublements, a neo-classical interior design catalog by luxury German manufacturer Voss und Compagnie, offering entire rooms that can be bought en masse or as separate pieces. It is illustrated with richly toned hand-colored engravings that detail the design and color of the objects.
One of the library’s most fragile and weighty catalogs is Album des principaux modeles de verres: produits spéciaux en verre coulé. It is a magical trade catalog with sixty-five intact glass samples manufactured by French glassmaker Saint-Gobain. Founded during the time of Louis XIV, the company remains a manufacturer of glass for construction.
The majestic ironwork catalogue of Maison Garnier has pink-tinted papers and was bound in Morocco leather as a special copy for Rémy Garnier, the son of the firm’s founder. The firm’s initials are boldly blind stamped on the cover.
The most unusual and perhaps unexpected catalog, Urinoirs, illustrates the decorative ironwork structures of urinals (or pissoirs) that adorned the streets of Paris from the 1840s to the mid-twentieth century. The ornamentation of these structures demonstrates an impulse to beautify the animated street life of Paris and other cities…
See the items mentioned at the links above, and other articles in the exhibit here.
Beauty in the service of business: “Art of Commerce: Trade Catalogs in Watson Library,” from @metmuseum (where one can see the works on exhibit through March 4, 2025).
* Andy Warhol
###
As we browse, we might spare a thought for Oscar Fingal O’Flahertie Wills Wilde; the novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and master of the bon mot died on this date in 1900.
As he said: “There are moments when art attains almost to the dignity of manual labor.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.