Judge Considers Limits on Apple’s Future E-Book Deals

In a sometimes testy hearing in United States District Court in Lower Manhattan, Judge Denise L. Cote said that she was considering a plan in which Apple would negotiate contracts with publishers in a staggered fashion — possibly six to eight months apart — to prevent them from engaging in another price-fixing conspiracy.

Judge Cote ruled in July that Apple colluded with publishers to raise the price of e-books before the introduction of its iPad in 2010. Those charges were brought against Apple and five major publishers by the Justice Department in 2012. The publishers all settled, but Apple held out and went to trial.

The judge’s proposal was a scaled-back version of the guidelines put forth by the government last week, when it suggested that Apple be forced to end its agreements with the five settling publishers and avoid entering similar agreements with producers of movies, TV and music. Apple responded by calling the proposal a “draconian and punitive intrusion” into its business.

The publishers who settled also objected to the Justice Department’s proposed remedy, saying that it would fundamentally change their existing settlements.

In court on Friday, Judge Cote said that she wanted an injunction to be tailored so that it would encourage innovation in a rapidly changing e-book business and yet prevent collusion on price in the future.

“I have no desire to regulate the App Store,” she said.

But Judge Cote also slammed the publishers for lacking “contrition” and said that she feared future collusion in the e-book market. Although the publishers eventually agreed to settlements, none of them admitted wrongdoing.

Judge Cote said that the publishers had played “a rough and tumble game” and engaged in “blatant price fixing.”

“None of the publisher defendants have expressed any remorse,” she said. “They are, in a word, unrepentant.”

Lawyers for Apple and the government said in court that they would meet in the next week and discuss the judge’s proposal. Another hearing is expected later this month.

Apple and the Justice Department declined to comment.

Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster settled in April 2012; Penguin Group USA and Macmillan settled later. Penguin has since merged with Random House, which was not named in the lawsuit.

The Media Equation: VCR’s Past Is Guiding Television’s Future

First, an appeals court declined to rehear a case in which broadcasters sought to close down Aereo, a company that allows users to record and play back broadcast television over the Internet. And then last week, another appeals court declined to stop Dish Network, the satellite television company, from selling a service called Hopper, which lets viewers automatically skip ads.

The cases are far from settled, but the stakes could not be bigger. Broadcast television as we know it now stands on two legs: advertising and retransmission fees from cable providers. With Hopper skipping ads and Aereo allowing for distribution over the Internet without payment, profits might go dark.

But the legal cases also seem to defy a kind of common-sense logic: how can insurgents use programming created by someone else to their own ends without sharing revenue?

The answer could get very complicated, very fast, but let’s try to make it simple. The dawn of consumer-controlled television began with the clunky, whirring Sony Betamax in the 1970s. Networks and program providers didn’t like consumers making copies of their movies and TV shows, but a landmark Supreme Court case in 1984 held that taping and time-shifting on the part of viewers was “legitimate fair use.”

Everything we have seen since extends from that decision to let consumers into the driver’s seat. It helps to think of the digital video recorder as more of a capability than a device. Both Aereo, which uses antennas to record broadcast television, and Hopper, which records prime-time programming, can be considered DVRs in the cloud, and the cord going to each home happens to be very long (Aereo over the Internet) or comes via satellite signal (Dish).

In each instance, the courts have more or less held, the customers are doing the programming and recording, and as such, have the right to do so even if they are doing so remotely through a third party.

If a revolution is under way, it is happening in increments. The VCR in the corner gave way to the DVR on the set-top box, and now some of the recording lives in the cloud and is pulled down to a variety of devices, including televisions, tablets, computers and phones.

That new paradigm was affirmed in a more recent case that began in March 2006, when Cablevision announced that it would allow subscribers not only to record whatever they wanted, but to do so remotely on hard drives centrally maintained by the company. Despite the Betamax precedent, the television and movie industry promptly sued Cablevision, claiming that the cable company — not the consumer — was making the actual copy.

A district court in New York agreed, so Cablevision appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007. Consumer control took a big leap forward the next year, when the court decided in favor of Cablevision, ruling that the people pushing the buttons were the ones making the copies and that the playback of those recordings was not a public performance that infringed on copyright.

“We are in a transition period, migrating toward a world where you are going to get the content you want without commercials,” said Jonathan Band, a lawyer and advocate for consumer choice. “But the truth of the matter is that you are still going to have to pay. The only thing really being argued is who gets the money.”

To his point, Fox has sued Dish, asserting that the Hopper ad-skipping service violates copyrights and breaches contracts, not to mention that the service takes direct aim at its business model.

CBS, NBC and ABC have also been pushing back in a variety of ways. Last Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California denied an appeal from Fox over a federal judge’s decision last fall not to grant an injunction against the Hopper technology.

The judge writing the opinion, Sidney R. Thomas, held that the copies being made met the “fair use” standard set by the Betamax case. The opinion also pointed out that although Fox owned the copyright on the programs, it had no such claim on the commercials, so skipping them did not constitute infringement.

E-mail:carr@nytimes.com;

Twitter: @carr2n

Shortcuts: Unemployed and Older, and Facing a Jobless Future

She wonders how to support him in his continued quest to find a job in his field of marketing and financial services while at the same time encouraging him to think about what his life would be like if he never worked in that field or had a full-time job again.

“I wanted to move to what I thought was a healthier place. I wanted to turn the page,” said my friend, who asked to be identified by her middle name, Shelley, since she didn’t want to publicize her family’s situation. “He saw it as vote of no confidence.”

For those over 50 and unemployed, the statistics are grim. While unemployment rates for Americans nearing retirement are lower than for young people who are recently out of school, once out of a job, older workers have a much harder time finding work. Over the last year, according to the Department of Labor, the average duration of unemployment for older people was 53 weeks, compared with 19 weeks for teenagers.

There are numerous reasons — older workers have been hit both by the recession and globalization. They’re more likely to have been laid off from industries that are downsizing, and since their salaries tend to be higher than those of younger workers, they’re attractive targets if layoffs are needed.

Even as they do all the things they’re told to do — network, improve those computer skills, find a new passion and turn it into a job — many struggle with the question of whether their working life as they once knew it is essentially over.

This is something professionals who work with and research the older unemployed say needs to be addressed better than it is now. Helping people figure out how to cope with a future that may not include work, while at the same time encouraging them in their job searches, is a difficult balance, said Nadya Fouad, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Psychologists and others who counsel this cohort need to help them face the grief of losing a job, and also to understand that jobs and job-hunting are far different now from how they used to be.

“The contract used to be, ‘I am a loyal employee and you are a loyal employer. I promise to work for you my entire career and you train, promote, give benefits and a pension when I retire.’ Now you can’t count on any of that,” she said. “The onus is all on the employee to have a portfolio of skills that can be transferable.”

People in their 20s and 30s know that they need to market themselves and always be on the lookout for better opportunities, she said, something that may seem foreign to those in their 50s and 60s.

If a counselor or psychologist “doesn’t understand how the world of work has changed, they’re not helping at all,” she said. “You can’t just talk about how it feels.”

In response to this concern, Professor Fouad and her colleagues have drawn up guidelines for the American Psychological Association to help psychotherapists better assist their clients with workplace issues and unemployment. It is wending its way through the association’s committees.

Of course, not everyone who is unemployed and over 50 is equal. For some, the reality is that they need to find another job – any job – to survive. Others have resources that can allow them to spend more time looking for a job that might have the salary or status of their former position.

In the first case, Professor Fouad said, “You need to decide what is the minimum amount of money you can make and how to go about finding it.” In the second case, she said, it’s necessary to examine what work means to you and how that may have to change.

Is it the high social status? The identity? The relationship with co-workers?

It is important to examine these areas, perhaps with the help of a professional counselor, Professor Fouad said, to discover how to find such meaning or relationships in other areas of life.

Sometimes simply changing the way you look at your situation can help.

Economic View: Wealth Taxes: A Future Battleground

The mathematical reality is that wealth is becoming more important, relative to income. In a new paper, “Capital Is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries 1700-2010,” Professors Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman of the Paris School of Economics have performed the heroic task of measuring wealth for eight leading economies: the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Australia.

Their estimates reveal some striking trends. For instance, wealth accumulation in these eight countries has risen relative to yearly production. Wealth-to-income ratios in these nations climbed from a range of 200 to 300 percent in 1970 to a range of 400 to 600 percent in 2010. Behind the changing ratios is some bad news, namely that slow productivity growth and slow population growth have depressed income growth, but also some good news — that relative peace and capital gains have preserved wealth.

Focusing on the wealth of economies lets us reframe our recent debates about government debt in useful ways. A look at the ratio of debt to gross national product, for example, can be scary, but the ratio of debt to wealth is far less forbidding. If, say, a nation’s debt-to-G.D.P. ratio is 100 percent — often considered a dangerous level — and national wealth is 10 times yearly national income, the debt-to-wealth ratio is thus 10 percent, which is comparable to owing $100,000 on a $1 million home. Not so scary.

Using the wealth numbers provided by Professors Piketty and Zucman, we can understand how Japan, despite a debt-to-G.D.P. ratio of more than 200 percent, can maintain low interest rates; Japan has a wealth-to-income ratio of about 600 percent. In essence, creditors think the Japanese political system will be able to drum up enough support for the requisite taxes, pulled out of national wealth if necessary, when the time comes.

But don’t relax too quickly, because fiscal problems remain very real for many countries. While virtually every government could pay off its debts by taxing wealth, such taxes are often politically unacceptable. In other words, fiscal problems are best regarded as problems of dysfunctional governance. In the recent elections in Italy, the incumbent government lost voter support partly because it addressed the nation’s revenue problems by levying a wealth tax on real estate; the policy remains contentious and may yet be repealed or limited.

And here is a related issue: If there is enough national wealth to pay off debts, it may be harder to arrange bailouts from outside.

In the European Union, countries like Germany may regard the union’s more troubled nations as shirking their fiscal duties, and that makes cooperation harder to achieve. Italy, for instance, is in a fiscal crisis, but it also has an especially high wealth-to-income ratio, at 650 percent, indicating that it could pay off its debt if more of that wealth were taxed. Germany, by contrast, has a much lower wealth-to-income ratio: 400 percent. And though the professors caution that the German data, in particular, may be incomplete, the figures do lend support or at least plausibility to the recent argument that Germany shouldn’t be viewed as the rich uncle of Europe.

Some forms of wealth taxation take hidden forms, such as financial repression. This occurs when a nation’s citizens are required to hold deposits in banks under unfavorable terms — meaning at low interest rates. The banks, in turn, may be required to buy government debt to help finance a budget deficit. For better or worse, this is likely part of a longer-run resolution of fiscal problems in the periphery of the euro zone.

In the United States, wealth taxes are currently limited to a few levies, such as property taxes and inheritance taxes. Capital gains taxes that aren’t indexed to inflation also serve as an implicit wealth tax, because they dig into the body of a person’s capital. Most likely those rates will rise. Like the bank robber Willie Sutton, revenue-hungry governments go “where the money is.”

The coming battles over wealth taxation may prove especially bitter and polarizing. Most wealth has already been subjected to income and other taxes, perhaps multiple times. It doesn’t seem fair to the holders of that wealth to suddenly pay additional taxes on assets that they thought were in the clear, and such taxes would signal that previous policy has failed.

Higher wealth in a nation means that there is more to take, and growing inequality means there are more problems that its government might seek to remedy. At the same time, however, this new economic configuration will mean greater political influence for the holders of that wealth, and that will make higher wealth taxes harder to achieve.

Historically, economists — including me — have generally favored taxes on consumption, on the grounds that they would do the least damage to long-term savings, investment and economic growth. Yet in some eyes, rising wealth will become a tempting target for short-term political gain. And note that while most Republicans currently oppose consumption taxes, they may dislike the relevant alternative, namely wealth taxes, even more.

Get ready to choose a side.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Economic View: Wealth Taxes: A Future Battleground

The mathematical reality is that wealth is becoming more important, relative to income. In a new paper, “Capital Is Back: Wealth-Income Ratios in Rich Countries 1700-2010,” Professors Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman of the Paris School of Economics have performed the heroic task of measuring wealth for eight leading economies: the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Australia.

Their estimates reveal some striking trends. For instance, wealth accumulation in these eight countries has risen relative to yearly production. Wealth-to-income ratios in these nations climbed from a range of 200 to 300 percent in 1970 to a range of 400 to 600 percent in 2010. Behind the changing ratios is some bad news, namely that slow productivity growth and slow population growth have depressed income growth, but also some good news — that relative peace and capital gains have preserved wealth.

Focusing on the wealth of economies lets us reframe our recent debates about government debt in useful ways. A look at the ratio of debt to gross national product, for example, can be scary, but the ratio of debt to wealth is far less forbidding. If, say, a nation’s debt-to-G.D.P. ratio is 100 percent — often considered a dangerous level — and national wealth is 10 times yearly national income, the debt-to-wealth ratio is thus 10 percent, which is comparable to owing $100,000 on a $1 million home. Not so scary.

Using the wealth numbers provided by Professors Piketty and Zucman, we can understand how Japan, despite a debt-to-G.D.P. ratio of more than 200 percent, can maintain low interest rates; Japan has a wealth-to-income ratio of about 600 percent. In essence, creditors think the Japanese political system will be able to drum up enough support for the requisite taxes, pulled out of national wealth if necessary, when the time comes.

But don’t relax too quickly, because fiscal problems remain very real for many countries. While virtually every government could pay off its debts by taxing wealth, such taxes are often politically unacceptable. In other words, fiscal problems are best regarded as problems of dysfunctional governance. In the recent elections in Italy, the incumbent government lost voter support partly because it addressed the nation’s revenue problems by levying a wealth tax on real estate; the policy remains contentious and may yet be repealed or limited.

And here is a related issue: If there is enough national wealth to pay off debts, it may be harder to arrange bailouts from outside.

In the European Union, countries like Germany may regard the union’s more troubled nations as shirking their fiscal duties, and that makes cooperation harder to achieve. Italy, for instance, is in a fiscal crisis, but it also has an especially high wealth-to-income ratio, at 650 percent, indicating that it could pay off its debt if more of that wealth were taxed. Germany, by contrast, has a much lower wealth-to-income ratio: 400 percent. And though the professors caution that the German data, in particular, may be incomplete, the figures do lend support or at least plausibility to the recent argument that Germany shouldn’t be viewed as the rich uncle of Europe.

Some forms of wealth taxation take hidden forms, such as financial repression. This occurs when a nation’s citizens are required to hold deposits in banks under unfavorable terms — meaning at low interest rates. The banks, in turn, may be required to buy government debt to help finance a budget deficit. For better or worse, this is likely part of a longer-run resolution of fiscal problems in the periphery of the euro zone.

In the United States, wealth taxes are currently limited to a few levies, such as property taxes and inheritance taxes. Capital gains taxes that aren’t indexed to inflation also serve as an implicit wealth tax, because they dig into the body of a person’s capital. Most likely those rates will rise. Like the bank robber Willie Sutton, revenue-hungry governments go “where the money is.”

The coming battles over wealth taxation may prove especially bitter and polarizing. Most wealth has already been subjected to income and other taxes, perhaps multiple times. It doesn’t seem fair to the holders of that wealth to suddenly pay additional taxes on assets that they thought were in the clear, and such taxes would signal that previous policy has failed.

Higher wealth in a nation means that there is more to take, and growing inequality means there are more problems that its government might seek to remedy. At the same time, however, this new economic configuration will mean greater political influence for the holders of that wealth, and that will make higher wealth taxes harder to achieve.

Historically, economists — including me — have generally favored taxes on consumption, on the grounds that they would do the least damage to long-term savings, investment and economic growth. Yet in some eyes, rising wealth will become a tempting target for short-term political gain. And note that while most Republicans currently oppose consumption taxes, they may dislike the relevant alternative, namely wealth taxes, even more.

Get ready to choose a side.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

A Fight Over Coal Exports and the Industry’s Future

It’s part of a push by the nation’s coal industry, hobbled by plummeting demand as Americans turn to cleaner natural gas, to vastly expand what it sends to Asia and Europe. But the aggressive effort to rescue the $40 billion industry is running into fierce opposition from environmental groups, who say pollution caused by burning coal should not be exported.

The two sides have engaged in an increasingly pitched battle, in regulatory arenas and on the airwaves, scaring off some investors and raising concerns about the fate of the industry, which is seen as a key to economic growth in Western states like Montana and Wyoming.

“The future of the U.S. coal industry is at stake,” said Richard Morse, managing director at SuperCritical Capital, an energy consultancy. “Their future domestically is dim and demand growth internationally is very robust, so it is fair to say that a resuscitation of the industry has to come overseas.”

The future of the impoverished Crow Nation may also hang in the balance since it owns an enormous deposit of up to 1.4 billion tons of coal — more than the United States produces in a year. But before Cloud Peak can mine the land and send the coal to energy-hungry nations in Asia, it needs more export terminals to be built in the Pacific Northwest, and those have been delayed or, in some cases, scuttled after investors grew weary of the continued opposition from environmental groups.

Last week, the Sierra Club and other groups opened another phase in the battle, filing suit in a federal court in Seattle against Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway and several coal companies, saying coal dust escaping from trains has polluted rivers and lakes in Washington. The new export terminals, they say, would only bring more trains carrying coal to the ports and increase the amount of dust.

Coal’s share of electricity generation in the United States has fallen to under 40 percent in the last decade, from 50 percent. Annual production dropped 7 percent in 2012 to just over 1 billion tons, the lowest total in two decades, and the stock prices of many coal companies have been plummeting.

Cheap, abundant and cleaner natural gas produced in new shale fields has replaced much of the coal that American power plants once burned, and regulatory pressures are mounting to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal combustion. That has left exports as the only sure growth engine for the declining American coal industry.

Last year, American coal exports set a record of 125 million tons in sales, roughly double the volume in 2009, with most of that going to Europe. Exports fell this spring because of slower Chinese demand for steelmaking coal. But energy experts say the big potential market for American coal remains in Asia, and several proposed Pacific Northwest export terminals would have the capacity to nearly double current exports.

For the Crow Nation, which is sitting on the reserves here, and many coal companies like Cloud Peak, exports could make the difference between just getting by and prospering.

While coal mining is the largest private sector provider of jobs, half the adult population is unemployed. Homelessness would be pandemic if it were not customary for three or four families to cram into small trailers so crowded that couples sometimes go to motels for moments of privacy and children struggle to do homework through a blare of television.

Three bright days a year come when families receive small bonuses from the tribe, thanks to one coal mine that operates on the reservation, to buy presents for Christmas and beads and tepee canvas for the tribe’s annual powwow. The Crow hope more bright days may be coming, although some express concerns about the damage more coal mines could do to archaeological sites.

Nuclear Power’s Future May Hinge on Georgia Project

But something else is at stake with the reactors called Vogtle 3 and 4: the future of the American nuclear industry itself.

The Alvin W. Vogtle nuclear power plant near Augusta is using a new plant design, a new construction method and a new system of nuclear regulation for what the industry says is a faster, better and cheaper system that will lead the way for a new generation of reactors.

Until recently, a new reactor construction project had not been started in the United States for 30 years, and now Vogtle and a similar project in South Carolina, V.C. Summer 2 and 3, are supposed to provide the answer to nuclear power’s great questions: What does a new reactor cost? With the price of natural gas near historic lows, can it even be worthwhile?

As the current generation of reactors moves toward retirement, the two projects may be the industry’s last best hope.

“Everybody’s watching the construction of that plant,” said Barry Moline, executive director of the Florida Municipal Electric Association, speaking of Vogtle. Several association members are considering investing in a nearly identical plant proposed by Florida Power and Light in Miami. Mr. Moline said of Vogtle’s builders, led by Georgia Power, “If they can do it, that will be the model.”

And if they can’t, it could years before anybody thinks of trying again. The new designs are supposed to be 10 times less likely to have an accident and be easier to operate, but if they cannot be built roughly on time and on budget, then nuclear power will have trouble in the era of plentiful natural gas and emerging technologies like wind. Nuclear power could become a bypassed technology — like moon landings, Polaroid photos and cassette tapes.

Executives at Southern Company, Georgia Power’s corporate parent, say they are eager for the challenge. “It takes leadership to do something like this,” said Joseph A. Miller, known as Buzz, Southern’s vice president for nuclear development.

Southern, one of the biggest utilities in the United States, raced to grab incentives offered by Congress to restart the nuclear construction business and to try out a licensing system devised by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to avoid a repeat of the experience of the 1970s and ‘80s.

In those decades parts of plants were built, ripped out and rebuilt because of design and regulatory problems, leading to ruinous costs. Examples sit across the muddy construction site: Vogtle 1 and 2, which opened in 1987 and 1989, cost $8.87 billion. When they were proposed in 1971 the estimated cost was $660 million.

For Vogtle 3 and 4, the company submitted a license application with a design described as nearly complete and received an operating license when construction had barely started, contingent on building exactly what it said it would.

The older plants, in contrast, were built by welders and pipe fitters and electricians who were working from incomplete plans that were conflicting, vague or inadequate to meet regulatory standards.

In a second innovation, Southern chose a system in which large sections of the plant would be prefabricated in multiton sections, shipped to the site and welded together into gigantic modules, then loaded into place by the world’s largest crane.

But with construction now roughly one-third complete, it is clear that much is not going as planned, and that the schedule — which is closely linked to cost because of growing interest expense on the incomplete asset — has slipped by at least 14 months and possibly more.

Still, all is not lost. Some of the changes since the company committed to the project seven years ago have helped it along; interest rates are at historic lows and the price for labor and materials has been held down by recession.

Conference Board Offers Sign of Growth for Future

WASHINGTON — A measure of the economy’s future health rose solidly in April, buoyed by a sharp rise in applications to build homes and a better job market.

The Conference Board said on Friday that its index of leading indicators increased 0.6 percent last month to a reading of 95. The index declined 0.2 percent in March.

The index is intended to signal economic conditions three to six months out.

Kenneth Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board, said the index was 3.5 percent higher at an annual rate than it was six months ago, suggesting expansion for the economy.

Mr. Goldstein said steady job gains and a recovering housing market were driving the economy and helping offset deep federal spending cuts that threaten growth.

The index is composed of 10 forward-pointing indicators. Strength in April came from the surge in building permits, a drop in applications for unemployment benefits and a rising stock market.

Holding the index back in April were weaker consumer confidence and a decline in the average hours worked at American factories.

A separate report on Friday showed that consumer confidence rose to almost a six-year high in early May. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index rose to 83.7, from 76.4 in April.

Economists attributed the gain to high stock prices, cheaper gas and solid employment gains.

“Changes in confidence don’t always filter through into changes in spending, but the omens are good,” said Amna Asaf, an economist at Capital Economics.

The job market has also improved over the last six months. The economy has added an average of 208,000 jobs a month since November, compared with only 138,000 a month in the previous six months.

Unemployment has fallen to a four-year low of 7.5 percent.

A rebound in housing, along with a limited supply of homes for sale, has lifted the construction industry.

Construction cooled in April, as builders broke ground on fewer homes after topping the one million mark in March for the first time since 2008. But most of the decline was in apartment construction, which tends to vary sharply from month to month.

The most encouraging sign for the industry last month was that applications for new construction reached a five-year peak. That suggests that the housing revival will be sustained.

Books of The Times: ‘Who Owns the Future?’ by Jaron Lanier

While working on “intriguing unannounced projects” for Microsoft Research — “a gigantic lighter-than-air railgun to launch spacecraft” and a speculative strategy for “repositioning earthquakes” — Mr. Lanier found time to follow up on his first book, “You Are Not a Gadget” (2010). That was a feisty, brilliant, predictive work, and the new volume is just as exciting. Mr. Lanier bucks a wave of more conventional diatribes on Big Data to deliver Olympian, contrarian fighting words about the Internet’s exploitative powers. A self-proclaimed “humanist softie,” he is a witheringly caustic critic of big Web entities and their business models.

He’s talking to you, Facebook. (“What’s Facebook going to do when it grows up?”) And to you, Google. (“The Google guys would have gotten rich from the search code without having to create the private spying agency.”) And to all the other tempting Siren Servers (as he calls them) that depend on accumulating and evaluating consumer data without acknowledging a monetary debt to the people mined for all this “free” information. One need not be a political ideologue, he says, to believe that people have quantifiable value and deserve to be recompensed for it.

It’s true that Mr. Lanier was once driving in Silicon Valley, listening to what he thought was some Internet start-up “trumpeting the latest scheme to take over the world,” when he realized he was hearing Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital.” (“If you select the right passages, Marx can read as being incredibly current.”)

He is no “lefty” (to use his word); he sees high-tech thievery as an apolitical problem. And he is too much of a maverick to align with anyone’s thinking, even his own. Whether it is a boast or a mea culpa, Mr. Lanier acknowledges: “I was an early participant in the process and helped to formulate many of the ideas I am criticizing in this book.” And “to my friends in the ‘open’ Internet movement, I have to ask: What did you think would happen?”

“Who Owns the Future?” reiterates some ideas in Mr. Lanier’s first book: that Web businesses exploit a peasant class, that users of social media may not realize how entrapped they are, that a thriving middle class is essential to keeping the Internet sustainable. When “ordinary people ‘share,’ while elite network presences generate unprecedented fortunes,” even that elite will eventually be undermined. Mr. Lanier compares his suggestions for reconfiguring this process to Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal,” but the last thing he worries about is writerly grandiosity. “Understand that in the context of the community in which I function,” he says of Silicon Valley, “my presentation is practically self-deprecating.”

Mr. Lanier’s sharp, accessible style and opinions make “Who Owns the Future?” terrifically inviting. What is he calling for? Just “The Ad Hoc Construction of Mass Dignity.” He much prefers sweeping formulations to qualified ones, although, as he points out, “being an absolutist is a certain way to become a failed technologist.” This book may not provide many answers (“It is too early for me to solve every problem brought up by the approach I’m advocating here”), but it does articulate a desperate need for them.

“Who Owns the Future?” overlaps with “The New Digital Age,” Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen’s much more polished work of Web analysis. Their book focuses more on global issues, but disagrees with specific points.

“The New Digital Age” looks forward to self-driving trucks that can ease the strain on Teamsters; Mr. Lanier rambunctiously writes of “Napstering the Teamsters” out of work, and of how such technology could go terribly wrong. The books also disagree on whether surgeons’ work will be enhanced or diminished by robotics.

And where Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Cohen see promise in technology’s effect on the Arab Spring, Mr. Lanier is sick of the back-patting about social networking. Revolutions can happen without it, too, he says.

Mr. Lanier may not have any personal animus against Mr. Schmidt. But he describes listening to him and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos discuss the future of books just as he, Mr. Lanier, was struggling to write his first one. This prompts an attack on how Siren Servers could undermine and impoverish the world of reading, just as they did music. (Mr. Lanier is also a musician. He specializes in the arcane and innovative, as might be expected.) More generally, and very quotably, he warns against being seduced by “dazzlingly designed forms of cognitive waste.”

Finally, “Who Owns the Future?” takes some of it biggest swipes at those who do presume to own the future: fans of the Singularity (the hypothetical imminent merger of biology and technology), Silicon Valley pioneers seeking “methusalization” (i.e., immortality), techie utopians of every stripe. Yes, Mr. Lanier happens to be one of them. But he is still capable of remembering when, in his boyhood, prognosticators foresaw Moon colonies and flying cars. Now they think about genomics and data. Mindful of that way-cool past, he says, “I miss the future.”

DealBook: Kodak’s Fuzzy Future

David Duprey/Associated PressEastman Kodak’s headquarters in Rochester.

When Eastman Kodak emerges from bankruptcy this summer or fall, it will be a shadow of the blue-chip corporate giant it once was.

A celebrated company whose little yellow packages of film documented generations of birthday parties, weddings and anniversaries, the new Kodak will be more commercially focused, providing printing and imaging services to businesses as well as film to the movie industry.

Consumers will probably still be able to find Kodak-brand film in vacation spots around the world. They will still be able to buy digital cameras bearing the Kodak name. And they will still be able to download and print their digital pictures at kiosks in their local drugstores.

But those businesses will no longer be owned or controlled by Kodak. As part of the more than yearlong bankruptcy process, they were sold to others.

Antonio M. Perez, Kodak’s oft-criticized chief executive, who has been trying to stage a turnaround of the company since 2005 and has overseen it through bankruptcy proceedings, said in a news release this week that the company had a “clear path forward” and was positioned for a “profitable and sustainable future.”

Yuri Gripas/ReutersKodak’s chief, Antonio Perez.

But some skeptics sounded warnings about Kodak’s outlook, noting that certain commercial businesses that the company is banking on are fiercely competitive and that Kodak’s own projections show steep declines in growth in other business lines.

The steady decline and evolution of Kodak’s business has been felt most strongly in Rochester, where the predecessor for the company was founded by George Eastman in 1881.

A classic, all-American company town whose landscape is dotted with the legacy of Mr. Eastman and Kodak, Rochester and some of its residents admit that the days of Kodak as a corporate giant were well behind it.

“I cannot remember a case that I’ve ever been associated with in any way where so many people wanted the company to succeed but so few people thought it actually could,” said John C. Ninfo II, a retired United States bankruptcy judge whose grandfather worked at Kodak and whose great uncle tended the gardens at the Eastman house. “For some, the bankruptcy proceeding has been a sorrowful thing, like losing a family member.”

But critics of the company also said its unwillingness — seemingly even in the throes of bankruptcy — to acknowledge that many of its products had fallen out of favor and become almost quaint in an increasingly digitized world was its ultimate downfall.

“The company made a big mistake of riding the cash cow — film — to the point that there was simply no more milk coming from it,” said George T. Conboy, the chairman of Brighton Securities, a stock brokerage and financial services firm in Rochester.

In the bankruptcy process over the last year, many of Kodak’s most recognizable businesses were either transferred or sold.

Early last year, it announced plans to stop making digital cameras, pocket video cameras and digital picture frames. Kodak recently entered an agreement to license its name for digital cameras to another company. It sold part of its online photo publishing service to the Internet publishing firm Shutterfly for $23.8 million.

But the bankruptcy process hit a major snag last year when the company struggled to sell what it considered to be a crown jewel — a package of 1,100 digital imaging patents.

Kodak had hoped the patents could go for as much as $2.6 billion. But a consortium of buyers that included some of the world’s largest technology companies, like Apple, Google and Facebook, bought the patents in December for far less, about $527 million. The firms have not said how they plan to incorporate or use the Kodak technology, and many of the patents are for processes and methods that consumers often cannot see. That money was used to repay a big chunk of a loan that Kodak had obtained shortly after filing for bankruptcy in early 2012.

“What that situation signified — which was part of the problem with the whole business model — is that they thought their technology and their patents were more valuable than they really were,” said Jay T. Westbrook, a professor at the University of Texas Law School. “They clung to that right until the end.”

Another big hurdle in the bankruptcy proceedings was cleared this week when Kodak said it would spin off two businesses to the Kodak Pension Plan in Britain for $650 million in cash and debt as part of a deal that would absolve Kodak of $2.8 billion of claims the pension had made against the company. The agreement still needs the approval of the bankruptcy court.

Scott Olson/Getty ImagesKodak’s pension plan in Britain recently bought the rights to two operating units, including the one that produces Kodak-brand film.

The two segments that were sold include document imaging and the business that made Kodak a household name, its camera film and photographic paper lines, along with the kiosks found in Target and Walgreens stores where consumers can download and print pictures.

Officials with the British pension fund, which retained the right to use the Kodak brand, have indicated that they intend to hire a management team to run the business. A spokesman for Steven Ross, chairman of the fund, could not reach Mr. Ross for a requested interview.

The film business is in a decline, but observers said the deal was probably the best alternative for the pension fund.

“They can either run the business and throw off cash every year to pay the pensioners,” Professor Westbrook said. “Or they can keep the business for a year or two or five years and maybe something will happen that will make it look better and sell it then.”

As for Kodak’s new focus on the commercial side of the business, analysts worry that future growth and profits could prove difficult there as well.

For instance, in a presentation Kodak provided this year to its creditors in the bankruptcy court, Kodak showed a sharp 34 percent decline in growth through 2017 in the segment that includes the entertainment imaging and commercial films business.

Another business Kodak is banking on for its future is its commercial printing and packaging business, which creates packaging labels for companies, like the plastic labels found on a bottle of juice. Analysts describe that as a highly fragmented and competitive industry and say that Kodak’s share of the market is fairly small.

In an e-mailed response to questions, a Kodak spokesman said that the company “has a compelling and unique combination of advantages to lead this industry.”

But some observers see an uphill battle.

“This is a company that is going from being a behemoth that owned the market to a niche player scrapping for share,” Mr. Conboy said. “It will be a different game for the new Eastman Kodak.”

Economic View: Housing Market’s Future Has Many Variables

Economic and demographic changes may severely impair the value of a home when it’s time to sell, a decade or more in the future. Will a particular home still be fashionable then? Will social and economic shifts tilt demand toward new designs and types of communities —even toward renting rather than an outright purchase? Any of these factors could affect home prices substantially.

An ever-changing economy requires constant geographical repositioning. In the 19th century, for example, housing was often built near factories and warehouses, with apartments or houses containing numerous small rooms intended to accommodate many people per structure. In those days, before air-conditioning, these buildings often had large porches for access to cooling breezes.

Early in the 20th century, many houses were built around streetcar routes. Then, when the Interstate Highway System started in the 1950s, suburbs bloomed along the path of superhighways. With cheaper cars and relatively cheap gasoline (despite spikes in the 1970s and after 2005), housing developments became more dispersed. A culture that prized privacy and individuality left many neighborhoods without sidewalks or nearby community gathering places. Houses were cheaper to build this way, and they grew larger.

In the last century, shifts like these helped explain why inflation-corrected prices for existing homes typically changed by plus or minus 15 percent in a decade, even without national bubbles.

Further changes are inevitable, but hard to predict. For example, governments may now be reluctant to spend much on infrastructure like new highways or high-speed rail. But what will happen in 10 years — and what are the possible effects for the housing market?

We live in what’s been called an ideas economy, with a shrinking industrial base and a greater premium on knowledge and personal connections, which make social, educational and business networking ever more important. New social media haven’t reduced the importance of geographical neighborhoods.

In his 2009 book, “The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity,” Richard Florida argues that the modern economy requires a different layout: “The coming decades will likely see more intense clustering of jobs, innovation and productivity in a smaller number of bigger cities and city-regions,” he writes. That outcome would certainly affect prices of existing homes. It seems a plausible direction for housing development, but it’s certainly not guaranteed.

AT the moment, walkable urban areas — pleasant places where people can stroll to work and to restaurants — are becoming more popular. Last year, a Brookings Institution study of the Washington area by Christopher B. Leinberger and Mariela Alfonzo concluded that such neighborhoods, where creative people cluster, show the highest property values. Far-flung suburbs are losing value relative to cities and close-in suburbs that offer such walkable areas. And these denser places seem to fit in better with more environmentally conscious values, too.

Attitudes toward renting have also been changing. A MacArthur Foundation survey, conducted by Hart Research Associates in February and March, asked Americans if they thought that, “given our nation’s current situation,” buying a home had become more or less appealing. Fifty-seven percent said it had become less so, with only 27 percent saying it had become more appealing. When asked if they agreed with the statement, “For the most part, renters can be just as successful as owners at achieving the American dream,” some 61 percent agreed; 28 percent did not.

Perhaps that trend will continue. Renting, which connotes mobility, might come to be identified with a high-status lifestyle in the new economy. If renting does become more important, owners of existing housing will be affected unevenly. A 2011 study from the Department of Housing and Urban Development concluded that conversion from ownership to rental properties has often been difficult: It has been more common for some townhouses and other “attached” homes that are relatively small and old and located in central cities. Much of the owner-occupied housing stock of today doesn’t fit that bill.

There is another problem. It’s not just that many houses today don’t convert easily to rental property. In addition, they haven’t been designed to foster their use as components of continuing-care retirement communities. Yet, as baby boomers retire, the demand for such places will probably grow at the expense of conventional housing.

In the wake of the housing crisis, and amid shifting demographics, it’s plausible that a broad change in thinking is ahead, reducing demand for large suburban homes. After all, the national psyche has absorbed the tribulations of the millions of people who have been living in homes worth less than their mortgages, struggling to make payments and yet unable to sell. Smaller living quarters may become more socially acceptable.

This future for housing is possible, but we don’t really know. The housing haze is very thick, and, as I’ve said in other columns, so many things affect home prices that it is hard to foresee prices for a particular home years from now.

Forecasting is indeed risky, because of factors like construction productivity, inflation, and the growth and bursting of speculative bubbles in both home prices and long-term interest rates. The outlook is so ambiguous that there is no single answer to the question of housing’s potential as a long-term investment.

If you want to settle down for a quiet life and watch your children grow up in a nice neighborhood, you might well act now to lock in an ultralow mortgage rate. Then again, if you’re restless, ambitious and determined to be mobile, it might be sensible to rent rather than own. Calculating the best economic return may not even be possible, given the uncertain investment potential.

Instead, it may be wisest to choose the housing that best meets your personal needs, among the choices you can afford.

Robert J. Shiller is Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale.

Letters: The Financial Future of Veterinarians

The Financial Future of Veterinarians

To the Editor:

“The Vet Debt Trap” (Feb. 24), about the veterinary student debt crisis, hit the nail on the head. It should be required reading for all prospective veterinary students, regardless of age, to temper their passionate pursuit of the profession with a sobering dose of financial realism before they commit.

I am a 28-year veteran of the profession. My demographic of private-practice owners will also suffer the consequences of this vicious debt cycle, since the eventual sale proceeds of our practices represent a significant portion of our potential retirement nest egg. Good luck finding a qualified buyer among our debt-ridden younger colleagues in the next 5 to 10 years and beyond, especially in the face of falling practice revenue. Some newly minted veterinarians won’t be able to qualify for a home mortgage, let alone the financing to buy a practice.

JEFFREY T. KRYSINSKI, D.V.M.

Grosse Pointe, Mich., Feb. 24

•

To the Editor:

The article shed light on a subject that is hugely overlooked and underreported.  Before I applied to veterinary school, it was my understanding that there was a lack of veterinarians, especially in large-animal practice. Now I face the challenge of paying off student debt when jobs are few and far between.

I will most likely have to take an internship that may pay about $26,000 a year — $13 an hour for a 40-hour week, working 50 weeks a year. Considering that an intern may work 60 to 70 hours a week, that’s about $8 an hour. I made more money when I worked shoveling horse manure.

 I entered veterinary school with the best intentions — I love animals and can’t imagine a career that would make me happier. We are all young, starry-eyed animal lovers with dreams of saving lives; we are not accountants or business people. I hope that veterinary schools, the government and, most important, our future clients will take into account the sacrifices we make to live our dreams.

LAUREN PETERSON

Baton Rouge, La., Feb. 26

The writer is a third-year veterinary student at Louisiana State University.

•

To the Editor:

I bought my veterinary practice in 2005, just two years out of school.  And while the economy in my area has not been kind to veterinary practices, I am still here.

But I have seen a change in the face of veterinary medicine, as more pet owners want low-cost, online, do-it-yourself medicine for their pets.  Sometimes I foresee the field becoming a trade, rather than a profession — even as so many veterinarians have student loans to deal with.

It’s hard to compete, and I have had to resort to coupons and lowering my own costs to get business in the door.  I hope that it will be enough to finish paying off my loans.

ANDREA MAYBERRY, D.V.M.

Grove City, Ohio, Feb. 25

The writer is owner of Grove City Veterinary Hospital.

Letters for Sunday Business may be sent to sunbiz@nytimes.com.

The Impact of Different Conventions for Projecting Future Damages, Part I

When calculating damages for future periods ? such as for lost profits, loss of income in wrongful death cases, etc. ? experts are often charged with expressing an opinion as to what would happen in the future but for the wrongful act. These projections typically rely upon either industry trends or on the historical operating results of the injured party. Four of the most commonly used projection conventions when relying upon the operating results of the injured party are: the mean, the median, exponential smoothing and regression analysis. This blog post will define each of these conventions and discuss the pros and cons of each.

Big in 2012, but the Future Is Hazy for Bonds

Americans sold off their stock mutual funds, the most popular way to invest in American companies, at the fastest clip since 2008, the year the financial crisis began. That occurred despite the fact that the stock market itself rose steadily; the benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index ended the year up 13.4 percent.

Investors have been opting instead for the assumed safety of bonds. Money has been steadily flowing into mutual funds holding bonds of all sorts for the last four years, but the pace accelerated this year. The percentage of household investments in bonds shot up to 26 percent from 14 percent just five years ago, according to Morningstar.

Entering the new year, a growing number of professional investors are betting that the craze for bonds has gone too far, perhaps dangerously so, as has been evident in the headlines from the year-end reports from large investment firms. “Bond PAIN in 2013?” Wells Capital Management’s chief strategist asked. “Caution: Turn Ahead,” BlackRock analysts wrote. “The inflection year,” said Bank of America.

This is not the first time that analysts have forecast an end to the decades-long rally in bond values. But previously many of the voices predicting it were pessimists who believed that investors would sell off their bonds when they lost faith in the American government’s ability to pay back its bonds, forcing the government and many other bond issuers to pay higher interest rates. When interest rates rise, older bonds with lower interest rates are worth less.

While those previous forecasts have proved expensively wrong, this year the forecasters are being joined by many economic optimists who argue that a strengthening American economy is likely to make investors willing to embrace the risks involved in stocks, luring them out of bonds. The question, they say, is only how quickly it will happen.

“Mathematically, it’s next to impossible to get the kind of returns on bonds you’ve seen over the last few years,” said Kate Moore, the chief global equity strategist at Bank of America.

When the turn does ultimately come, it is likely to cause pain for at least some of the people who have been investing in bonds in recent years.

“You don’t want to be the last one out the door when the trends turn,” said Rebecca H. Patterson, the chief investment strategist at Bessemer Trust. “All good things come to an end and we want to make sure we’re in front of it.”

Most of the talk of investors shifting money from bonds into stocks relies first on the assumption that politicians in Washington are able to resolve the current impasse over the so-called fiscal cliff, the automatic spending cuts and tax increases that will go into effect if Congress and President Obama cannot come to an agreement, and the coming debate over the nation’s debt ceiling. If the political discord continues, it could renew investor attraction to the safety of bonds and put off any shift into stocks.

But a number of surveys suggest that professional investors are already starting to prepare for a change. Hedge funds polled by Bank of America said that they had more of their portfolio allocated to stocks than at any time since 2006.

All but one of the 13 bank strategists tracked by Birinyi Associates expects stock markets to rise in 2013. When 2012 began, the same strategists were predicting a downturn in share prices. Even among mutual fund investors, there are signs that the flows out of stocks and into bonds have been slowing down recently.

The preference for bonds has already been costly for retail investors. Over the last year, most types of American bonds have returned less than an investment in the S.&. P. 500. When inflation is factored in, the benchmark 10-year Treasury security is delivering negative returns.

But many investors are still rattled by the 2008 financial crisis and the turbulence in the stock markets since then, which have led to wild swings. Over the last five years, all major types of American bonds have done better than leading stock indexes.

The Federal Reserve has been engaged in an aggressive effort to buy bonds and drive down interest rates. The long term goal of that program is to encourage banks to lend money and to drive investors out of bonds. But in the meantime, falling interest rates have made bonds more attractive. The Fed has said it wants to keep rates low until 2015, though it could let them rise sooner if the economy picks up faster than expected. The 10-year Treasury hovered near 4 percent in recent years but has stayed below 2 percent for much of 2012.

The Impact of Different Conventions for Projecting Future Damages, Part I

When calculating damages for future periods ? such as for lost profits, loss of income in wrongful death cases, etc. ? experts are often charged with expressing an opinion as to what would happen in the future but for the wrongful act. These projections typically rely upon either industry trends or on the historical operating results of the injured party. Four of the most commonly used projection conventions when relying upon the operating results of the injured party are: the mean, the median, exponential smoothing and regression analysis. This blog post will define each of these conventions and discuss the pros and cons of each.

More Work for Unemployment Compensation Lawyers in the Near Future?

Unfortunately for claimants, it appears that the Department of Labor will be scrutinizing their applications closer than ever in the foreseeable future.

Pa. Justices Weigh Future of Philadelphia's Traffic Court

When a new Traffic Court opened in Philadelphia in 1957, it was heralded as a place where ticket-fixing would be impossible.

The Impact of Different Conventions for Projecting Future Damages, Part II

The valuation of damages is designed to put the harmed party back into the same economic position that would have existed if the harm had not occurred. The most difficult part of that equation is to project the economic conditions one would have expected without the harm. An analysis of historical results is often used to assist in making that forecast. In my last blog post, I discussed the pros and cons of four of the most commonly used methods to analyze a series of events, namely the mean, the median, exponential smoothing and regression analysis. This post will present two examples and show how each method impacts the damages calculation under each.

The Impact of Different Conventions for Projecting Future Damages, Part I

When calculating damages for future periods ? such as for lost profits, loss of income in wrongful death cases, etc. ? experts are often charged with expressing an opinion as to what would happen in the future but for the wrongful act. These projections typically rely upon either industry trends or on the historical operating results of the injured party. Four of the most commonly used projection conventions when relying upon the operating results of the injured party are: the mean, the median, exponential smoothing and regression analysis. This blog post will define each of these conventions and discuss the pros and cons of each.

It’s the Economy: What the Penguin-Random Merger Says About the Future of the Book Business

When you see a merger between two giants in a declining industry, it can look like the financial version of a couple having a baby to save a marriage. At least that was my thought when Random House and Penguin, two of the world’s six largest publishers, announced that they were coming together last month. Ever since Amazon began ripping apart the book business, the largest houses have been looking for a way to fight back. If this merger is any indication, they have chosen an old-fashioned strategy: Size.

Deep thoughts this week:

1. Book publishing is turning to mergers out of desperation.

2. Will it work?

3. The answer may lie in the envelope industry, which survived by disappearing.

Adam Davidson translates often confusing and sometimes terrifying economic and financial news.

A combined Penguin-Random House, which would control a quarter of the global book market, is a conglomerate designed to take on another giant, though it’s not exactly a fair fight. Because the new entity will only have about a twelfth of Amazon’s annual sales, most observers expect that this is just the beginning of a series of mergers — like those in the music business — that will take the Big Six publishers down to the Big Three and perhaps one day even the Big One. As John Makinson, Penguin’s chief executive, told The Times, “We decided it was better to get in early rather than be a follower.” The question is whether this strategy will work.

There are two competing predictions about commerce in the digital age. One is that companies will get smaller and more disruptive as nimble entrepreneurs can take on giant corporations with little more than 3-D printers and Web sites. The other envisions a few massive companies — like Procter & Gamble, Apple and Nike — that design everything themselves, have it manufactured cheaply in Asia and use their e-commerce sites to gather information about their customers. Nearly the exact same conflict occurred more than a century ago in the decade that straddled 1900, which was also a period of rapid technological change. In just a few years, 1,800 small companies were swallowed up as the electrical-power, telephone, auto, steel and chemical industries grew from patchworks of tiny companies into conglomerates. In “The Great Merger Movement in American Business 1895-1904,” the Yale economist and historian Naomi Lamoreaux wrote that back then everyone worried about the same thing that authors, editors and book buyers worry about now: Are large companies good for the economy? Do they grow through efficiency and innovation or by abusing their leverage?

Lamoreaux found that they did both, and many turn-of-the-century examples suggest what might happen to Penguin-Random and others. On one end of the spectrum, Lamoreaux told me, was U.S. Steel. Its predecessor companies competed by finding new ways of making steel at ever-lower prices. But after J. P. Morgan merged three companies into one behemoth, he discovered a better way to profit. Because all steel producers bought iron ore from the Mesabi Range in Minnesota, U.S. Steel bought most of the range and locked much of the rest of it in long-term contracts. As a result, the company hardly worried about competition; it had little need to innovate or compete on price, which made everything from cars to soda cans more expensive. Worse, it left a massive industry unprepared for the growth of innovative Asian companies during the 1970s and 1980s. By then, U.S. Steel all but collapsed, and a chunk of the U.S. economy went down with it.

Sears & Roebuck, on the other end, “grew by solving market and technical problems,” Lamoreaux said, and, as it solved them, its market share increased. Unable to monopolize anything like iron ore, Sears needed to innovate to stay ahead. Through constant competition with Montgomery Ward and others, it adopted new strategies that ultimately benefited its customers. When the company got into trouble, closed stores and was bought in 2005 by a struggling competitor, Kmart, the retail industry was robust enough that the overall economy barely noticed.

The future of book publishing is somewhere between the two poles. Oddly enough, it seems to mirror what happened to the envelope business. In the early 1900s the envelope industry was large enough to support several big companies. Then the mergers started, and an industry of numerous small companies became two giants. Eventually, the envelope industry wasn’t large enough to sustain itself, and the companies became tiny divisions of larger conglomerates. U.S. Envelope still lives as a small part of the packaging manufacturer MeadWestvaco. American Envelope was bought by Cenveo, a business-stationery company whose chief executive, Robert G. Burton Sr., made clear that the century of mergers and buyouts is not over. “We’ve had people knocking on the door,” he told shareholders in August.

Adam Davidson is co-founder of NPR’s “Planet Money,” a podcast and blog.