Tyler, Nabeel, and Jackson on French thinkers

Nabeel: (57:47) …For example, there’s a French thinker called Jacques Derrida. I probably should go and read him at some point, but I’m not entirely convinced there is a there there, and I don’t know anyone who swears by it. If Tyler told me, “Nabeel, you are missing a big piece of your life by not reading him,” I would go read him tomorrow. But I don’t have any of those people.

Tyler: (58:44) Lacan is my marginal case of “no there there.” So Derrida, I put in a fair amount of effort and did conclude, rightly or wrongly, that there’s no there there. So you can, in my opinion, write him off. Lacan, I keep on wondering. Smart people still will say, “This is amazing.” I’ve tried a bunch of times, but I haven’t given up. There’s a new Lacan book coming out later this summer and I’ll try it again. We’ll see. That’s my marginal “is there a there there” figure.

Nabeel: (59:13) Yeah. I think modern French thinkers put too much of a premium on sounding cool, or postmodern philosophy generally. I think it repays some effort to kind of grasp the core ideas, but it doesn’t repay making it your life’s reading or something.

Tyler: (59:26) Baudrillard is quite good and Foucault is extremely interesting. So I’m not against “the French” in this period, but if they keep on not making sense, I feel I’m educated well enough.

Jackson: (59:37) You have a lot of context.

Tyler: (59:38) That at some point I can strike the ledger.

Nabeel: (59:41) I do—Nowadays, I just put Foucault through GPT and I just have GPT explain it to me, and that’s going to be good enough for now.

Tyler: (59:50) The problem with Foucault, I think, is so much of the history is wrong in a quite mundane way, so there’s something very problematic about it. But the stuff—I think it’s in a way quite simple, almost too simple. And the fact that the current right has so latched on to Foucault is a sign that it’s simple. I don’t mean necessarily bad, but there are these structures and they’re trying to tell you what to do. And there’s something anonymous about that as well. It’s not just the individuals who form the conspiracy. It’s how a lot of the world thinks today.

Here is the longer discussion, already linked to.

Why we love this country

A Free Press feature for the 250th, here is my entry:

Tyler Cowen can’t decide, so he picks about 20 things instead.

My favorite thing about America is that I do not have a single favorite thing. We have the NBA (with a Toronto team too), the world’s best AI models, Alexander Calder sculptures, a few wonderful R.E.M. albums, southern Utah, the world’s best Constitution, lots of air-conditioning, sausage in southwest Louisiana, the infield fly rule in baseball, Winslow Homer, Sioux Plains drawings and Navajo blankets, the music of Chuck Berry and Brian Wilson, cheeseburgers, deep capital markets, the world’s best universities, the Museum of Modern Art, Chattanooga, Tennessee, lots of big airports, the north rim of the Grand Canyon, red cardinals and blue jays, about two dozen cities and towns named Paris, self-driving vehicles, not just one but two Dakotas, three branches of government (I hope not four), and the best set of immigrants in the world. And that is just scratching the surface.

The other contributors are notable as expected.

Saturday assorted links

1. The pending evolution of Chile’s school age population.

2. Markets in everything those new service sector jobs.

3. Survey on the economics of caste.

4. J.D. Vance on Milton Friedman.  And Mamdani on Hayek.

5. “Firms that adopt AI heavily grow headcount 10% over two years following adoption.

6. Browse all Criterion films.

7. Does a damage accumulation model explain different aging rates across the species?

8. Fast Grants for British progress.

A scientific benefit (and cost) of AI innovation

What changed was that the cost of preliminary exploration collapsed. I could sketch an argument, identify the first serious objections, test whether they were fatal, and reach a provisional verdict in an afternoon rather than a fortnight. This sounds like a simple acceleration, and the more profound effect was on what I was willing to abandon. Dropping a question after an afternoon’s work feels nothing like dropping one after three weeks. When the exploration costs are low, the sunk cost attachment disappears, and you find yourself dropping bad questions earlier and more often, which means the questions you keep are better. I explored far more ideas, and my working portfolio became both larger and better curated. I arrived at this outcome not through any deliberate plan but simply through sustained engagement with a tool that changed what exploration cost.

The skill that improved most, and the one I would never have thought to look for, was something I can only describe as question-identification – the ability to find problems that are both tractable and important. This is the thing an academic career is substantially built on and which nobody, so far as I know, has ever tried to teach directly.

I want to be honest about the costs. My ability to hold together a complex position verbally, under pressure, in a seminar or a conversation, has probably not improved and may have declined somewhat. When preliminary exploration is cheap, you spend less time grinding through arguments from first principles, a grinding that builds fluency that shows up in live exchange. Friends have pressed me on this, and they are right to worry.

That is from Carlo Cordasco, and there is more, via Conor Friedersdorf.

Do falling birth rates boost per capita income?

The secular decline in birth rates across the globe over the past seven decades has slowed population growth, raised average ages, and reshaped labor markets and the macroeconomy. Contrary to the widespread expectation that these trends hamper economic growth, we find lower birth rates are associated with higher growth in GDP per working-age adult across countries and higher wage growth across US commuting zones, with no negative impact on aggregate GDP or earnings. These patterns are not explained by educational upgrading, rising female labor force participation, the declining importance of agriculture, or neoclassical-Solow mechanisms. We argue that they reflect the endogenous, labor-saving response of technology to the scarcity of younger workers. Consistent with this interpretation, countries and regions with lower birth rates exhibit more labor-saving patents and growing high-tech activity. There is also higher TFP growth across countries and industries. Exploiting cross-country variation in WWII military and civilian deaths, we find that declines in younger population, rather than population size per se, drive our results.

Here is the full paper by Acemoglu, Autor, Beirne, and Scott.  Via Philip Heimburger.

How Britain Became as Poor as Mississippi

How Britain Became as Poor as Mississippi is a good piece in the Atlantic by Idrees Kahloon filled with colorful anecdotes of a nation in decline:

The health service now has to spend more money settling maternity-malpractice claims than it does on actually providing maternity care. Many Brits can neither obtain an appointment with a publicly funded dentist nor afford a private one; in a 2023 survey, one in 10 reported doing DIY dental work, in extreme cases extracting their own teeth or gluing broken crowns back together.

Incomes can be shockingly low: Junior doctors recently went on strike for the 15th time in three years over their salaries, which start at just £38,800; the median salary for British civil servants is £35,680. In April, amid the Iran conflict, the Daily Mail pounced on Prime Minister Keir Starmer for vacationing in Valencia, Spain, at what the tabloid described as a luxury hotel, costing £200 a night.

Americans are likely to come away a bit smug, especially as Independence Day approaches and Europeans are enjoying our giant stadiums and central air conditioning. Look deeper, however, and Britain’s story becomes more uncomfortable. Does this sound familiar?

Recent plans to transform the country have rested in no small part on High Speed 2, a superfast rail line intended to connect London with Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester. But since HS2 was proposed, in 2009, its costs have tripled, to more than £100 billion. It is the most expensive rail line in the world. (A special structure to protect a rare bat species near the rail line in Buckinghamshire required 8,000 permits and was built at a cost of £216 million.) The most important sections of the proposed route have been lopped off. The rump line—going from Birmingham, Britain’s second-largest city, to not-quite-central London—may be finished by 2040…. HS2 has been delayed for so long that two swiftly built towers near the terminus now themselves look derelict and in need of demolition.

…Building infrastructure, or much of anything else, has become all but impossible in the United Kingdom. In addition to having the world’s most expensive (not yet built) train line, Britain also hosts the world’s most expensive (not yet built) nuclear-power plant, Hinkley Point C. Its environmental-impact assessment ran 31,401 pages; the plant will feature a £700 million “fish disco,” which will pulse sounds underwater to deter animals from its intake pipes.

Upon closer inspection, the United States looks a lot less like a shining city on a hill and a lot more like a declining Great Britain, appendaged with one or two dynamic sectors, most notably AI. The similarities are especially obvious in the retrograde solutions Britain has lumbered into, namely attacking immigrants and trade—Brexit being the equivalent of a high tariff regime. Nations in decline, like people, tend to lash out at others rather than deal with their real problems. Needless to say, neither immigrants nor trade explain Britain’s—or California’s—inability to build high-speed rail or other infrastructure.

It is discomforting to watch the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, individual rights, and free speech—the nation that once built the railways, the steam engines, the factories that remade the world—lose the capacity to build much of anything, or even to tolerate people speaking their minds. In parallel, instead of dealing with our real problems—almost all of our creation—the right gets literally hysterical over symbolic culture-war questions like birthright citizenship, while the left nominates candidates with Marxist-Leninist sympathies. The abundance and progress movements are some of the few shining lights. It’s not too late. But Great Britain is a warning.

How will AI and the fertility crisis interact?

That is from my latest Free Press column, here is one excerpt:

Each individual will be seen as something special by the other humans. Public spaces will be emptier, so anyone out in public will attract more notice. If you are waiting in line at the movie theater, you will be more likely to start talking to the person next to you. After all, you already have had the option of talking to the AIs all day long.

It has long been the norm in American small towns that you say hi to the people you pass on the sidewalk, or perhaps start chatting with customers in your store who appear to be outsiders. Those kinds of practices will spread to the large cities of today, which will become like smaller towns due to lower population density.

Many of these humans will invest heavily in their appearances, in their charisma, and in their “vibes.” After all, the AIs will, and already do, perform so many useful informational functions. If you, as a human, wish to draw attention to yourself and be seen as noteworthy, you will have to specialize in the remaining human functions. That may include “touching grass,” giving warm and appropriate hugs, looking good or at least looking interesting, and having some kind of unique identity that either is visible upon meeting or which AI smart glasses will communicate during social interactions. (“This guy has sailed around the world three times and punched a shark on the nose.”)

The YouTube celebrity Clavicular has attracted a lot of ridicule for his “looksmaxxing,” which involves a lot of manipulation of his appearance and some plastic surgery. Like it or not, that is a harbinger of how some aspects of this future will operate. Clavicular has achieved nothing of note, except for being immediately recognizable for how he looks. For similar reasons, people are likely to pay more attention to how they dress, what kind of makeup they wear, and other aspects of their appearance, such as how tall they are and how much they weigh. Plastic surgery and the successor drugs to GLP-1s are likely to command even more interest than today.

If a person comes across as extremely nondescript, you might feel there is no reason to speak with that person instead of chatting with your AI. A lot of ordinary social interactions will become more like a gala, where everyone shows up wanting to look a very particular way to draw attention.

To inhabitants of 2026, that might sound stupid, undesirable, and ridiculous. I do not love the thought myself. Yet people today care much more about how they look, and can do much more about it, than could people in medieval times. We are used to those differences, and few of us wish to go back to earlier times. People in this future may well feel the same way.

There are other interesting points at the link.

James Mirrlees auction markets in everything

To mark what would have been Jim Mirrlees’ 90th birthday on 4 July, Nuffield College (Oxford University)  is auctioning off some signed books from Jim’s personal collection and other special items of Jim’s generously donated by the Mirrlees family and the artist Yu Ji. The proceeds will support a fund for scholarships in Jim’ s memory.

The auction is conducted entirely online and is open to all.

Our auction is a simplification of the Product-Mix Auction that Paul Klemperer (Jim’s successor as Oxford’s Edgeworth Professor) designed for the Bank of England in 2007-8 at the beginning of the financial crisis. The Bank still runs its version regularly, and has now sold almost £400 billion of repos using it. (We expect to raise a little less!) This version has been programmed by Edwin Lock (Nuffield Research Fellow, 2021-24) who, along with Elizabeth Baldwin (Nuffield Research Fellow 2016-2017), has been involved with Paul in the further development of the Product-Mix Auction. (For more on this auction, see this paper, or this 5-minute film published by the Guardian newspaper.)

…The auction is focused on “social welfare”, not expected revenue…

SEE THE ITEMS AND BID HERE

Here is the link, via Tim Harford and Paul Klemperer..

Noah Smith on negative emotional contagion

Every movement in 2020s America is defined not by what they want, but by who they hate.

Rightists: Immigrants

Leftists: Israel

Intellectual liberals: Rich techbros

Here is the link, in the last six months or so I have noticed all these trends getting worse.  Praise goes to all those who avoid negative emotional contagion, you will prove the saviors of our civilization.

Thursday assorted links

1. There is massive synaptic pruning between birth and adulthood.

2. Some major city populations from 1854.

3. From Samuel Hammond: “The AI boom is doubly upsetting to progressive economic commentators because it a) shows “financialization” was largely a macro story that eventually solved itself, and b) the boom is being driven by AI rather than their hoped-for “green transition”.”  Plus it shows the internet and social media really were worth it, and that many tech companies are run by geniuses not superficial idiots.

4. The safety of mRNA vaccines.

5. Do the optimistic live longer?

6. How many people have ever lived in the United States?  And what percentage of them are living here now?

7. What is going on with SpudCell? (NYT).

Rent Control: The Ceiling Trap

Rent control is in the news again. Check out my new website, Rent Control: The Ceiling Trap. Here is just one bit:

Norway abolished its rent control in 1982, and the economist Are Oust realized the newspapers had been quietly recording the whole experiment. He collected housing classifieds from Oslo’s Aftenposten from 1970 to 2008 and watched the market turn inside out.

Under rent control, Oslo’s listings pages looked nothing like a housing market. It was tenants who advertised, pleading their qualities to landlords — “housing wanted” ads outnumbered “housing for rent.” Ten to fifteen percent of those ads were placed by the tenant’s employer, vouching for them the way a bank vouches for a borrower. Tenants offered babysitting, gardening, snow-shoveling, and janitorial work on the side to sweeten the deal. Landlords, for their part, could demand a tenant of a particular gender, age, occupation, region of origin — some ads specified “strong Christian beliefs.” Deposits commonly ran to 50 or 60 months’ rent, occasionally 100 or more: tenants effectively lent the landlord the equity of the flat, interest free. And only about 20 percent of “for rent” ads dared print the rent, much of which would have been illegal.

Then the ceiling lifted. Within a few years the page flipped: landlords advertised to tenants, roughly 80 percent of listings printed an asking rent, the mega-deposits vanished, and the demands for snow-shoveling Christians of specified gender dwindled to nothing. The price went back to doing the rationing — so nothing else had to.

Check out the whole thing–it’s fabulous.

Is Alexander Calder the great American artist?

I am not ready to make this claim, but I wondered this after seeing the marvelous exhibit at Fondation Vuitton.  To Calder’s credit:

1. His work is both beautiful and deep.  It also can be fun.  Unlike many other high-status artists, most Americans like or could like his work.

2. It is immediately recognizable and the body of work has a coherence as a whole.

3. He invented a new form — the mobile — and showed it could be art.

4. His works have iconic placement in many major American cities, namely Chicago, Grand Rapids, New York, Los Angeles, Cambridge, Philadelphia, Houston, Minneapolis, Seattle, and a bunch more.  Who else can match that list?

5. He worked in multiple genres with great success, including not just sculpture (of various kinds, including wire sculpture and bronze sculpture) but also painting, works on paper, and jewelry (!).  He worked with metal and wood and wire and string in his sculptures.  The exhibit is wonderful in showing all this.

6. He built things, a very American endeavor, and he trained as a mechanical engineer.  Mobility is also a very American idea.

7. He lived during the major period of American growth and hegemony, namely 1898-1976, very American years to have been on the scene.

I would note that most people think first of his large installations, which to me are his least interesting works.  The small sculptures I admire the most?  In this regard he remains underrated.

Who else are possible candidates for this designation?  A while back Jasper Johns might have been an obvious leader for the title, and he remains in contention.  But perhaps it is all a tad too formal and serious?

Rothko and Pollock are too one-dimensional, no matter how much you may admire the dimension.  The Hudson River School does not boil down easily enough to a single artist, plus it is mainly just painting.  Winslow Homer is a possibility.  Warhol is another candidate, as his work is both seminal and “very American,” but currently it feels overexposed?  (I am not anti-Warhol but perhaps his influence peaked some while ago.)  Roy Lichtenstein did very well in sculpture as well as painting and prints, and he is in the running as well.

But I no longer think Calder is such a crazy choice for this designation.  Do go see the show!  The people we saw the show with were amazed at how much they had underrated his depth, breadth, and quality.