Friday assorted links
Lookism sentences to ponder
Despite there being no systematic age differences between women and men in the workforce according to the US Census, we found that women are represented as younger than men across occupations and social roles in nearly 1.4 million images and videos from Google, Wikipedia, IMDb, Flickr and YouTube, as well as in nine language models trained on billions of words from the internet. This age gap is the starkest for content depicting occupations with higher status and earnings.
Here is the full paper, by Benjamin Thompson and Nick Howe. Note that even AOC’s apology to Miller is full of indirect lookism. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
Claims about education and convergence
This paper studies how human capital shapes the economic geography of development. We develop a model in which the cost of acquiring human capital varies across space, and regions with higher human capital innovate more. Locations are spatially connected through migration and trade. There are localized agglomeration economies, and human-capital-augmenting technology diffuses across space. Using high-resolution data on income and schooling, we quantify and simulate the model at the 1° x 1° resolution for the entire globe. Over the span of two centuries, the model predicts strong persistence in the spatial distribution of development — unlike spatial dynamic models without human capital, which predict convergence. Proportionally lowering the cost of education in sub-Saharan Africa or Central and South Asia raises local outcomes but reduces global welfare, whereas the same policy in Latin America improves global outcomes. An alternative policy equalizing educational costs across sub-Saharan Africa generates relatively worse outcomes, as population reallocates within the region toward less productive areas. Central to these results is the estimated negative correlation between the education costs and local fundamentals, as well as inefficiencies in the spatial allocation due to externalities.
That is I think a genuinely new idea? Here is the NBER working paper from
More on Trumpian equity stakes
Their number keeps on growing, as I point out in my latest column for The Free Press:
Viewed as a stand-alone incident, the Intel deal could be dismissed as unimportant. There are state-owned or partially state-owned companies around the world, after all, and some are more efficient than others.
Unfortunately, this is not a one-off. The federal government also decided to take a 15 percent share in MP Materials, a company that mines rare-earth minerals that are essential for everything from smartphones to guided missiles. You might think that is essential for America’s national security, because China has such a large presence in that sector and the military applications of these rare-earth minerals are many.
Just last week, however, the Trump administration announced it would be taking a 5 percent stake in two different lithium mining ventures. The good news is that major lithium deposits are being discovered around the world, making this kind of U.S. government involvement unnecessary for national security reasons. The bad news is that our government still is treating this as a national emergency…
Last week, the Trump administration announced an arrangement in which Pfizer would cut pharmaceutical prices in return for some tariff relief. Reuters has reported that the Trump administration is now planning various kinds of deals with up to 30 industries.
To make sure the new deals stick, there is a plan in the works to formalize them and make it so this is how the U.S. government deals with businesses going forward. To that end, the Trump administration wishes to greatly expand the financing and authority of what was previously a minor institution, namely the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
The DFC was created in 2018 to help finance projects in developing nations. But under the proposed expansion, it would establish an equity fund to cement federal government ownership of key parts of American industry. This means that our federal government would move away from its longstanding and beneficial stance of letting private ownership stay private.
There is more at the link.
Thursday assorted links
1. Jonathan Lear obituary (NYT).
2. Parody costume markets in everything.
3. Can Large Language Models develop gambling addiction? They just need to be reminded that the Washington Wizards do not have a single player in the NBA top 130.
4. Why are so many pedestrians killed by cars in the US?
5. French spending on pensions.
6. Important Dean Ball post on rare earths.
7. There is a new The Free Press new books podcast, hosted by Shilo Brooks. In the first two episodes, he discusses Ernest Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea with Admiral James Stavridis and Jim Harrison’s Wolf with Steve Rinella.
From the Forecasting Research Institute
When will AI forecasters match top human forecasters at predicting the future? In a recent @cowenconvos podcast episode, @NateSilver538 said 10–15 years while @tylercowen predicted 1–2 years. Who was right? Our updated AI forecasting benchmark, ForecastBench, suggests that Tyler Cowen is more likely to be right.
Here is the tweet, here is the associated Substack. Phil Tetlock informs me their best guess is probably sometime in 2026.
Hanson and Buterin for Nobel Prize in Economics
Intercontinental Exchange (ICE.N), the company that owns the NYSE exchange, just announced a $2 billion dollar investment in Polymarket, the Ethereum-blockchain based prediction markets platform. This is a tremendous milestone for prediction markets and for blockchains.
Shayne Coplan the founder of Polymarket writes:
The Polymarket origin story is funny because it’s a rare case of the dream being identical to how things played out. If I learned one thing, it’s that bold ideas are everywhere, hidden in plain sight. It just takes someone crazy enough to spend their life willing it into existence. That’s entrepreneurship: willing things into existence.
I remember reading Robin Hanson’s literature on prediction markets and thinking – man, this is too good of an idea to just exist in whitepapers. There were a million reasons why it shouldn’t work, countless arguments of why not to do it, and the odds were against us, but we had to try.
At the onset of the pandemic, I quite literally had nothing to lose: 21, running out of money, 2.5 years since I dropped out and nothing to show for it. But I knew we were entering an era where ways to find truth would matter more than ever, and Polymarket could play a critical role in that. After all, nothing is more valuable than the truth. It’s still a work in progress, but we’re honored to have made the impact we have thus far.
The NYSE will use Polymarket data to sharpen forecasts. The next step is decision markets. Futarchy, for example, just announced a prediction market in the value of Tesla shares if Musk’s compensation package is approved versus if it is not approved. Information like this can be used to improve decisions. To see how powerful this can be, broaden it to Hanson’s 1996 idea of a Dump the CEO Market, a market in the value of a company’s shares with and without the current CEO. Very powerful. And that is only the beginning.
In my 2002 book, Entrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science, which featured Robin’s paper on Decision Markets, I wrote
If Hanson is right about the benefits of decision markets, then perhaps one day, instead of quoting an expert, the New York Times editorial section will refer to the latest quote on “health care plan A” available in the business pages.
That day is upon us! It probably will not happen on Monday but it is time to give Robin Hanson, the father of prediction markets, and Vitalik Buterin, the co-father of Ethereum, a Nobel prize in economics for applied mechanism design.
Addendum: My a16z podcast with Scott Duke Kominers on prediction markets.
Is the earned income tax overrated?
This policy has been so popular with economists on a bipartisan basis, yet a recent piece in ReStud raises some doubts, as the wage subsidies induce many to drop out of school:
As a complement to the federal earned income tax credit (EITC), some states offer their own EITC, typically calculated as a percentage of the federal EITC. In this paper, we analyse the effect of state EITC on education using policy discontinuities at US state borders. Our estimates reveal that an increase in the state EITC leads to a statistically significant increase in the high school dropout rate. We then use a life-cycle matching model with directed search and endogenous educational choices, search intensities, hirings, hours worked, and separations to investigate the effects of EITC on the labour market in the long run and along the transitional dynamics. We show that a tax credit targeted at low-wage (and low-skilled) workers reduces the relative return to schooling, thereby generating a powerful disincentive to pursue long-term studies. In the long run, this results in an increase in the proportion of low-skilled workers in the economy, which may have important implications for employment, productivity, and income inequality. Finally, we use the model to determine the optimal design of the EITC.
That is by One simple lesson is that policy economics is often not easy. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
Claims about polygyny
The title of this piece is “High rates of polygyny do not lock large proportions of men out of the marriage market.” I believe further investigation is warranted before drawing such conclusions, but here is the abstract:
Social scientists often assume that when men can marry multiple wives (polygyny), many other men will be unable to marry. Versions of this assumption feature prominently in theories of civil war, the evolution of monogamy, and the incel movement. Using census data from 30 countries across Africa, Asia, and Oceania, as well as data from the historical United States, we find no clear evidence that polygyny is associated with higher proportions of unmarried men in society. Instead, high-polygyny populations often have marriage markets skewed in favor of men, and actually, men in high-polygyny populations usually marry more than men in low-polygyny ones. These findings challenge entrenched assumptions and inform debates on marriage systems, societal stability, and human rights.
That is from a recent paper by Hampton Gaddy, Rebecca Sear, and Laura Fortunato. At the very least, you hear the contrary story so often, and without firm documentation, that it is worth shaking the debate here a little bit.
Andrew wants new Singapore recommendations
From my email:
I will be in Singapore soon. Do you have any up-to-date recommendations? I notice there is this old post: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/how-to-visit-singapore.html
Comments are open…
Wednesday assorted links
Where has beauty gone in the modern world?
From David Perell and Cultural Tutor, a preview of a longer film to come:
Share repurchases do not discourage investment
Theory tells us that, and the empirics tell us that too:
Our study examines the claim that share repurchases lead to reductions in real investments. Repurchase opponents argue that managers forego valuable investments to conduct opportunistic repurchases, while proponents argue that repurchases return excess cash to shareholders. We compare repurchasing firms’ real investments in capital expenditures, R&D, and employment to public and private non-repurchasing firms—holding constant their growth (i.e., investment) opportunity sets. Our results provide no support for the claim that repurchases lead to lower real investments. Consistent with these findings, we also show that financial analysts do not revise downward their capital expenditure forecasts following repurchases.
That is from a recent paper by Paul Brockman, Hye Seung (Grace) Lee, and Jesus M. Salas. You see the opposing argument in the media all the time, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong. As in “not correct.”
Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
Black Veterans and Civil Rights After World War I
Nearly 400,000 Black men were drafted into the National Army during World War I, where they toiled primarily as menial laborers in segregated units. Leveraging novel variation from the WWI draft lottery and millions of digitized military and NAACP records, we document the pioneering role these men played in the early civil rights movement. Relative to observably similar individuals from the same draft board, Black men randomly inducted into the Army were significantly more likely to join the nascent NAACP and to become prominent community leaders in the New Negro era. We find little evidence that these effects are explained by migration or improved socioeconomic status. Rather, corroborating historical accounts about the catalyzing influence of institutional racism in the military, we show that increased civic activism was driven by soldiers who experienced the most discriminatory treatment while serving their country.
That is from Desmond Ang and Sahil Chinoy, newly accepted into the QJE. Are we so sure the postulated mechanism is the correct interpretation for the results here? Being in the military can have other intellectual influences too. Via Alexander Berger.
Tuesday assorted links
1. For different states, where the main immigrant group comes from.
2. NBA rookies do worse when they end up on very good teams.
3. Yale Budget Lab study claims AI is not having much of an effect on labor markets.
4. Twenty-five questions university presidents, provosts, and deans need to be asking themselves.
5. Is there a college radio revival?
6. Data centers have a great ratio of tax revenue brought in to electricity price boost.
7. The revolution in New Hampshire electricity policy (WSJ).