Month: November 2025

Thursday assorted links

1. Good analysis of the proposed Ukraine deal, by a Ukrainian economist who is fighting for Ukraine.

2. Chinese AI as homework monitor?

3. David Goodhart on Britain.

4. Jana Gallus profile.

5. Charlie Munger’s final years (WSJ).  ““His last delivery was Korean fried chicken: A whole chicken, kimchi fried rice and waffle fries,” Jackson says.”

6. Claims about pretraining.

Thanksgiving and the Lessons of Political Economy

Time to re-up my 2004 post on thanksgiving and the lessons of political economy. Here it is with no indent:

It’s one of the ironies of American history that when the Pilgrims first arrived at Plymouth rock they promptly set about creating a communist society.  Of course, they were soon starving to death.

Fortunately, “after much debate of things,” Governor William Bradford ended corn collectivism, decreeing that each family should keep the corn that it produced.  In one of the most insightful statements of political economy ever penned, Bradford described the results of the new and old systems.

[Ending corn collectivism] had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

Among Bradford’s many insights it’s amazing that he saw so clearly how collectivism failed not only as an economic system but that even among godly men “it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them.”  And it shocks me to my core when he writes that to make the collectivist system work would have required “great tyranny and oppression.”  Can you imagine how much pain the twentieth century could have avoided if Bradford’s insights been more widely recognized?

Addendum: Today (2025) I would add only that the twenty-first century could avoid a lot of pain if Bradford’s insights were more widely recognized.

My excellent Conversation with Cass Sunstein

Cass was in top form, and so we went on for almost two hours.  In his Substack he described it as “The most fun interview I have ever done.”  Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Here is part of the episode summary:

Tyler and Cass discuss whether liberalism is self-undermining or simply vulnerable to illiberal forces, the tensions in how a liberal immigration regime would work, whether new generations of liberal thinkers are emerging, if Derek Parfit counts as a liberal, Mill’s liberal wokeism, the allure of Mises’ “cranky enthusiasm for freedom,” whether the central claim of The Road to Serfdom holds up, how to blend indigenous rights with liberal thought, whether AIs should have First Amendment protections, the argument for establishing a right not to be manipulated, better remedies for low-grade libel, whether we should have trials run by AI, how Bob Dylan embodies liberal freedom, Cass’ next book about animal rights, and more.

I will reproduce the section Cass pulled for his own Substack:

COWEN: Now, we started with the topic of liberalism. How is it you think about or characterize the liberalism of Bob Dylan?

SUNSTEIN: Bob Dylan is a liberal. His liberalism is captured in the line, “He not busy being born is busy dying.” I hope he’s immortal, but if anything is on his epigraph, that would be a good candidate.

The notion of self-invention, of freedom, is central to basically everything. His refusal to keep singing the same song — you can hear him talking about it in some of the interviews. He said, “I could do that. I could just do that forever. I knew how they’d react.” He said, “What’s that about?” He said, “I needed to do something else.” But of course, the line, “I needed to do something else” — that’s my line. How he would put it would be much more vivid and surprising than that.

His “Like a Rolling Stone” is an anthem of freedom. I heard it, actually, in concert a few years ago. It was a great performance. It wasn’t young, but it was a great performance. The audience went wild when he did “Like a Rolling Stone.” That was the final song. It was the encore. It wasn’t just because it was the greatest rock song ever written. It was because of how he did it. I thought, “What’s going on in this song? Why is everyone exhilarated?” The song, which he described when he wrote it as vomit, hatred directed at somewhere that was real — it wasn’t that, or it was a little bit that, but it was a song of liberty.

“How does it feel to be on your own with no direction home, like a complete unknown, like a rolling stone?” Everyone felt like they were flying. He makes that — “Like a Rolling Stone” — be a song of freedom. If you look at his angry songs — “Positively 4th Street” — there’s a freedom in being, of course, uninhibited, able to say things, but also a freedom of disconnection.

When he’s asked why did he change his name, I have an account of why he actually did. I think he gave it exactly once, but in his more characteristic way, he said, “This is America. You can change your name.” Then he said, “I was born. I didn’t think I was born with the right name. I could make it up. I could say that sounds more like I was.”

Making rootlessness not be a curse, but instead something that is . . . the word joy is too clichéd for Dylan. If you look at his love songs, like “If You See Her, Say Hello,” which isn’t one of my favorites, but it’s good. There’s a connection with the one he loved, who got away, but you can feel the sense of freedom.

COWEN: “Visions of Johanna”?

SUNSTEIN: Yes, completely. He’s torn. That has the great opening line. “Ain’t it just like the night to play tricks When you’re trying to be so quiet?” Did Yeats write better lines than that? Probably, but he was Yeats.

COWEN: Blood on the Tracks — a liberal album?

SUNSTEIN: Oh, yes.

COWEN: How would you express that?

SUNSTEIN: Well, I’m thinking “Buckets of Rain” is the closing song. Right before that, there’s a song, “You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go.” That’s it, which is, I think, one of his greatest songs. That’s a liberal song of freedom and separation, that she’s going, but he’s going to see her everywhere, and there’s smiling at impermanence. That is a big liberal theme — smiling at impermanence — because impermanence makes things not routine and also makes for freedom.

COWEN: “Idiot Wind” is the angry song of the batch, right?

SUNSTEIN: Yes, it’s pretty mad. He said about that song, “I don’t know why people like it. There’s so much sadness and distress in it.”

COWEN: Do you see your own liberalism or just yourself in the liberalism of Bob Dylan?

SUNSTEIN: I think so.

COWEN: Reinventing yourself, not quite wanting to be pinned down, doing a lot of stuff.

SUNSTEIN: He likes, I think, abandoning and going on to something that’s very different. I wish I’d gone electric or had some equivalent of that. But doing something quite different — I do share a little bit with him. I like it when I think something I thought was wrong. I now am very enthusiastic about the Austrian economists and Hayek. I’ve always admired them, of course, but I didn’t feel that they were on my team. Now I feel I’ve gone to their team. I don’t feel ashamed that I was wrong before. I feel excited that I’m less wrong now.

Definitely recommended, I could have pulled out many other parts as well.  Again, I am happy to recommend Cass’s new book Liberalism: In Defense of Freedom.

Race and economic well-being in the United States

We construct a measure of consumption-equivalent welfare for Black and White Americans, which incorporates life expectancy, consumption, leisure, and inequality. Based on these factors, welfare for Black Americans was 40 percent of that for White Americans in 1984 and 59 percent by 2022. There has been remarkable progress for Black Americans: The level of their consumption-equivalent welfare increased by a factor of 3.5 over the last 38 years when aggregate consumption per person only doubled. Despite this progress, the welfare gap in 2022 remains disconcertingly large at 41 percent, much larger than the 16 percent gap in consumption per person.

That is from a new article by Jean-Félix Brouillette, Charles I. Jones, and Peter J. Klenow, just published in American Economic Journal: Insights.

Wednesday assorted links

1. On the romanticism of Rudolf Steiner.

2. Proving new math theorems with AI.  And the AI for Science Executive Order.  Genesis Mission!

3. The AI invasion of knitting and crochet?

4. Nouriel Roubini is optimistic about the economy (FT).  And taxes have been rising too much on the wealthiest Brits (FT).

5. The speed of the NBA is increasing (thus so many injuries?).

6. Raye, Where is my husbannd?

7. GPT on economic recovery in Egypt, growth now above five percent.

8. Fifteen thoughts on the UK budget.

“Why ‘Humane’ Immigration Policy Ends in Cruelty”

That is the title of my latest Free Press column, which is interesting throughout.  Here is one bit from it:

Behind any immigration debate is an uncomfortable truth: In rich, successful democracies, every workable immigration policy, over enough time, offends liberal instincts or public opinion—often both. We oscillate between compassion and coercive control, and the more we do of one, the more we seem to need some of the other.

The dilemma: Due to the ever-rising numbers of migration to the United States, the enforcement of immigration restrictions has to become more oppressive and more unpleasant as time passes. The alternative course, which is equally unpleasant, is that immigration increases to levels that voters find unacceptable, and we fall under the rule of anti-immigrant parties—which are illiberal on many other issues as well.

The news gets worse. The more pro-immigration you are and the more you allow some foreigners to enter this country, the more others on the outside will wish to come too. Unless you are going to open the border entirely (not a good idea), you will end up having to impose increasingly harsh measures on illegal arrivals, and tougher and tougher restrictions on potentially legal applicants. The liberals in essence become the illiberals.

So I mourn our ongoing and intensifying moral dilemma. At the margin, there are so many people who want to come here (a sign of American success, of course) that there is no kind and gentle way to limit their numbers to a level the public finds acceptable.

And this:

A third alternative is to slow the intake. Keep it fast enough for America to remain “a nation of migrants,” but slow enough to avoid major backlash or to asymptotically approach open borders.

That sounds pretty good, right? But here is the illiberal catch: Given the growing attractiveness of migration to America, penalties and enforcement have to get tougher each year. There are no ways to send large numbers of people back that are not cruel and coercive. There are also few ways to keep people out that do not involve the extensive presence of coercive police, border arrests, imprisonment, and other unpleasant measures.

We might decide to let in more migrants, but still we will end up being cruel to the would-be migrants at the margin. And as demand to migrate continues to rise, we have to be increasingly coercive over time.

That does not have to mean masked ICE men grabbing people randomly off the streets (which leads to violating the constitutional rights of mistakenly identified citizens), but one way or another it is going to involve threats of violence against actual human bodies. That can mean turning away boats full of desperate people, flying people back home, putting them in interim jails, and in general treating them in ways I find deeply unpleasant and disturbing. It is no accident that the Biden administration could not completely avoid the Trumpian policy of separating illegal migrants from the children that accompany them.

Definitely recommended, one of my more interesting pieces this year.

Emergent Ventures India, 13th cohort

Khyathi Komalan, sophomore at Caltech majoring in math, received her grant for career development, and to support her research applying category theory to everything from quantum physics to social relationships.

Soumil Nema, cofounder of NeoVes, received his grant to develop stem cell therapies treating neurological disorders like stroke and neuropathy.

Anushka Punukollu, 17, a high school student in Canada, received her grant for SucroSoil, to repurpose sugarcane waste into hydrogels combating soil erosion in rural India.

Deev Mehta, 17, received his grant to develop a rover making farming autonomous.

Adithya Sakaray, Steve Aldrin, and Aadhithya D received their grant for Recruitr AI, to automate video interviews using AI.

Samarth K J, 20, civil engineering student at IIT madras, received a general career development grant.

Prakyath Gowda, 25, received his grant to develop a lightweight and efficient electric vehicle battery.

Aaron Rego received his grant for Rightful, to help Indian families recover unclaimed financial assets.

Vatsal Hariramani, 21, engineering student, received his grant to develop a smart and affordable neonatal incubator for remote terrain.

Rushab M received his grant to develop a jacket controlling body temperature for outdoor workers.

Sajal Deolikar, received his grant to develop hybrid powertrains for commercial vehicles improving mileage and reducing emissions.

Mihir Maroju, received his grant for Open Blood, to build an open-source blood donation platform connecting blood banks nationwide.

Habel Anwar, 13, middle-schooler in Kerala, for furthering his physics Olympiad preparation, and working on advancing his physics knowledge and research.

Yash Darji, 20, engineering student, received his grant to kickstart an experimental rocketry community in Ahmedabad.

Uddhav Gupta, 15, received his grant to develop a speech therapy application for children with special needs.

Krupal Virani, 19, received his grant for general career development.

Shwapno Rahman, 17, received his grant to develop low-cost computers for people living below the poverty line.

Sudhir Sarnobat and Rajendra Bagwe received their grant for HowFrameworks, to help Indian SMEs unlock sustainable growth through a learning portal.

Those unfamiliar with Emergent Ventures can learn more here and here. The EV India announcement is here. More about the winners of EV India secondthirdfourthfifthsixthseventheighthninthtenth, eleventh, and twelfth cohorts. To apply for EV India, use the EV application, click the “Apply Now” button and select India from the “My Project Will Affect” drop-down menu.

And here is Nabeel’s AI engine for other EV winners. Here are the other EV cohorts.

If you are interested in supporting the India tranche of Emergent Ventures, please write to me or to Shruti at [email protected].

Why are Mormons so Libertarian?

Connor Hansen has a very good essay on Why Are Latter-day Saints So Libertarian? It serves both as an introduction to LDS theology and as an explanation for why that theology resonates with classical liberal ideas. I’ll summarize, with the caveat that I may get a few theological details wrong.

LDS metaphysics posits a universe governed by eternal law. God works with and within the laws of the universe–the same laws that humans can discover with reason and science.

This puts Latter-day Saint cosmology in conversation with the Enlightenment conviction that nature operates predictably and can be studied systematically. A theology where God organizes matter according to eternal law opens space for both scientific inquiry and mystical experience—the careful observation of natural law and the direct encounter with divine love operating through that law.

LDS epistemology is strikingly pro-reason. Even Ayn Rand would approve:

Latter-day Saint theology holds that human beings possess eternal “intelligence”—a term meaning something like personhood, consciousness, or rational capacity—that exists independent of creation. This intelligence is inherent, not granted, and it survives death.

Paired with this is the doctrine of agency: humans are genuinely free moral agents, not puppets or broken remnants after a fall. We’re capable of reason, judgment, and meaningful choice.

This creates an unusually optimistic anthropology. Human reason isn’t fundamentally corrupted or unreliable. It’s a divine gift and a core feature of identity. That lines up neatly with the Enlightenment belief that people can use reason to understand the world, improve their lives, and govern themselves effectively.

In ethics, agency is arguably the most libertarian strand in LDS theology. Free to choose is literally at the center of both divine nature and moral responsibility.

According to Latter-day Saint belief, God proposed a plan for human existence in which individuals would receive genuine agency—the ability to choose, make mistakes, learn, change, and ultimately progress toward becoming like God.

One figure, identified as Satan, rejected that plan and proposed an alternative: eliminate agency, guarantee universal salvation through compulsion, and claim God’s glory in the process.

The disagreement escalated into conflict. In Latter-day Saint scripture, Satan and those who followed him were cast out. The ones who chose agency—who chose freedom with its attendant risks—became mortal humans.

This matters politically because it means that in Latter-day Saint theology, coercion is not merely misguided policy or poor governance. It is literally Satanic. The negation of agency, forced conformity, compulsory salvation—these align with the devil’s rebellion against God’s plan.

Now add to this a 19th century belief in progress and abundance amped up by theology:

Humanity isn’t hopelessly corrupt. Instead, individuals are expected to learn, improve, innovate, and help build better societies.

But here’s where it gets radical: Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of eternal progression—the teaching that human beings can, over infinite time and through divine grace, become as God is. Not metaphorically. Actually.

If you believe humans possess infinite potential to rise, become, and progress eternally—literally without bound—then political systems that constrain, manage, or limit human aspiration start to feel spiritually suspect.

Finally, the actually history of the LDS church–expulsions from Missouri and Illinois, Joseph Smith’s violent death, the migration to the Great Basin, the creation of a quasi-independent society–is one of resistance to centralized government power. Limited government and local autonomy come to feel like lessons learned through lived experience. Likewise, the modern LDS welfare system is a working demonstration of how voluntary, covenant-based mutual aid can deliver real social support without coercion. This real-world model strengthens the intuition that social goods need not rely on compulsory state systems, and that voluntary institutions can often be more humane and effective.

To which I say, amen brother! Read the whole essay for more.

See also the book, Latter-day Liberty: A Gospel Approach to Government and Politics, with an introduction by the excellent Mark Skousen.

Hat tip: Gale.

*God’s Grandeur*

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
    It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
    It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
    And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
    And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.
And for all this, nature is never spent;
    There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
    Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs —
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
    World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

 

— Gerard Manley Hopkins

LLMs Position Themselves as More Rational Than Humans

That is the title of a new paper by Kyung-Hoon Kim,  I differ from his terminology (“self-aware”), but the results are interesting nonetheless:

As Large Language Models (LLMs) grow in capability, do they develop self-awareness as an emergent behavior? And if so, can we measure it? We introduce the AI Self-Awareness Index (AISAI), a game-theoretic framework for measuring self-awareness through strategic differentiation. Using the “Guess 2/3 of Average” game, we test 28 models (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) across 4,200 trials with three opponent framings: (A) against humans, (B) against other AI models, and (C) against AI models like you. We operationalize self-awareness as the capacity to differentiate strategic reasoning based on opponent type. Finding 1: Self-awareness emerges with model advancement. The majority of advanced models (21/28, 75%) demonstrate clear self-awareness, while older/smaller models show no differentiation. Finding 2: Self-aware models rank themselves as most rational. Among the 21 models with self-awareness, a consistent rationality hierarchy emerges: Self > Other AIs > Humans, with large AI attribution effects and moderate self-preferencing. These findings reveal that self-awareness is an emergent capability of advanced LLMs, and that self-aware models systematically perceive themselves as more rational than humans. This has implications for AI alignment, human-AI collaboration, and understanding AI beliefs about human capabilities.

Here is the Twitter version of the argument.

Prediction markets in everything

Prediction market Kalshi Inc. and sneaker marketplace StockX are offering a new way to bet on the resale prices of in-demand sneakers and collectibles such as Labubus and Pokémon cards.

In a partnership announced Wednesday, Kalshi will use StockX data to create so-called event contracts tied to sneakers, trading cards and figurines. Users will be able to trade on outcomes such as whether an item will surpass a price threshold after release day, or predict the best-selling brands during a major shopping event like Black Friday.

Products that will be listed include highly-anticipated drops of Jordan sneakers, Supreme hoodies and blind boxes that contain random Labubus.

Here is more from Bloomberg, via John De Palma.

Side-Walking Problems

Local Law 11 requires owners of New York City’s 16,000-plus buildings over six stories to get a “close-up, hands-on” facade inspection every five years. Repair costs in NYC’s bureaucratic and labor-union driven system are very high, so the owners throw up “temporary” plywood sheds that often sit there for a decade. NYC now has some 400 miles of ugly sheds.

The ~9,000 sheds stretching nearly 400 miles have installation costs around $100–150 per linear foot and ongoing rents of about 5–6% of that per month, implying something like $150 million plus a year in shed rentals citywide.

Well. at last something is being done! The sheds are being made prettier! Six new designs, some with transparent roofs as in the rendering below are now allowed. Looks nice in the picture. Will it look as nice in real life? Will it cost more? Almost certainly!

Image

To be fair, City Hall is cracking down as well as doubling down: new laws cut shed permits from a year to three months and ratchet up fines for letting sheds linger. That’s a good idea. But the prettier sheds are the tell. Instead of reevaluating the law, doing a cost-benefit test or comparing with global standards, NYC wants to be less ugly.

How about using drones and AI to inspect buildings? Singapore requires inspections every 7 years but uses drones to do most of the work with a follow-up with hands-on check. How about investigating ways to cut the cost of repair? The best analysis of NYCs facade program indicates something surprising–the problem isn’t just deteriorating old buildings but also poorly installed glass in new buildings, thus more focus on installation quality is perhaps warranted. Moreover, are safety resources being optimized? Instead of looking up, New Yorkers might do better by looking down. Stray voltage continues to kill pets and shock residents. Manhole “incidents” including explosions happen in the thousands every year! What’s the best way to allocate a dollar to save a life in NYC?

Instead of dealing the with the tough but serious problems, NYC has decided to put on the paint.