Category: Books

What should I ask Luke Burgis?

by  Tyler Cowen in

Yes, I will be doing a Conversation with him.  Excerpted (and edited) from a bio:

He is on the business faculty at Catholic University and has a background on both Wall Street and in the startup world, where he founded several companies. His first book, Wanting (2021), has been translated into 20+ languages and is selling more than copies than ever five years in. He is an expert on Rene Girard.  His new book, The One and the Ninety-Nine, is out from St. Martin’s June 16 — a theory of how identity gets formed or deformed under conditions of technological social contagion. He has a third book with a major publisher (on “technology as soulcraft”) in the pipeline with a major publisher. He also lived in Italy and for a while was studying to be a priest. He remains a true Catholic, and is the founder and director of the Cluny Institute.

Here is Luke on Twitter.  Here is Luke’s home page.  So what should I ask him?

What I’ve been reading

by  Tyler Cowen in

1. Mason Currey, Making Art and Making a Living: Adventures in Funding a Creative Life.  The best overall book I know on the different methods top artists have used to keep themselves going financially.  It is perhaps more anecdotal and less theoretical than I would prefer, still a nice work.

2. Mangol Bayat, Mysticism and Dissent: Socioreligious Dissent in Qajar Iran.  A very good, clear, and useful book on different dissident religiouis developments in Iran, leading up to the Bahai faith.  Recommended, one of the best books I have found for grappling with the history of current Iran.

3. Lena Dunham, Famesick: A Memoir.  Not exactly my thing, so I did not finish it.  But it is pretty good, so if you are tempted give it a try.

4. Iain Pears, Parallel Lives: A Love Story from a Lost Continent.  A delightful story/indirect memoir, telling the tale of the lives and marriage of Francis Haskell, the British art historian, and Larissa Salmina Haskell, a Russian woman who survived the siege of Leningrad as a girl.  Pears had the full cooperation of Larissa, at an age where she doesn’t give a damn any more.  This story truly comes to life, and that is helped by Pears’s background as a writer of very good fiction.

5. Lázár, by Nelio Biedermann.  An excellent novel of ideas, in the style of earlier Continental literature, by a 23-year-old Swiss phenom.  It is very good in German, I have not sampled the translation.

That was then, this is now

by  Tyler Cowen in

At the advent of a more aggressive Persian Gulf policy on the part of Iran during the interwar years, the resilience of these symbols was watched like a kind of barometer that attested to Britain’s levell of commitment to the maintenance of security in the Persian Gulf.  Britainäs abstention from the use of force against Iran, dictated by its will to protect its interests in Iran, was at times perceived as weakness by the shaykhs and merchants of the Arabian littoral.  During the period of heightened tension that accompanied Reza Shah’s rise, a perpetual cause of excitement among the Arabs inhabiting the southern littoral was the persistence of rumors that Iran would soon effect the complete withdrawal of the British from the area of the Persian Gulf waterway.

That is from the very useful The Origins of the Arab-Iranian Conflict: Nationalism and Sovereignty in the Gulf between the World Wars, by Chelsi Mueller.

By the way, on the eve of WWI, the population of Dubai was about 2,075 people, and about 500 of them were Iranian merchants.

That was then, this is not now?

by  Tyler Cowen in

The 1941 Anglo-Soviet invasion destroyed Reza Shah — but not the Pahlavi state.  The two Allies — joined by the United States in December 1941 — realized that the Iranian state could be useful in achieving the two goals for which they had invaded the country: physical control over oil — the British nightmare in World War II, even more so than in World War I, was loss of these vital supplies: and a land “corridor” to the Soviet Union…To facilitate the flow of both oil to Britain and supplies to the Soviet Union, the Allies found it expedient to remove Reza Shah but to preserve his state…the Allies kept his state but engineered his removal in part to curry much-needed favor among Iranians.  “The Persians,” he wrote, “expect that we should at least save them from the Shah’s tyranny as compensation for invading their country.”

That is from Ervand Abrahamian’s A History of Modern Iran.

That was then, this is now

by  Tyler Cowen in

From 1857:

The Persians were great sticklers for ceremony, it turned out, and now that the treaty was ratified, they expected an exchange of gifts to mark the important occasion.  At Spence’s [a leading diplomat of the time] insistence, the United States spent $10,000 (close to $1 million in today’s money) on diamond-studded snuffboxes and weapons for the shah.  The State Department protested bitterly, as it was not in the habit of spending such outrageous sums, but Spence put his foot down, knowing that these gifts paled in comparison with what Persia had received from Napoleon and others.  Spence’s brother Charles was dispatched to Tehran to deliver the gifts in person — a gesture the shah appreciated so much that he decorates the young man with the Order of the Lion and the Sun, the country’s highest honor.

That is from John Ghazvinian America and Iran: A History, 1720 to the Present, a very good book.

My excellent Conversation with Kim Bowes

by  Tyler Cowen in

Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Here is the episode summary:

Kim Bowes is an archaeologist at the University of Pennsylvania whose book, Surviving Rome: The Economic Lives of the Ninety Percent, Tyler calls perhaps his favorite economics book of 2025. By sifting through the material remains of Roman life — shoes, bricks, ceramics, and the like — she uncovers a picture of ordinary Romans who could evidently afford to buy multiple sets of colorful clothes, use gold coins for daily transactions, and eat peppercorns sourced from thousands of miles away. This vast web of commerce, she argues, both bound the empire together and provided the tax base that kept it running — and when it unraveled, Rome unraveled with it.

Tyler and Kim discuss what would surprise a modern visitor to a Roman elite home, what early Roman Christianity actually looked like on the ground, why Romans never developed formal economic reasoning, what decentralized money-lending reveals about the Roman state, whether there were anything like forward markets, why Romans continued to use coins even as the empire debased them, the economics of Roman slavery, whether Roman recipes taste any good, the Romans as hyper-scalers rather than inventors, what Rome made of China and Egypt, why Kim’s not a fan of the Vesuvius challenge, the practicalities of landscape archaeology, how a vast belt of factories along the Tiber Valley went undiscovered until twenty years ago, where to go on a three-week tour of the Roman Empire, what she thinks is ultimately behind Rome’s unraveling, and much more.

Here is an excerpt with some economics:

COWEN: Say, when the government is clipping the silver coins and lowering their silver content, as we now know in economic theory, this will imply at least some inflationary pressure. Are there Roman writers who understood that and laid it out, or they’re just vague public complaints about government clipping the coins?

BOWES: They’re not so much clipping them as they are minting them with less silver, which amounts to the same thing. It’s just a little bit classier and harder to detect. Absolutely, people know that they’re doing this. What I think is most interesting and what we’re all still wrestling with is, from even before Nero onwards, Roman emperors recognized the advantage to the fisc to basically producing coins with less silver.

Then they start to have silver problems, and they start really pulling the silver out of their coins, and nobody cares. That is to say, people care, and they notice, but the convenience of the Roman coin of the realm, the denarius, which is made with silver, outweighs—that’s a little bit of a pun—the actual silver content of that coin, and so people are willing to just suck it up and deal, and they keep using it.

There is inflation, and inflation, we can now tell, thanks to some great papyri from Egypt, trends upwards very slowly over the first century, the second century, the third century, but it’s not proportional to the amount of silver that’s being pulled out of the coins. People basically still have trust in their coinage, which really shows the degree to which the state has convinced people, simply by supporting ordinary people’s coin use, that the coins work and that they’re going to back their coins, even though they’re slightly pulling the silver out.

COWEN: Why was there so much decentralized money lending? You would think that banks would have economies of scale, offer better terms, just like I wouldn’t borrow money from my friends, I would go to the bank. Why doesn’t the Roman Empire evolve that way?

BOWES: The Roman Empire confuses us, I think, because on the one hand, it looks like a really big state that ought to do things that big states do. The Roman big state is really a mask for an empire of friends and family. You borrow money from friends and family. Banks, such as they exist, are really nothing more than friends and family, so even when you have actual banks, they tend to be largely constituted by a single family.

The difference that you’re making between borrowing from a bank and borrowing from your family is much less clear-cut in a world in which the bank is your family, or the bank is a family that is friends of yours. It’s not that Romans don’t use banks, they do use banks. We can see the most often wealthier Romans using banks. It’s a lot harder to see the 90 percent using banks, and they seem to more often default to the immediate circle of people that they know, which again, it’s not such a huge distinction. In a world in which there’s no FDIC, in which the bank isn’t guaranteed and protected by the state in the way in which our banks are, the distinction between bank and family, bank and friends, is much less clear.

Interesting and engaging throughout, definitely recommended.  You can buy Kim’s excellent book here.

The Venetian empire and the Mongols (modeling Marco Polo)

by  Tyler Cowen in

In contrast, the Polo brothers who went to Asia, Niccolo the elder and Matteo the elder, amassed wealth both in tangible and intangible assets.  It was Marco “the voyager” who benefited most from the family business, both as the heir to substantial portions of the family estate, and as a shrewd and cautious — and perhaps tight-fisted — private investor.  His will and inventory of his assets reveal a considerable amount of cash, real estate, and valuables.  Marco Polo traveled for business even after he returned to Venice, but not for long.  After 1300, although he continued to invest in various enterprises, it appears that Marco stayed in Venice.  Perhaps this was due to his advancing age (he turned fifty in 1304), although his energy was most likely taken up by overseeing his interests and local investments, and abo ve all in publicity for his book.  He commissioned numerous copies to be distributed to powerful and influential people.

And:

However, Marco had great difficulty leaving the empire.  The Polos required the khan’s consent not only to be given official leave, but above all to have adequate protection.  As Marco recounts, despite thee riches they had accumulated, they were not free to leave.  By then, the khan had also grown old, and they were concerned that he might die, leaving their fate in the hands of his successor, who may not have granted the necessary permits.  Marco’s account reveals that the three Polos had a subservient relationship with the khan, as they were in the khan’s service and depended on him.  He continually rejected their pleas to return to Venice, as he “loved them too much” and could not accept the idea that they should leave him.

That is all from the new and noteworthy Venice and the Mongols: The Eurasian Exchange that Transformed the Medieval World, by Nicola di Cosmo and Lorenzo Pubblici.

That was then, this is now

by  Tyler Cowen in

But despite the pitiful state into which the country had descended, the major outside powers, Russian and the Ottoman Empire, did not intervene as they had in 1722-1725.  It was partly that they were busy elsewhere, and surely also that the outcome of their previous attempts had not encouraged them to repeat the experiment.

That is from Michael Axworthy’s A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, a good general introduction to the history of the country.

Moonsteading

by  Alex Tabarrok in

Charles Miller, a space entrepreneur and head of the Trump transition team on NASA, has a good piece proposing a Lunar Development Authority:

I propose the development of an international Lunar Development Authority (LDA), chartered and led by the United States, that would serve as a quasi-governmental regulator. The base on the Moon would be managed as a master-planned infrastructure development project, with NASA as the key strategic partner, emphasizing commercial methods and an investor mindset to drive economic viability in both the near and long term. The LDA would prioritize development of lunar resources to lower costs and serve customers, and treat the United States government and the governments of our allies as anchor tenant customers. The LDA would leverage public-private partnerships and cooperation among both governmental and private industry tenants from many countries to finance and develop lunar infrastructure in a commercial manner.

The model is New York’s famous Commissioners’ Plan of 1811, which imposed a simple, legible order on what was then mostly undeveloped land. The plan coordinated future development around a grid with standardized lots and clearly demarcated spaces for public and private infrastructure. Miller proposes a similar sequence for the Moon: first survey, standards, shared infrastructure, and a governing authority; then private tenants, resource extraction, construction, and finance.

The main legal obstacle is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which paired a ban on weapons of mass destruction in space with “anti-colonial” restrictions on national appropriation. The OST, however, doesn’t prohibit economic activity per se—the target was national land grabs, not commercial development. The more recent Artemis Accords address this directly:

The ability to extract and utilize resources on the Moon, Mars, and asteroids is critical to support safe and sustainable space exploration and development.

The Artemis Accords reinforce that space resource extraction and utilization can and should be executed in a manner that complies with the Outer Space Treaty and in support of safe and sustainable space activities.

The Homesteading Act granted title rights in return for development. The likely path forward on the moon reverses that sequence, development first, title later. Ownership of extracted resources is already widely accepted, next will come toleration of exclusive operational zones, then long-duration concessions, then transferable development rights around fixed infrastructure.

The OST may delay ordinary land markets, but it cannot repeal the deeper economic fact that settlement happens only when builders can keep enough of what they create. TANSTAAFL.

What should I ask Bob Spitz?

by  Tyler Cowen in

Yes I will be doing a Conversation with him, Wikipedia here.  I very much enjoyed his new book on the Rolling Stones, plus he has many older books of note, including on the 1969-1970 Knicks, Woodstock, Ronald Reagan, Bob Dylan, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Julia Child.  All good books!  He also for a while worked as manager to both Bruce Springsteen and Elton John.

So what should I ask him?

Stephen Pimentel has an excellent review of *The Marginal Revolution*

by  Tyler Cowen in

Here is one very good paragraph of many:

Cowen is excellent on the question of why the marginalist insight had to wait so long, and why it eventually came in a simultaneous eruption across countries and three intellectual temperaments. The answer involves the slow assembly of preconditions: advances in calculus, the rise of statistical thought, the professionalization of economics as a discipline, and certain changes in the philosophy of science associated with the Victorian debate between inductive and deductive methods. Progress in science, Cowen suggests, is rarely a matter of the lone genius, but rather of the alignment of previously dispersed elements. The genius arrives when the ground has been prepared to receive the insight.

And another:

There is a discomforting codicil to all of this. Perhaps, Cowen suggests near the book’s end, the intuitions of 20th-century microeconomics were always a kind of compensation for a deeper ignorance. Perhaps we elevated intuitive reasoning, with its clean parables of marginal utility, and elegant supply-and-demand diagrams, because they were what we had, and we mistook their availability for adequacy. Machine learning models that find hundreds of thousands of factors in financial data are not exactly refuting marginalism. They are revealing the scale of what marginalism was never equipped to see. Our intuitions were always a small corner of understanding, swimming in a larger froth of epistemic chaos. The illusion has been stripped bare.

Here is the full review.  Here is the book itself.  Via Mike Doherty.

Auden on Iceland

by  Tyler Cowen in

If you have no particular intellectual interests or ambitions and are content with the company of your family and friends, then life on Iceland must be very pleasant, because the inhabitants are friendly, tolerant, and sane.  They are genuinely proud of their country and its history, but without the least trace of hysterical nationalism.  I always found that they welcome criticism.  But I had the feeling, also, that for myself it was already too late.  We are all too deeply involved Europe to be able, or even to wish to escape.  Though I am sure you would enjoy a visit as much as I did, I think that, in the long run, the Scandinavian sanity would be too much for you, as it is for me.  The truth is, we are both only really happy living among lunatics.

That is from W.H. Auden and Louis MacNeice, Letters from Iceland, from 1937, which is one of the better travel books, if indeed that is what it is.