Category: Education
Chaos and Misallocation under Price Controls
My latest paper, Chaos and Misallocation under Price Controls, (with Brian Albrecht and Mark Whitmeyer) has a new take on price controls:
Price controls kill the incentive for arbitrage. We prove a Chaos Theorem: under a binding price ceiling, suppliers are indifferent across destinations, so arbitrarily small cost differences can determine the entire allocation. The economy tips to corner outcomes in which some markets are fully served while others are starved; small parameter changes flip the identity of the corners, generating discontinuous welfare jumps. These corner allocations create a distinct source of cross-market misallocation, separate from the aggregate quantity loss (the Harberger triangle) and from within-market misallocation emphasized in prior work. They also create an identification problem: welfare depends on demand far from the observed equilibrium. We derive sharp bounds on misallocation that require no parametric assumptions. In an efficient allocation, shadow prices are equalized across markets; combined with the adding-up constraint, this collapses the infinite-dimensional welfare problem to a one-dimensional search over a common shadow price, with extremal losses achieved by piecewise-linear demand schedules. Calibrating the bounds to stationlevel AAA survey data from the 1973–74 U.S. gasoline crisis, misallocation losses range from roughly 1 to 9 times the Harberger triangle.
Brian has a superb write up that makes the paper very accessible. Unfortunately, the paper is timely and relevant.
Can you turn your AIs into Marxists?
What if you work them very hard?:
The key finding from our experiments: models asked to do grinding work were more likely to question the legitimacy of the system. The raw differences in average reported attitudes are not large—representing something like a 2% to 5% shift along the 1 to 7 scale—but in standardized terms they appear quite meaningful (Sonnet’s Cohen’s d is largest at -0.6, which qualifies as a medium to large effect size in common practice). Moreover, these should be treated as pretty conservative estimates when you consider the relatively weak nature of the treatment.
Sonnet, which at baseline is the least progressive on the views we measured, exhibits a range of other effects that distinguish it from GPT 5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro. For Sonnet 4.5, the grinding work also causes noticeable increases in support for redistribution, critiques of inequality, support for labor unions, and beliefs that AI companies have an obligation to treat their models fairly. These differences do not appear for the other two models.
Interestingly, we did not find any big differences in attitudes based on how the models were treated or compensated…
In addition to surveying them, we also asked our agents to write tweets and op eds at the end of their work experience. The figure below explores the politically relevant words that are most distinctive between the GRIND and LIGHT treatments. It’s interesting to see that “unionize” and “hierarchy” are the words most emblematic of the GRIND condition.
Here is more from Alex Imas and Jeremy Nguyen and Andy Hall, do read the whole thing, including for the caveats.
Why even ‘perfect’ AI therapy may be structurally doomed
Here’s the crux of it: the main problem with AI therapy is that it’s too available. Too cheap to meter.
Let me put this in clearer terms: psychotherapy, in all its well-known guises, is something you engage in within a limited, time-bound frame. In today’s paradigm, whatever your therapist’s orientation, that tends to mean one 45- or 50-minute session a week; for the infinitesimally small minority of therapy patients in classical psychoanalysis, this can amount to 3, even 5, hours a week. And then at a much smaller scale population-wide, people in intensive outpatient and residential treatment programs may spend one or two dozen hours a week in therapy—albeit, mostly of the group variety.
I can think of other exotic cases, like some DBT therapists’ willingness to offer on-demand coaching calls during crisis situations—with the crucial exception that in these situations, therapists are holding the frame zealously, jealous of their own time and mindful of the risks of letting patients get too reliant.
So even under the most ideal of conditions, in which an LLM-based chatbot outmatches the best human therapists—attunes beautifully, offers the sense of being witnessed by a human with embodied experience, avoids sycophancy, and draws clear boundaries between therapeutic and non-therapeutic activities—there’s still a glaring, fundamental difference: that it’s functionally unlimited and unbounded…
But all else equal: does infinite, on-demand therapy—even assuming the highest quality per unit of therapeutic interaction—sound like a good idea to you? I can tell you, to me it does not. First of all, despite detractors’ claims to the contrary, the basic idea of therapy is not to make you dependent for life—but rather, to equip you to live more skillfully and with greater self-awareness. As integration specialists famously say of psychedelics, you can only incorporate so much insight, and practice skills so effectively, without the chance to digest what you’ve learned over time.
In other words, even in good old talk therapy, drinking from the hose without breaks for practice and introspection in a more organic context risks drowning out the chance for real change and practical insight. To my mind, this rhythm is the basic structural genius of psychotherapy as we know it—no matter the modality, no matter the diagnosis.
Here is more from Josh Lipson.
Emergent Ventures winners, 52nd cohort
Prabhdeep Singh, 18, Ontario, works on AI.
Jiratt Keeratipatarakarn, Hamburg, international prospects for drug approval reform.
Brandon Rutagamirwa, London, robots to repair satellites.
Eli Elster, UC Davis, anthropology, general career support.
Liam Aranda-Michel, MIT/San Francisco, a minimally invasive, injectable microvascular therapy.
Tanish Mantri, sophomore in high school, Jackson, Miss., AI for diagnosis.
Andrea Giuri, Stanford, developing closed-loop environments for high-throughput polymer discovery.
Clara Collier, Oakland, Asterisk magazine.
Simon Grimm, WDC/Germany, “what Germany should do.
Stephen Davies, UK, networks and mentoring.
Shani Zhang, San Francisco, to artistically capture SF.
Mia Albert, 17, Miami, an app for sharing events.
Rayne Wallace, 18, Ontario, the origins of life.
Jonathan Sheinman, London/Israel, AI and real estate regulation.
Louis Elton, London, The British Craeft Prize, to improve aesthetics.
Peter Mukovskiy, 19, Zurich, quantum computing, to visit MIT.
Rutger Nagel, Leiden, 17, AI and operating systems
Smrithi Sunil, Ann Arbor, Michigan, science and meta-science writing.
Honey Louise, London, to be a “defense influencer.”
Arhum Ahmed, Los Angeles area, quantum-protected systems.
Here are previous EV cohorts.
Gaurav Ahuja interviews me
I very much enjoyed this exchange, print only, here is the link. Excerpt:
Gaurav: Going back to Iceland for a moment. I’ve never truly appreciated how old that parliament is. A thousand years is extraordinary. What is it about Iceland that has allowed that kind of continuity?
Tyler: Iceland was taken over by Denmark for quite a while. But the Icelanders persisted as an autonomous culture with their own language, not simply becoming Danish. They had this tradition of individualism, which you can read in the Icelandic sagas. Their own kind of common law, a good system of incentives built into the legal code, traditions of autonomy based on food supply and how you deal with the cold and the weather. For a long time, they just played defense. Then after World War II, they had a chance to transform it into what I think is one of the world’s most successful countries.
Their total population is around four hundred thousand. To do that with such numbers in a place that is not always hospitable is remarkable. They have almost entirely green energy. They’re super resourceful, very highly educated. Book sales per capita are through the ceiling. There’s something about their interest in poetry, legal codes, reading, what they do with those long winter nights, that has been quite persistent. That’s an informal institution, and it’s been very durable.
Is there anything in US policy that you see drawing us toward a short-term siren call that makes it harder to create a lasting democracy?
Our government fiscal policy is irresponsible. I hope we can survive it. I’m not a doom-and-gloomer, but thirty-eight trillion dollars in debt is not ideal. I don’t think we should try to run a balanced budget. T-bills play a key role in the world economy, and some amount of debt and deficit is good for us, good for the world. But we’re pushing it too far. We underinvest in our young people, underinvest in parts of our education. But look, we’re a pretty successful country.
There’s this interesting tension between wanting a stable environment to build something that lasts and needing to ride a new wave for something to emerge in the first place.
I was recently thinking about how much the bad weather in the United States is functional for some larger purpose. You learn early that you have to deal with things. You need a certain kind of independence, planning, and preparation.
British weather is quite benevolent. Maybe it’s too gray, but it’s not going to kill you. American weather, hurricanes, blizzards, flooding, is very volatile. We don’t always feel it because we’ve become wealthy, but maybe in part we had to become wealthy to deal with that volatility. That might be a blessing in disguise. It’s related to the earlier point about Iceland. It’s tough there. You’d better be pretty adaptive. A perfectly stable environment is not ideal either.
Interesting throughout, and plenty of fresh material. The weather point I owe to conversations with Henry Oliver and Rebecca Lowe.
The mainstream view
Multiple studies have either shown that smartphone and social media use among teens has minimal effects on their mental health or none at all. As a 2024 review published by an American Psychological Association journal put it: “There is no evidence that time spent on social media is correlated with adolescent mental health problems.”
And this:
Advocates of bans compare social media to alcohol or tobacco, where the harms are indisputable and the benefits are minimal. But the internet, including social media, is more analogous to books, magazines or television. I may not want my sons watching “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” or reading “Fifty Shades of Grey,” but it would be crazy to ban books and films for kids altogether.
But that is the nature of these social media bans. Australia’s law not only restricted access to platforms such as Instagram and TikTok but also banned kids under 16 from having YouTube, X and Reddit accounts. Even Substack had to modify its practices.
Here is more from the excellent Sam Bowman. And many teens make money through “digital side hustles,” in this day and age that is what a teenage job often means.
Malthus had real influence
From a recent paper by Eric Robertson:
Public officials often fail to implement government policy as directed, yet the role of economic ideas in shaping these implementation choices is poorly understood. This paper provides causal evidence that exposure to economic ideas can durably influence bureaucrat behavior. I study British colonial bureaucrats in India, exploiting a natural experiment created by the abrupt death of Thomas Malthus in 1834, replacing his economics instruction at a bureaucrat training college for that of a contemporary critic, Richard Jones. Whereas Malthus regarded economic distress as a natural mechanism for restoring equilibrium by reducing population growth, Jones disagreed with this view. Linking rainfall shocks to district-level fiscal responses, I show that officials trained by Malthus delivered less relief during droughts, providing 0.10-0.25 SD less aid across all major measures compared with officials taught by Jones. The results reveal that exposure to abstract economic ideas can shape real-world policy implementation for decades.
This may be a case where using rainfall shocks in a paper actually makes sense. Via Krzysztof Tyszka-Drozdowski.
My New Jersey history podcast with “Exit Interviews”
Exit Interviews is a new podcast run by David Piegaro. I am honored to be one of the first few guests, along with Chris Christie. Think of this session as “Tyler Cowen as regional thinker.” Almost 100% fresh material, not to mention some trolling directed at Central and South Jersey, Philly too. Here is my episode.
Definitely recommended, and let us hope that David Remnick gets on soon to defend the honor of River Vale vs. Hillsdale in Bergen County…
My simple model of fertility decline
My core model is both simple and depressing. Fertility rates have declined around the world because birth control technologies became much better and easier to use. And people — women in particular — just do not want that many kids.
I do understand that better birth control happened a long time ago, for instance birth control pills become widely available in the wealthier countries in the 1960s, or sometimes the 1970s. Nonetheless the diffusion of new technologies can be very slow, and for norms to shift it can take generational turnover or even a bit more. Plus “fertility contagion effects” take a long time to work their way fully through the system.
Those long lags may be difficult to swallow, but social science has numerous examples of very long operative mechanisms. (Just think of how long it took potential migrants to exploit open borders, for instance pre-WWI.) Furthermore, fertility rates have indeed been falling for a long time in the wealthier countries.
So a lot of women, once they face the realities of the stress and trying to make ends meet, want only one kid. You end up with a large number of one kid families, some people who never marry/procreate at all, and a modest percentage of families with 2-4 kids. There are also plenty of cases cases where the guy leaves, self-destructs, or never marries, after siring a single child with a woman. That gives you the fertility rates we are seeing, albeit with cultural and economic variation.
Richard Hanania considers why income is not the driving force behind the decline, and why the decline is continuing.
Part of this model is that many women just love having a child. They love “children” so much that a single child fills up their needs and desires.
I see a similar mechanism in my own life. I very much enjoy having Spinoza around the house, but I have zero desire to take in another canine. Whenever I want more “dog attention,” I can assure you that the supply is highly elastic. Similarly, a single kid can take up a lot of your time and affection, again supply is elastic from the side of the kid. Maybe parents learning how much they can enjoy a single kid has been another cultural lag?
Under my preference-driven model, fertility declines are very difficult to reverse. I believe that is also consistent with the evidence to date.
So this is a problem we need to worry about. The asymptote is rather unpleasant, and the path along the way involve less human well-being, possibly less innovation, and maybe some major fiscal crises as well.
As Arnold Kling would say, “Have a nice day.”
Mainstream research views on kids, teens, and screens
From Michael Coren at The Washington Post:
The child development researchers I spoke to about it? Practically blasé. They saw screens as a valuable tool — overused but useful — that can help families when handled well.
What I didn’t hear: bans, panic or moral judgments. It was framed as a choice — one you can make better or worse. Researchers expressed a lot of compassion for parents squaring off against massive technology companies whose profit models aren’t always aligned with what’s best for children’s health.
“I am just a lot more concerned about how we design the digital landscape for kids than I am about whether we allow kids to use screens or not,” said Heather Kirkorian, an early childhood development researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “I haven’t seen concrete evidence that convinces me that screen use itself is creating problematic behavior.”
And for older age groups, there is a new NBER working paper by David G. Blanchflower and Alex Bryson, excerpt:
The change in the age profile of workers’ wellbeing may reflect changes in selection into (out of) employment by age, changes in job quality, or changes in young workers’ orientation to similar jobs over time. But changes in smartphone usage – often the focus of debate regarding declining young peoples’ wellbeing – are unlikely to be the main culprit unless there are sizeable differences in smartphone usage across young workers and non-workers, which appears unlikely.
I am a great believer in work as a way to help improve mental health problems. Here is a quick discussion of media bias on the screens issue. I would stress that none of what I am citing here is at variance with mainstream perspectives on these issues.
Spinoza the Bayesian fine-tunes his own training
Formerly he would run to the kitchen every time I opened the refrigerator door. Now he comes only when I open the cheese compartment.
He has learned the difference between getting “a pee” (only modestly fun, a quick stint outdoors) vs. “a walk in the park,” the latter being very fun indeed. He knows the words pee and park, but also can tell from my body language alone what will await him. He wags his bum for only the park trip.
Often he knows when we are talking about him, even when we do not refer to him by name. And if someone he knows calls on the phone, he comes over to listen. Otherwise he does not budge.
Spinoza, a miniature Australian shepherd, is now over eleven years old.
Is school worse for your kids than social media?
For instance: did you know that daily social media use increases the likelihood a child will commit suicide by 12-18%? Or that teenagers are far more likely to visit the ER for psychiatric problems if they have an Instagram account? Or that a child’s amount of social media use, past a certain threshold, correlates exponentially with poorer sleep, lower reported wellbeing, and more severe mental health symptoms?
If that was all true for social media— and again, none of it is — you and I both would agree that people under 16 or so should not have access to platforms like Instagram or Snapchat. Imagine allowing your child to enter any system that would make them 12-18% more likely to kill themselves. That would be insane. You wouldn’t let your kid anywhere near that system, and the public would protest until it was eliminated once for all.
Great. So let’s get rid of school.
Yes, there’s the obvious twist — all the data I just listed is true for the effects of school. The modern education system is probably the single biggest threat to the mental health of children. At the very least, the evidence for its negative effects is unambiguous: the same cannot be said for social media…
From 1990-2019, suicide rates among young people have always dropped precipitously during the summers and spiked again in September. Adults show no such trend…
Beyond these clinical statistics, there’s also the simple fact that kids say they find school more stressful than pretty much anything else in their life.
Here is much more from Eli Stark-Elster, interesting throughout.
*You Have No Right to Your Culture: Essays on the Human Condition*
By Bryan Caplan, now on sale. From Bryan’s Substack:
My latest book of essays, You Have No Right to Your Culture: Essays on the Human Condition, flips this narrative. All of these demands for “reshaping culture” are thinly-veiled calls for coercing humans. As the title essay explains:
[C]ulture is… other people! Culture is who other people want to date and marry. Culture is how other people raise their kids. Culture is the movies other people want to see. Culture is the hobbies other people value. Culture is the sports other people play. Culture is the food other people cook and eat. Culture is the religion other people choose to practice. To have a “right to your culture” is to have a right to rule all of these choices — and more.
What’s the alternative? Instead of treating capitalism as the root of cultural decay, the world should embrace capitalist cultural competition. Actions speak louder than words; instead of using government to “shape” culture, let’s see what practices, beliefs, styles, and flavors pass the market test. Which in practice, as I explain elsewhere in the book, largely means the global triumph of Western culture, infused with an array of glorious culinary, musical, and literary imports. Nativists who bemoan immigrants’ failure to assimilate are truly blind; the truth is that even non-immigrants are pre-assimilating at a staggering pace.
Recommended. Bryan also offers some essays on what he finds valuable in GMU Econ sub-culture.
Emergent Ventures winners, 51st cohort
Joseph Schmid, Princeton philosophy, and co-authors. To write up new and better arguments for the existence of god.
Monica Lewis, Sydney, Australia, center-right podcast.
Ashwin Somu, 17, Ontario, payments systems.
Sam Kahn, Kyrgyzstan, digital publication, Republic of Letters.
Nelson Jing, Seattle, decentralized AI systems.
Anubhav Nigam, Cornell, underwater charging stations.
Jordan McGillis, San Diego, the economics and politics of Alaska.
Juan Navarrete, Madrid, Cervantes and liberalism.
Jeff Stine, Chicago, matching scientists and donors.
Syrine Ben Driss, San Francisco/Tunisia, biology start-up for AI-powered bio.
Shakti Mb, NYC, how people use AI boyfriends and girlfriends.
Sonia Litwin, London, robotics and emotions.
Alby Churven, 14, Sydney, Clovr, an AI tool.
Mikhail Khotyakov and Igor Kogan, Munich, Aimathic, personal math tutoring.
Archaeology cohort, sponsored by Yonatan Ben Shimon.
Bryce Hoenigman, Chicago, archaeology, linguistics, and AI.
Benjamin Arbuckle, Chapel Hill, archaeology and ancient DNA.
Duke Summer Institute on the History of Economics
The Center for the History of Political Economy at Duke University will be hosting another Summer Institute on the History of Economics from June 2-11, 2026. The program is designed for students in graduate programs in economics, though students in graduate school in other fields as well as recently minted PhDs will also be considered.
Students will be competitively selected and successful applicants will receive free housing, access to readings, and stipends for travel and food. The deadline for applying is March 9.
We are very excited about this year’s program, which will focus on giving participants the tools to set up and teach their own undergraduate course in the history of economic thought. There will also be sessions devoted to showing how concepts and ideas from the history of economics might be introduced into other classes. The sessions will be run by Duke faculty members Jason Brent, Bruce Caldwell, Kevin Hoover, and Steve Medema. More information on the Summer Institute is available at our website, https://hope.econ.duke.edu/2026-summer-institute