Category: Law
The Luddites Were the First to Attack AI
Everyone knows the Luddites smashed looms. What is less appreciated is that the loom was the first serious programmable device — the direct ancestor of the computer. Thus, the Luddites weren’t just the first to resist automation. They were in some ways the first to attack AI.
The Jacquard loom, introduced in France circa 1805, used a chain of punched cards to control which threads were raised for each pass of the shuttle. The ability to change the pattern of the loom’s weave by simply changing cards was an important conceptual precursor to computer programming. Babbage borrowed the idea directly for the Analytical Engine in the 1830s.
The Luddites lost–they were violently suppressed by the UK military–but more generally they lost because programmable looms brought patterned clothes to the masses.
Prior to its invention, the creation of complex patterns required skilled and labour-intensive manual labour, often involving large teams of weavers. With the Jacquard loom, a single operator could control the machine and produce intricate designs with relative ease.
This innovation greatly increased the speed and efficiency of textile production. It also opened up new possibilities for creativity and design, as the loom enabled the production of intricate patterns that were previously unattainable. The Jacquard loom contributed to the democratization of textile manufacturing, making intricate fabrics accessible to a wider audience
By the time Jacquard died in 1834, thousands of his looms were operating in Manchester, an epi-center of the Luddites riots. Moreover, just over 100 years later, Manchester birthed the Manchester Baby and the Manchester Mark 1, the first electronic stored-program computer. And who was hired to program the latter? None other than Alan Turing.
Ada Lovelace had foretold it all beautifully: “the Analytical Engine weaves algebraical patterns just as the Jacquard-loom weaves flowers and leaves.”
Addendum: I thank Claude for assistance on this post.
Birthright Citizenship and Youth Crime
This paper studies the impact of birthright citizenship on youth crime. We leverage a German reform which automatically granted birthright citizenship to eligible immigrant children born in Germany after January 1, 2000 and administrative crime data from three federal states. We find that immigrant youth who acquired citizenship at birth are substantially less likely to engage in criminal activity, with estimates indicating a 70% reduction in crime. These results are particularly relevant in light of ongoing debates in the U.S. about abolishing birthright citizenship. Our findings suggest that inclusive citizenship policies can reduce crime and its associated costs, which in turn could strengthen social cohesion.
That is from a new NBER working paper by
Revising Modern Principles
Here’s a revision I made to Modern Principles, my textbook with Tyler. Some things change dramatically, some things never change.
Moonsteading
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.
Incentives matter, Mexican cartel edition
But the cartel’s interests may prove just as important to security as government efforts, according to a dozen local and state officials and security experts.
The CJNG has much to gain from the regional economic boost of a successful tournament in Guadalajara — akin to its administrative headquarters — and much to lose from drawing authorities’ attention.
“The city is safe because those guys put all their money here, and they stand to make even more,” said one state official who was not authorised to speak on the record. “They don’t want a war here.”
Huge profits earned elsewhere from drug trafficking and other activities are laundered in Guadalajara, experts said, helping to power a real estate boom. A rash of shiny new skyscrapers has popped up, some of which sit empty. The leafy city also boasts luxurious open-air shopping malls and lively nightlife.
Here is more from Ciara Nugent at the FT.
AI, Unemployment and Work
Imagine I told you that AI was going to create a 40% unemployment rate. Sounds bad, right? Catastrophic even. Now imagine I told you that AI was going to create a 3-day working week. Sounds great, right? Wonderful even. Yet to a first approximation these are the same thing. 60% of people employed and 40% unemployed is the same number of working hours as 100% employed at 60% of the hours.
So even if you think AI is going to have a tremendous effect on work, the difference between catastrophe and wonderland boils down to distribution. It’s not impossible that AI renders some people unemployable, but that proposition is harder to defend than the idea that AI will be broadly productive. AI is a very general purpose technology, one likely to make many people more productive, including many people with fewer skills. Moreover, we have more policy control over the distribution of work than over the pure AI effect on work. Declare an AI dividend and create some more holidays, for example.
Nor is this argument purely theoretical. Between 1870 and today, hours of work in the United States fell by about 40% — from nearly 3,000 hours per year to about 1,800. Hours fells but unemployment did not increase. Moreover, not only did work hours fall, but childhood, retirement, and life expectancy all increased. In fact in 1870, about 30% of a person’s entire life was spent working — people worked, slept, and died. Today it’s closer to 10%. Thus in the past 100+ years or so the amount of work in a person’s lifetime has fallen by about 2/3rds and the amount of leisure, including retirement has increased. We have already sustained a massive increase in leisure. There’s no reason we cannot do it again.
The CA Minimum Wage Increase: Summing Up
Two recent joint-papers Did California’s Fast Food Minimum Wage Reduce Employment? by Clemens, Edwards and Meer and The Effects of California’s $20 Fast Food Minimum Wage on Prices by Clemens, Edwards, Meer and Nguyen give what I think is a plausible and consistent account of California’s $20 fast food minimum wage.
California’s $20 fast food minimum wage raised wages in the sector by roughly 8 percent relative to the rest of the country but employment fell by 2.3 to 3.9 percent (depending on specification, median ~3.2%), translating to about 18,000 lost jobs. Food away from home (FAFH) prices in California’s four CPI-reporting MSAs rose 3.3–3.6 percent relative to 17 control MSAs. Falsification tests on Food at Home and All Items Less Food and Energy show zero differential movement—this is specific to restaurant prices.
What’s interesting is that the papers are independently estimated but the fit is consistent. The price paper uses Andreyeva et al.’s demand elasticity of -0.8 to convert the estimated price increases into an implied quantity declines: about 3.9–4.1 percent in limited-service and 1.7–1.8 percent in full-service. These align well with the employment declines of 3.2 and 2.1 percent estimated in the first paper.
The consistency tells us something about the mechanism. One thing we have learned about the minimum wage in recent years is that the pass-through effect is large and more of the employment decline is driven by pass through than by labor-capital substitution. In other words, prices rose, quantity demanded fell, and that’s what killed the jobs—not robots replacing workers. Not today, anyway.
In terms of welfare, the bulk of employed workers get an 8% wage increase, a small minority get disemployed. The big transfer was from consumers to workers. California has roughly 39 million residents, all of whom face 3.3–3.6% higher FAFH prices. The transfer is likely regressive — lower-income households spend a larger budget share on fast food specifically. So the policy effectively taxes low-income consumers generally to raise wages for a subset of low-income workers, while eliminating jobs for another subset. Your mileage may vary but I don’t see this as a big win for workers. We thought small increases in the minimum wage were absorbed–maybe some were or maybe they were just hard to estimate–but you can’t extrapolate the small increases to big ones–the effect is non-linear. Big increases in the minimum wage start to bite.
As usual, when it comes to fast food there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Addendum: Clemens’s JEP paper continues to be the masterclass in how to think through minimum wage issues.
The President(s) Fought the Law and the Law Won
In our textbook, Modern Principles, Tyler and I emphasize that Congress and the President are subject to a higher law, the law of supply and demand. In an excellent column, Jason Furman gives a clear example of how difficult it is to fight the law of inelastic demand:
…Today a given number of autoworkers can make, according to my calculations, three times as many cars in a year as they could 50 years ago.
The problem is that consumers do not want three times as many cars. Even as people get richer, they increase their spending on manufactured goods only modestly, preferring instead to spend more on services like travel, health care and dining out. There are only so many cars a family can own, but that’s not the case for expensive vacations or fancy meals. As a result we have fewer people working in auto factories and more people working in luxury resorts and the like.
These forces — rising productivity but steady demand — explain why the United States was losing manufacturing job share as far back as the 1950s and 1960s, long before trade became a major factor.
How to Make Judges and Referees Pay
A recent viral tweet, quoted by Elon Musk, points out that bartenders can be fined or even imprisoned if they serve alcohol to patrons who later kill someone while under the influence. Judges, in contrast, enjoy absolute or qualified immunity even when they repeatedly release defendants who go on to kill.
I agree that judges should face stronger incentives to make good decisions, but the obvious problem with penalizing judges who release people who later commit crimes is that judges would then have very little incentive to release anyone—and that too is a bad decision. Steven Landsburg solved this problem in his paper A Modest Proposal to Improve Judicial Incentives, published in my book Entrepreneurial Economics.
Landsburg’s solution is elegant: we must also pay judges a bounty when they release a defendant.
Whether judges would release more or fewer defendants than they do today would depend on the size of the cash bounty, which could be adjusted to reflect the wishes of the legislature. The advantage of my proposal is not its effect on the number of defendants who are granted bail but the effect on which defendants are granted bail. Whether we favor releasing 1 percent or 99 percent, we can agree that those 1 percent or 99 percent should not be chosen randomly. We want judges to focus their full attention on the potential costs of their decisions, and personal liability has a way of concentrating the mind.
One might object that a cash bounty will cost too much, but recall that the bounty is balanced by penalties when a released defendant commits a future crime. The bounties and penalties can be calibrated so that on average the program is budget-neutral. The key is to get the incentives right on the margin.
The structure of this problem is quite general. Ben Golub, for example, writes:
There should be a retrospective reputational penalty imposed on referees who vote no on a paper because the paper is too simple technically — if that paper ends up being important. It’s an almost definitional indicator of bad judgment.
Quite right, but a penalty for rejection needs to be balanced with a bonus for acceptance. Get the marginal incentive right and quality will follow!
Shruti interviews V. Anantha Nageswaran on the Indian economy
He is currently serving as the Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India, and also is the co-author of the books Economics of Derivatives and The Rise of Finance: Causes, Consequences and Cures. The podcast covers import substitution and strategic resilience, futures and options market, gross fixed capital formation, crypto markets, India’s growth trajectory, and much more.
Here is the audio and video on YouTube. Here is a linked transcript. Excerpt:
RAJAGOPALAN: The policy response to this has come in a couple of different ways. One has come through SEBI. It has started raising contract sizes and limiting weekly expiration,and so on. Another instrument has come through taxation. There have been STT [Securities Transactions Tax] hikes in consecutive budgets,but there is one thing about STT that I want to understand a little bit better from someone like you who has thought about this deeply.
Now, STT on futures is being levied on the notional value of the contract, which is the full traded price, whereas the STT on the options is levied on the premium, which is a small fraction of the overall underlying value of the notional exposure. The effective tax that is imposed is much more on the futures trade, manyfold more actually, than it is on the options trade, whereas the speculation is mostly happening on the options side, which is also where most of the retail investors are losing money because the futures side is much better capitalized, larger firms, and so on.
NAGESWARAN: No, also the futures side is probably used more by institutions, and therefore, they are able to put up the margin requirement, etc., better than the options trades, where the individuals are being sold almost like the₹10 sachet-type options, and the options…
RAJAGOPALAN: Exactly, sachetization options, absolutely.
NAGESWARAN: Yes. Go ahead.
RAJAGOPALAN: Now with each successive hike in the STT,we’re seeing the gap widen. It’s on the margin, making futures relatively more expensive than options just because it’s taxing each trade. It’s like a toll fee that’s paid almost on every transaction. Your book was precisely about understanding these kinds of policy instruments. Given that now we have a tax instrument which inadvertently favors the more speculative instrument. Is that a good way of thinking about it, or how would you think about this problem?
NAGESWARAN: No, I think you have given me a lot to think about on this. I probably haven’t applied my mind as much to the mechanics of the STT being levied on the premium when it comes to options, but on the notional value of the contract when it comes to futures. Actually, you have given me something to think about. As you said, it could be having the unintended consequence of reducing the hedging role of futures, which probably is playing a better role there and encouraging the speculative element. Let me think about it and also probably take back this aspect of the conversation back to my colleagues in the revenue department, in the Ministry of Finance. Thank you for that, yes.
Of great importance for the world’s most populous country.
A bilateral AI pause?
Dean ball has some thoughts and hesitations:
Here are some questions I wish “Pause” and “Stop” advocates would address:
1. Assuming we achieve the desired policy goal through a bilateral US/China agreement, what would be the specific metric or objective we would say needs to be satisfied in advance? Who decides whether we have satisfied them? What if one one party believes we have satisfied them but the other does not?
2. If the goal is achieved through a bilateral US/China agreement, would we need capital controls to ensure that U.S. investors cannot fund semiconductor fabs, data centers, or AI research labs in countries other than the U.S. and China?
3. Would we need to revoke the passports of U.S.-based AI researchers and semiconductor engineers to prevent them leaving America to join AI-related ventures elsewhere? How else would the U.S. and China keep researchers within their borders?
4. How should we grapple with the fact that (2) and (3) are common features of autocratic regimes?
5. Do the above questions mean that this really should be a global agreement, signed by all countries on Earth, or at least those with the theoretical ability to host large-scale data centers (probably Vanuatu doesn’t need to be on board)?
Solve for the China tech equilibrium
Authorities in Beijing have barred two executives from a Singapore-based AI firm from leaving China amid a review of the company’s $2 billion acquisition by U.S. social media giant Meta, according to a report by the Financial Times on Wednesday.
Xiao Hong and Ji Yichao — the CEO and chief scientist, respectively, of Manus — were summoned to Beijing this month and questioned over a possible violation of foreign direct investment reporting rules related to the acquisition before being told they could not leave the country, the report said.
Here is more from The Washington Post. In my view, the American lead in AI is somewhat larger than a model comparison alone might suggest.
A Danish Fix for U.S. Mortgage Lock-in
In the Danish mortgage market every mortgage is backed by a corresponding bond. Thus, if a home buyer takes out a 500k mortgage at 3% interest, a bond is issued that pays the lender 3% interest on 500k. I’ve written about this system several times before. It has two distinct advantages.
- The correspondence principle means that mortgage banks don’t bear interest rate risk but instead specialize in evaluating credit risk (the risk that the borrower won’t pay). Deep markets rather than banks take on the interest rate risk. This makes the Danish system very stable.
- Mortgages can be pre-paid by buying the corresponding bond at market rates and extinguishing it. If a Danish borrower takes out a 500k mortgage at 3% interest and then rates rise to 6%, for example, the value of that mortgage falls to $358k and the borrower can buy the corresponding bond, deliver it to the bank, and, in this way, extinguish the loan.
In the US, a mortgage can be pre-paid only at a par. As a result, if interest rates rise, home owners don’t want to move because moving would require them giving up a 3% mortgage and replace it with say a 6% mortgage. This is called the lock-in effect. Lock-in can be quite severe. Fonseca and Liu find:
Using individual-level credit record data and variation in the timing of mortgage origination, we show that a 1 percentage point decline in the difference between mortgage rates locked in at origination and current rates reduces moving by 9% overall and 16% between 2022 and 2024, and this relationship is asymmetric. Mortgage lock-in also dampens flows in and out of self-employment and the responsiveness to shocks to nearby employment opportunities that require moving, measured as wage growth within a 50- to 150-mile ring and instrumented with a shift-share instrument.
What about in Denmark? The Danes definitely take advantage of the opportunity to buy-back. Part of this is due to tax advantages but those are just a transfer. More importantly, Danes don’t get locked in. A new paper by Berger, Jeong, Marx, Olesen, and Tourre compares mobility across Denmark and the US:
We study Danish fixed-rate mortgage contracts, which are identical to those in the United States except that borrowers may repurchase their mortgages at market value. Using Danish administrative data, we show that households actively buy back debt when mortgage prices fall below par and that household mobility is largely insensitive when existing mortgage rates are below prevailing market rates — unlike in the United States, where moving rates fall sharply as rates rise. We develop an equilibrium model that explains these patterns and show that introducing a repurchase-at market option into U.S. mortgages substantially reduces interest-rate-induced lock-in with limited effects on equilibrium mortgage rates.
The last point is especially important because you might wonder whether we are assuming a free lunch? After all, if US borrowers lose when they have to pre-pay at par then lenders surely gain. And if lenders gain on pre-payment then they will be willing to lend at lower rates on mortgage initiation. No free lunch, right? The logic is correct but note that the gain to lenders comes mainly from the relatively small set of households that move despite lock-in so the pre-payment bonus to lenders is quite small. Under the author’s calibrated model, mortgage interest rates in the US would rise by only 18 basis points on average if the US moved to a Danish type system.
In other words, there actually is a free or at least a low-priced lunch because lock-in is bad for homeowners and it doesn’t benefit lenders. As a result, moving to a Danish system would create net benefits.
The hyper-NIMBY of earlier Cape Town and South Africa
The most controversial of the forced removals occurred in the second half of the 1960s, with the expulsion of 65,000 coloureds from District Six, a vibrant inner-city ward of Cape Town, where whites, many of the slumlords, owned 56% of the property. Against their will, District Six residents were moved out to the sandy townships of the Cape Flats. In Johannesburg, the inner-city suburb of Sophiatown, where blacks could own freehold property, was another notorious site of forced removals. Often long-established community institutions such as churches and schools had to be abandoned.
That is from the very good book by Hermann Giliomee The Afrikaners: A Concise History.
Alternatives to 911
Almost a quarter-billion calls are placed to 911 each year in the United States. A large share of them involve social problems, not crimes or emergencies—yet police are dispatched in response. This review traces how the 911 emergency system’s institutional design shapes demand for police, who is excluded from or ill served by this system, and what alternatives exist, including nonemergency lines (with police response), government hotlines (211, 311, 988), civilian crisis teams, and community-based resources. Among the universe of municipal police departments with at least 100 sworn officers in 2020, covering 107 million US residents, police have absorbed broad social service functions, with the availability of formal alternatives restricted to the largest cities. The evidence suggests that the primacy of police reflects institutional reproduction more than public need. I propose priorities for future research.
That is from a new NBER working paper by Bocar A. Ba.