Category: Uncategorized
Brazil fact of the day
Last year, the US exported $171bn of agricultural goods according to the Department of Agriculture, just $2bn more than the export total claimed by Brazil, which many analysts say has benefited from trade disruption set in train by President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
With US exports falling and Brazil’s rising — they increased 6 per cent in the first half of this year to hit a new record of $87bn — 2026 could prove the year in which America loses its agricultural ascendancy.
Here is more from Susannah Savage and Michael Pooler at the Financial Times.
Wednesday assorted links
Alec Stapp on the new Science report from Michael Kratsios
Major new report from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Five things in the report I really liked:
1. Proposes metascience units as a way to advance experimentation in science agencies. IFP recommended OSTP take this forward in our response to a 2025 RFI.
2. Advocates for a portfolio approach to federal science funding. Right now, basic research funding largely goes to incremental, project-based grants. While important, they can’t be the only mechanism we use to fund science.
3. Recognizes the need to launch new institutions. It specifically highlights X-Labs as an experiment with independent labs that can take on ambitious challenges. This is a bipartisan idea whose time has come.
4. Focuses on a mix of innovation funding mechanisms, including fast grants, prizes & challenges, and advance market commitments. We described and contextualized these ideas in the Atlas of Innovation, which can help policymakers design and implement these approaches.
5. Seeks to reduce burden for American scientists, who face mountains of paperwork. Scientists should spend more time doing science and less time writing/reporting on grant proposals and working to meet regulatory requirements.
Here is the link, here is the report itself, by Michael Kratsios, Science a New Golden Age. Overall, less money will be given to universities and more will be spent on AI-assisted science. Here are further observations from Seth Bannon.
Tuesday assorted links
2. Are LLMs obsessed with Japan?
3. Princeton University art museum gets landmark gift of Haitian paintings.
4. “Sight unseen” — the revenge of asymmetric information. But was it a good buy?
Is America ruled by an oligarchy?
Any time you hear claims about American government, a sanity-inducing response is to ask whether they also are true of state and local governments. Here is an excerpt from my latest piece at The Free Press:
First, in people’s daily lives, they typically interact with their state and local governments more than with the feds. And if you look at what state and local governments do, most of it is driven by voter demand, and I do not mean billionaire or oligarchic voters.
Most state and local government spending goes toward schools, roads, and increasingly, Medicaid. None of those reflect the agendas of most billionaires. For example, Medicaid dollars flow particularly to lower-income recipients. Hospitals and doctors receive income from this program, but reimbursement rates are relatively low, and many of the best doctors do not accept Medicaid patients and don’t make a living from the program.
Somehow the oligarchy saw fit to leave these expenditures alone. Looking at the state and local level also suggests that America — with some notable exceptions — is better governed than before.
Monday assorted links
1. “In all three countries, declining places displayed higher animosity prior to salient populist campaigns.” In their tweets.
2. Sunstein on Hayek and conservatism.
3. Jacobian conjecture proved false. Fable found a counterexample that fits inside a tweet. From the strawberry guy: “in the areas that the labs are targeting, we’ve achieved artificial super intelligence. no single human and perhaps all of humanity could compete with this intelligence. once the model gets good enough at training future models this level of intelligence will spread to all domains.”
4. Redux of my CWT with Emily Wilson on The Odyssey.
5. The Great Awokening had a strong upper-class accent (research from Harvard). And which immigrants do citizens prefer?
6. Balkan notes.
7. How to sell your edition of The Odyssey (NYT).
8. Profits!
9. CAISI update.
Whit Stillman’s *Metropolitan* (that was then, this is now)
It is fun to watch/rewatch this 1990 movie circa 2026. It is about New York City debutantes (CT and the Hamptons too), and how they interact with each other. The movie is set a bit earlier in time, perhaps in the mid-1980s, though some scenes hearken back to the 1970s. Of course there is no social media and no cell phones. So the characters do look at each other, and talk to each other, the whole time. People dress up, and social smoking is “a thing.” There is no hook-up culture, as even casual sex has some sort of social implication. Women are seen as vulnerable, and the men occasionally punch each other. People drink. Throughout various scenes, characters debate Jane Austen, Lionel Trilling, and Buñuel (it was not yet recognized that Mansfield Park is an excellent novel). But do they read actual novels, or just the literary criticism? Women can be branded as “sluts.” Nerds had not yet taken over the world, and there is no Jane Street, though toward the end there is one odd scene where the neon lights rather obviously spell out “ELON” in the upper right side of the screen. Coincidence rather than time travel, I am sure. There are no Asians in the group, it seems no Jews, and if anyone is gay he or she remains in the closet. People of modest income had big apartments, and the so-called wealthy were not very rich at all, though they could afford black tie and white tie attire.
Was everyone happier and better off back then? Did they have deeper understandings of the world? Did they treat each other like heartless beasts? Would you eschew one of their parties and stay at home and scroll Twitter? You can watch this film and ponder those questions to your heart’s content. Alternatively, you could go to a debutante ball, which it turns out still exists. Which of those has been your choice?
Sunday assorted links
1. Female promotions and the academic pipeline.
2. NEW MONKEYS.
3. Those new service sector jobs — “One nanny isn’t cutting it anymore. Some parents are spending upward of $250,000 on teams for their children. Luxury services offer potty-training, baby chefs and bike-riding lessons.” (WSJ).
4. There some English people with the name “Ralph” who simply have decided to pronounce it like “Rafe.”
Cross-ethnic casting
I complained about the casting of The Odyssey per se (the blind beggar was best), but in general I do not mind cross-ethnic casting. I am glad Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra, Dev Patel played David Copperfield, Denzel Washington played Macbeth, black and Latino actors play white parts in Hamilton, and that Morgan Freeman can play God well (God himself would not be “white,” but God as black is nonetheless a conscious choice), and there was Jessye Norman (among others) singing and playing many traditionally white roles on the opera stage.
Recently in a private conversation I suggested that Nabeel Qureshi be cast as the next James Bond. He has a British accent, was born in (northern!) England, is tall and is good-looking. He does not remind anyone of Roger Moore. He is old enough where you could believe he has some experience as a spy, and at the baccarat table, but young enough where he could do those stunts without it seeming ridiculous.
I recall the talk of a black Bond, a notion which likely would end up dull and cliched. But a Bond of Pakistani ethnic origin? Now that would occasion some debate.
I am not saying it always works. I likely would object to a remake of Zulu with an all-Chinese cast. Or there can be major cultural mistakes which are not cross-ethnic, such as casting a Liverpudlian in the role of a London elite. Everyone in The Sopranos should at least be pretending to fit their roles, and indeed Tony himself grew up in New Jersey. I would have done fine in a cameo role.
How does social media change people?
I would not trust the results of this (or any) paper on this topic very much, but it is good to see some inquiry along different dimensions than the usual:
Past research explored the beneficial and harmful effects of social media (SM), but no study has investigated how SM might change people’s identities. Authors suggest that SM is a catalyst for a shift in two individual values, achievement and conformity, transforming the fabric of our societies. A difference-in-differences analysis found that countries with higher SM adoption compared to their culturally similar country show an increase in achievement and conformity orientation. Next, authors manipulated SM use and established a causal link between SM use and the activation of achievement and conformity values in Facebook users. These findings were replicated with objective SM usage data, and the pertinent mechanism was explored: people’s SM use increases achievement and conformity orientation through an increased need for approval, particularly for those who self-ruminate. Findings suggest that SM use contributes to the emergence of a societal culture that places an emphasis on achievement-seeking and conformity.
That is by Ertugrul Uysal, Sascha Alavi, and Valéry Bezençon. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
Saturday assorted links
1. How Roman concrete lasted for so long.
2. All restaurants in Germany are worthy of five stars?
3. They are making improvements to Refine.
4. New limits on graduate student visas? Should we/can we make the PhD three years only?
What should I ask Luis Garicano?
Yes I will be doing a Conversation with him. From Wikipedia:
Luis Garicano Gabilondo (pronounced [ˈlwis ɣaɾiˈkano]; born 1967) is a Spanish economist and politician who was a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from 2019 to 2022. He was also vice president of Renew Europe and vice president of the European political party Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE Party). Before entering politics, he was a professor of strategy and economics at IE Business School in Madrid and at the London School of Economics (LSE). After leaving the European Parliament he has returned to academia as a visiting professor at Columbia Business School and at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. In 2023, returned to LSE as full professor at the School of Public Policy.
He is one of the leading European economic liberals, here is his home page. Here is his Google scholar page. Here is Luis on Twitter. he also has a very good book coming out called Messy Jobs, co-authored with Jim Li and Yanhui Wu. So what should I ask him?
The small business boom
Across the country, founders like Ms. Winkler are powering an entrepreneurial renaissance.
Jump-started by the pandemic, when a confluence of factors including mass layoffs and remote work led to a flood of business creation, and supercharged by the rise of artificial intelligence, start-up activity is booming after a decades-long slump.
Americans filed 5.7 million applications last year to start new businesses, according to the Census Bureau, the most in the two decades the government has kept track. New business applications through the first half of this year continued to climb…
More recently, there are signals that A.I. is adding fuel.
A recent paper from economists at the University of British Columbia and the Stockholm School of Economics found that generative A.I. was “spurring entrepreneurial activity” in the United States, both by giving rise to new ventures built around the technology and by making it cheaper to start enterprises.
“A.I. tools can do very many different things very well,” said Jan Bena, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia and one of the study’s authors. “That’s the reason why you see so much entry.”
According to a recent report from Gusto, a small-business payroll and benefits service, nearly 60 percent of founders on its platform who started businesses last year said they used A.I., and half said the technology made it cheaper and faster.
Here is more from Sydney Ember at the NYT. Via Josef.
*The Odyssey*, the movie (no real spoilers)
I can’t say I loved it. The Circe scene was excellent, Cyclops was good, and the battles in Troy were well done. But most of the roles were miscast. I like Matt Damon, but he is too “Good Will Hunting” to play Odysseus. The character did not cohere. (Compare to Ralph Fiennes in the superior The Return.) Zendaya’s role was superfluous. Worst of all was Calypso, who reminded me of the kind of chick you might meet at a Tupperware party in the Hamptons. At least half of the dialogue was lame and contrary to the spirit of the Mycenaean world. Some of the sea and boat footage was good. I strongly disliked the changes made to the ending.
There is enough energy, effort, and money put into the thing to make it eminently watchable on the big screen. And if this were a new director, you would think he had great promise. But relative to both the reviews and where most expectations were placed, this has to count as a disappointment.