Category: Uncategorized

Friday assorted links

1. Best DC art works? (FT)  Surely Manet’s The Railway should be on the list?  Does Dulles Airport count?  The Iwo Jima Memorial or Vietnam Memorial?  Maybe even the Air Force Memorial?

2. The raccoon culture that was Virginia and I suppose still is a little bit?

3. Stoppard’s liberal individualism.

4. Jerry Z Muller on conservatism.

5. SPEAK, new organization for free speech in the UK.

6. On heritability debates.  And a comment from Pinker.

7. The new Annie Jacobsen book on biological warfare.

Political pressure on the Fed

From a forthcoming paper by Thomas Drechsel:

This paper combines new data and a narrative approach to identify variation in political pressure on the Federal Reserve. From archival records, I build a data set of personal interactions between U.S. Presidents and Fed officials between 1933 and 2016. Since personal interactions do not necessarily reflect political pressure, I develop a narrative identification strategy based on President Nixon’s pressure on Fed Chair Burns. I exploit this narrative through restrictions on a structural vector autoregression that includes the President-Fed interaction data. I find that political pressure to ease monetary policy (i) increases the price level strongly and persistently, (ii) does not lead to positive effects on real economic activity, (iii) contributed to inflationary episodes outside of the Nixon era, and (iv) transmits differently from a typical monetary policy easing, by having a stronger effect on inflation expectations. Quantitatively, increasing political pressure by half as much as Nixon, for six months, raises the price level by about 7% over the following decade.

That is not entirely a positive omen for the current day.

Emergent Ventures winners, 50th cohort

Geby Jaff, Berkeley, publication medium for AI-generated science.

Laura Ryan, London, data for the AIs.

Tara Rezaei, MIT, general career support/AI/o1.

Mihir Rao, Princeton, bio and AI.

Lorna MacLean, London, AI medical diagnosis of endometriosis.

David Yu, Waterloo, Ontario/Taiwan, fellowship program for agentic Taiwanese college students.

Aniket Panjwani, Lombard, Illinois, EconNow, AI-based software for economics.

Zixuan (Eric) Ma, GMU, to write about China.

Ivan Khalamendyk, Lviv, “I’m an independent Ukrainian physicist developing a ψ-field model of the universe – a single real wave ψ(x,t) that reproduces quantum matter, forces and gravity.”

José Luis Sabau, Mexico City, Perpetuo, Substack for Mexico.

Soleil Wizman, Yale University, longevity.

My Conversation with the excellent Dan Wang

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

Tyler and Dan debate whether American infrastructure is actually broken or just differently optimized, why health care spending should reach 35% of GDP, how lawyerly influences shaped East Asian development differently than China, China’s lack of a liberal tradition and why it won’t democratize like South Korea or Taiwan did, its economic dysfunction despite its manufacturing superstars, Chinese pragmatism and bureaucratic incentives, a 10-day itinerary for Yunnan, James C. Scott’s work on Zomia, whether Beijing or Shanghai is the better city, Liu Cixin and why volume one of The Three-Body Problem is the best, why contemporary Chinese music and film have declined under Xi, Chinese marriage markets and what it’s like to be elderly in China, the Dan Wang production function, why Stendhal is his favorite novelist and Rossini’s Comte Ory moves him, what Dan wants to learn next, whether LLMs will make Tyler’s hyper-specific podcast questions obsolete, what flavor of drama their conversation turned out to be, and more.

Excerpt:

COWEN: When will Chinese suburbs be really attractive?

WANG: What are Chinese suburbs? You use this term, Tyler, and I’m not sure what exactly they mean.

COWEN: You have a yard and a dog and a car, right?

WANG: Yes.

COWEN: You control your school district with the other parents. That’s a suburb.

WANG: How about never? I’m not expecting that China will have American-style suburbs anytime soon, in part because of the social engineering projects that are pretty extensive in China. I think there is a sense in which Chinese cities are not especially dense. Indian cities are much, much more dense. I think that Chinese cities, the streets are not necessarily terribly full of people all the time. They just sprawl quite extensively.

They sprawl in ways that I think the edges of the city still look somewhat like the center of the city, which there’s too many high-rises. There’s probably fewer parks. There’s probably fewer restaurants. Almost nobody has a yard and a dog in their home. That’s in part because the Communist Party has organized most people to live in apartment compounds in which it is much easier to control them.

We saw this really extensively in the pandemic, in which people were unable to leave their Shanghai apartment compounds for anything other than getting their noses and mouths swabbed. I write a little bit about how, if you take the rail outside of major cities like Beijing and Shanghai, you hit farmland really, really quickly. That is in part because the Communist Party assesses governors as well as mayors on their degree of food self-sufficiency.

Cities like Shanghai and Beijing have to produce a lot of their own crops, both grains as well as vegetables, as well as fruits, as well as livestock, within a certain radius so that in case there’s ever a major devastating war, they don’t have to rely on strawberries from Mexico or strawberries from Cambodia, or Thailand. There’s a lot of farmland allocated outside of major cities. I think that will prevent suburban sprawl. You can’t control people if they all have a yard as well as a dog. I think the Communist Party will not allow it.

COWEN: Whether the variable of engineers matters, I went and I looked at the history of other East Asian economies, which have done very well in manufacturing, built out generally excellent infrastructure. None of these problems with the Second Avenue line in New York. Taiwan, like the presidents, at least if we believe GPT-5, three of them were lawyers and none of them were engineers. South Korea, you have actually some economists, a lot of bureaucrats.

WANG: Wow. Imagine that. Economists in charge, Tyler.

COWEN: I wouldn’t think it could work. A few lawyers, one engineer. Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, he’s a lawyer. He thinks in a very lawyerly manner. Singapore has arguably done the best of all those countries. Much richer than China, inspired China. Why should I think engineers rather than just East Asia, and a bunch of other accompanying facts about these places are what matter?

WANG: Japan, a lot of lawyers in the top leadership. What exactly was the leadership of Hong Kong? A bunch of British civil servants.

COWEN: Some of whom are probably lawyers or legal-type minds, right? Not in general engineers.

WANG: PPE grads. I think that we can understand the engineering variable mostly because of how much more China has done relative to Japan and South Korea and Taiwan.

COWEN: It’s much, much poorer. Per capita manufacturing output is gone much better in these other countries.

And:

WANG: Tyler, what does it say about us that you and I have generally a lot of similar interests in terms of, let’s call it books, music, all sorts of things, but when it comes to particular categories of things, we oppose each other diametrically. I much prefer Anna Karenina to War and Peace. I prefer Buddenbrooks to Magic Mountain. Here again, you oppose me. What’s the deal?

COWEN: I don’t think the differences are that big. For instance, if we ask ourselves, what’s the relative ranking of Chengdu plus Chongqing compared to the rest of the world? We’re 98.5% in agreement compared to almost anyone else. When you get to the micro level, the so-called narcissism of petty differences, obviously, you’re born in China. I grew up in New Jersey. It’s going to shape our perspectives.

Anything in China, you have been there in a much more full-time way, and you speak and read Chinese, and none of that applies to me. I’m popping in and out as a tourist. Then, I think the differences make much more sense. It’s possible I would prefer to live in Shanghai for essentially the reasons you mentioned. If I’m somewhere for a week, I’m definitely going to pick Beijing. I’ll go around to the galleries. The things that are terrible about the city just don’t bother me that much, because I know I’ll be gone.

WANG: 98.5% agreement. I’ll take that, Tyler. It’s you and me against the rest of the world, but then we’ll save our best disagreements for each other.

COWEN: Let’s see if you can pass an intellectual Turing test. Why is it that I think Yunnan is the single best place in the world to visit? Just flat out the best if you had to pick one region. Not why you think it is, but why I think it is.

Strongly recommended, Dan and I had so much fun we kept going for about an hour and forty minutes.  And of course you should buy and read Dan’s bestselling book Breakneck: China’s Quest to Engineer the Future.

The importance of the internet

From my recent chat with Alex, mostly about fiscal policy:

TABARROK:To be clear, a 0.5% increase in the rate of productivity growth, that doesn’t seem like a lot, but that would be historically a bigger increase than we got from anything. A bigger increase than the internet. Sure, yes.

COWEN:It is the internet in a way, but yes.

TABARROK:It was founded on the internet, yes. The internet was the agar culturefor the growth of the AI.

COWEN:That’s why the internet’s important. We’re just beginning to realize this,right?

TABARROK:Exactly, yes.

COWEN:It’s why a lot of people can’t admit AI might be a good thing, because then they’d have to admit the internet was a good thing. They’re so committed to never saying that.

TABARROK:Is that why?

COWEN:That’s why, yes.Believe me. That’s why.

TABARROK:It is funny that I think historically, when we look back, I think you’re right, we’ll think about what was the internet. The growth culture was putting everything online, was for the AI. It wasn’t for us.

Wednesday assorted links

1. Dwarkesh speaks.  And Dwarkesh on AI progress.

2. Merve Emre on what makes Goethe special.  A good piece, but has anyone actually captured and expressed this yet?

3. Japanese washing machine for humans?

4. Anthropic estimates the productivity impact of Claude.  And the Twitter summary.  And Zvi on Claude Opus 4.5.  And Dean Ball.  It loves Op.132.

5. How good is auction theory?

6. What happens next in Honduras?

Tuesday assorted links

1. Brangus on women, the incels need this, noting I do not agree with all the points.  But better than the PUA stuff.

2. The monarchy returns in Tonga.

3. Hail the Swiss.  80 percent rejection.  And Johann notes to me: “Only two municipalities voted yes on the recent ballot measure for a 50% inheritance tax over 50 million francs: The city of Bern with about 140’000 inhabitants and the village of Schelten with 34.”

4. Woman on a mission to photograph every species of hummingbird.

5. Parties of the Right rising in Honduras, party of the Left plummeting.  But when will the ruling party resume the count or make the count public?  And it seems the two leading candidates are both ethnically Palestinian?

6. Why many people have trouble with the concept of strong AI or AGI.

7. Is the Mississippi reading miracle in part statistical illusion?

The myth of the $140,000 poverty line

That is my latest piece for The Free Press, focusing on the claims of Michael W. Green.  Excerpt:

Most of all, there is a major conceptual error in Green’s focus on high prices. To the extent that prices are high, it is not because our supply chains have been destroyed by earthquakes or nuclear bombs. Rather, prices are high in large part because demand is high, which can only happen because so many more Americans can afford to buy things. I am reminded of the old Yogi Berra saying: “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”

There are now numerous excellent criticisms of the same piece, for instance by Scott Winship and Noah Smith.  As my piece was in the works, Green published this response to some of the criticisms.

Séb Krier

Huge fan of multi agent systems, agent based modelling, and social intelligence – these frames still seem really absent from mainstream AI discourse except in a few odd places. Some half-baked thoughts:

1. Expecting a model to do all the work, solve everything, come up with new innovations etc is probably not right. This was kinda the implicit assumption behind *some* interpretations of capabilities progress. The ‘single genius model’ overlooks the fact that inference costs and context windows are finite.

2. People overrate individual intelligence: most innovations are the product of social organisations (cooperation) and market dynamics (competition), not a single genius savant. Though the latter matters too of course: the smarter the agents the better.

3. There’s still a lot of juice to be squeezed from models, but I would think it has more to do with how they’re organised. AI Village is a nice vignette, and also highlights the many ways in which models fail and what needs to be fixed.

4. Once you enter multi-agent world, then institutions and culture start to matter too: what are the rules of the game? What is encouraged vs what is punished? What can agents do and say to each other? How are conflicts resolved? It’s been interesting seeing how some protocols recently emerged. We’re still very early!

5. Most of the *value* and transformative changes we will get from AI will come from products, not models. The models are the cognitive raw power, the products are what makes them useful and adapted to what some user class actually needs. A product is basically the bridge between raw potential and specific utility; in fact many IDEs today are essentially crystallized multi agent systems.

Here is the link.

*Liberal Worlds: James Bryce and the Democratic Intellect*

By H.S. Jones, an excellent book.  For all the resurgence of interest in government and its problems, Bryce has received remarkably little attention.  But his theory of low-quality, careerist politcians, combined with imperfectly informed voters, seems highly relevant to our current day.  Public opinion is slow, and largely reactive, but potent once mobilized.  Leadership can truly matter, and he stresses national character and civic education.  In other words, Bryce’s The American Commonwealth is a book still worth reading.

I had not known that Bryce was born in Belfast, or that he was so opposed to women’s suffrage.  Or that he was so interested in Armenia, climbed Mount Ararat, and was fascinated by the inevitability of interracial marriage and its consequences (no, not in the usual racist way).  He was an expert on Roman law.

Recommended, and also very well written.

Meta-analytical effect of economic inequality on well-being or mental health

Some of us have known this for some time:

Exposure to economic inequality is widely thought to erode subjective well-being and mental health, which carries important societal implications. However, existing studies face reproducibility issues, and theory suggests that inequality only affects individuals in disadvantaged contexts. Here we present a meta-analysis of 168 studies using multilevel data (11,389,871 participants from 38,335 geographical units) identified across 10 bibliographical databases (2000–2022). Contrary to popular narratives, random-effects models showed that individuals in more unequal areas do not report lower subjective well-being (standardized odds ratio (OR+0.05) = 0.979, 95% confidence interval = 0.951–1.008). Moreover, although inequality initially seemed to undermine mental health, the publication-bias-corrected association was null (OR+0.05 = 1.019; 0.990–1.049)17. Meta-analytical effects were smaller than the smallest effect of interest, and specification curve analyses confirmed these results across ≈95% of 768 alternative models. When assessing study quality and certainty of evidence using ROBINS-E and GRADE criteria, ROBINS-E rated 80% of studies at high risk of bias, and GRADE assigned greater certainty to the null effects than to the negative effects. Meta-regressions revealed that the adverse association between inequality and mental health was confined to low-income samples. Moreover, machine-learning analyses19 indicated that the association with well-being was negative in high-inflation contexts but positive in low-inflation contexts. These moderation effects were replicated using Gallup World Poll data (up to 2 million participants). These findings challenge the view that economic inequality universally harms psychological health and can inform public health policy.

That is now published in Nature, by Nicholas Sommet, et.al., via the excellent Kevin Lewis.

Popular music of 2025

Usually I wait until the year passes before dipping too deeply into these offerings, but this year I have been impressed by:

Bad Bunny, ‘DeBÍ TiRAR MáS FOToS’.

Geese, Getting Killed.

Rosalia, Lux.

Oklou, Choke Enough.

Saya Gray, Saya.

Fontaines D.C., Romance, late 2024.

Jeff Tweedy, Twilight Override.

Raye, assorted songs.

There will be more, that is my first cut at a list of interest.

Sunday assorted links

1. False claims about China and Japan, but still worth pondering.

2. False claims about birth rates and utility.

3. Can management consultants be literary heroes? (FT)

4. JFV on equilibrium in economics.

5. When does low fertility shatter the social contract?

6. Naturally occurring furin cleavage sites.

7. If somehow you do not know the works of Tom Stoppard you should, RIP, here is the NYT obituary.