Category: Uncategorized
The wisdom of Garett Jones
Of course this Bloomberg column was inspired by Garett’s work, not to mention Paleo-Caplanianism! Here is one excerpt, with the focus being on the annoying tendency to label various policies “anti-democratic”:
The danger is that “stuff I agree with” will increasingly be labeled as “democratic,” while anything someone opposes will be called “anti-democratic.” Democracy thus comes to be seen as a way to enact a series of personal preferences rather than a (mostly) beneficial impersonal mechanism for making collective decisions…
It is also harmful to call the Dobbs decision anti-democratic when what you’re really arguing for is greater involvement by the federal government in abortion policy — a defensible view. No one says the Swiss government is “anti-democratic” because it puts so many decisions (for better or worse) into the hands of the cantons. And pointing out that many US state governments are not as democratic as you might prefer does not overturn this logic.
It would be more honest, and more accurate, simply to note that court put the decision into the hands of (imperfectly) democratic state governments, and that you disagree with the decisions of those governments.
By conflating “what’s right” with “what’s democratic,” you may end up fooling yourself about the popularity of your own views. If you attribute the failure of your views to prevail to “non-democratic” or “anti-democratic” forces, you might conclude the world simply needs more majoritarianism, more referenda, more voting.
Those may or may not be correct conclusions. But they should be judged empirically, rather than following from people’s idiosyncratic terminology about what they mean by “democracy” — and, by extension, “anti-democratic.”
I am worried about some of the increasing polarization on this issue. If you are on “the Left,” and you think various social and policy trends are so immoral, how is it exactly that you avoid becoming yourself “anti-democratic”? Even though at the same time you are cursing everything you don’t like as “anti-democratic” too?
The Distributional Effects of Student Loan Forgiveness
Even worse than you thought:
We study the distributional consequences of student debt forgiveness in present value terms, accounting for differences in repayment behavior across the earnings distribution. Full or partial forgiveness is regressive because high earners took larger loans, but also because, for low earners, balances greatly overstate present values. Consequently, forgiveness would benefit the top decile as much as the bottom three deciles combined. Blacks and Hispanics would also benefit substantially less than balances suggest. Enrolling households who would benefit from income-driven repayment is the least expensive and most progressive policy we consider.
That is from a working paper by Sylvaine Catherine and Constantine Yanellis. It is sad that such material even needs to be posted. I hope you are not taken in by Dube-ous ideas to the contrary!
Monday assorted links
Sunday assorted links
1. Lex interviews Magnus. Who claims he has impostor syndrome.
3. Christian Zeal and Activity (John Adams).
4. The ongoing fight for octopus rights (NYT).
5. Why are there no awesome Silicon Valley types in their 20s right now? (FT) Has the well run dry? Or something else?
6. Public sector R&D and growth.
7. New inhaled Covid-19 therapeutic blocks viral replication in the lungs.
What should I ask Mary Gaitskill?
I will be doing a Conversation with her. Here is Wikipedia:
Mary Gaitskill (born November 11, 1954) is an American novelist, essayist, and short story writer. Her work has appeared in The New Yorker, Harper’s Magazine, Esquire, The Best American Short Stories (1993, 2006, 2012, 2020), and The O. Henry Prize Stories (1998, 2008). Her books include the short story collection Bad Behavior (1988).
I consider The Mare, Veronica, and Lost Cat (among others) to be some of the best and most insightful American fiction of recent times. She is um…frank, and has held a series of actual jobs in her lifetime, including stripper and sex worker. She was also a teenage runaway.
Here is the The New Yorker covering her new Substack. Here is a Guardian profile:
Mary Gaitskill’s fiction is often called cold, or even brutal, but I have always loved it for nearly opposite reasons: its tender attention to the complexities of human emotion, and the compassion it coaxes from clear-eyed perception.
So what should I ask her?
Will open science matter?
Yesterday I posted this link, about how federally funded science will have to be made open access right away. I’m all for this, as it has some upside and no downside that I can see. Still, at the margin I am not sure it will make a huge difference.
Who says when the research is “ready” to be posted? No matter what you put in the fine print, de facto that is a decision made by the scientists. If scientists wish to delay open access publication, I doubt if this will stop them. “The paper simply isn’t finished yet.” The law cannot in practice dictate otherwise. Of course scientists already put plenty of works on-line and open to the public, and this private calculation will continue, but with only modest changes.
The actual main effect will be to enable scientists to resist commercial attempts to monopolize publication rights in closed access form. Presumably such contracts now will be illegal. But think about the new equilibrium: there will be a final, published, canonical version of the article published in The Journal of Botchagaloup. There will be an open access, not yet published, non-canonical (no proper pp. at the very least) version on the scientist’s home page. And very often there will be an illegal copy of the canonical version on SciHub, the pirate site for scientific papers. Plus the data copies that circulated before the commercial publisher made the authors take them down.
How is that so different from the status quo? Some scientists who didn’t get a crack at the data the first time around won’t have to wait as long to access it. And maybe scientists will make more of an effort for the open access version of their papers to be closer to the canonical versions published in commercial journals. This could prove a modest benefit, though you, as an outside scientist, wishing to cite “p.43” just won’t know how canonical the open access version will be. And presumably for-profit commercial journals will add extra stages to the final production process, if only to keep interest in the product they are selling, relative to the open access versions on-line. So I don’t think it will “do under” for-profit scientific publishing, not to mention that many articles are not federally funded by the U.S. government.
A more radical policy change would have been to require the journals to make their final versions of the papers open to the public, and in the final, canonical versions. That would create greater benefits, but also run the risk of putting those journals out of business. As I understand the new dictate, it does not do this.
The new law also will give scientists leverage against private companies that wish to buy up the research rights and not publicize the results. Probably this is a benefit, though that doesn’t hold a priori, as it does raise the cost of private sector involvement by forcing them to share the information more. And some unscrupulous scientists might try to get a better deal from the companies by releasing a different and inferior version of “the public research results” to the open access community. Still, on net I expect these are benefits.
Addendum: You may recall that Fast Grants had its own version of an open access requirement. I think this worked quite well! But it is interesting why it might have proven effective. I think we credibly signaled that people with open and early good results would be plausible candidates for additional funding, and soon, and indeed some of them were. To the extent that the federal government can signal the same, good incentives will be all the stronger. But this new OSTP order does not coordinate future funding decisions per se, and I don’t see any clauses that the NIH, NSF, and others are bound to revise their funding policies accordingly, to favor researchers who come out with speedy, open results. So the benefits here could be much greater if the entire federal science apparatus could signal its prioritization of speed and openness. We are still quite far from this. Nonetheless, this policy is a marginal improvement and a step in the right direction and its creates some preconditions for matters getting better yet.
Saturday assorted links
The long-awaited upgrade to Ethereum
Which are the best sources to read on what is happening, and its likely benefits and problems? If you are starting from scratch, here is some NYT coverage. The Ethereum Foundation reports:
- Soon, the current Ethereum Mainnet will merge with the Beacon Chain proof-of-stake system.
- This will mark the end of proof-of-work for Ethereum, and the full transition to proof-of-stake.
- This sets the stage for future scaling upgrades including sharding.
- The Merge will reduce Ethereum’s energy consumption by ~99.95%.
What else should I be reading on this? Here are various Reddit threads. Here is coverage from Timothy B. Lee. And what are you all expecting? (Please don’t just rehash the standard crypto debates.)
What I’ve been reading
Frances Spalding, The Real and the Romantic: English Art Between the Two Wars. Wonderful text, quality images, and the whole subject area remains underrated, so this book was a big plus for me. The history of modernism is not just cubist and abstract art on the continent.
Chris Miller, Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology. I liked this book and found it useful, though I wished for more on Taiwan and more recent times, and for less on the earlier years. Just my subjective preference.
Alice Bentinck and Matt Clifford, How to be a Founder: How entrepreneurs can identify, fund and launch their best ideas. Do you have it in you to be a founder? If you are asking that question, this book is maybe the best place to start looking for some answers.
Thomas H. Davenport and Steven M. Miller, Working with AI: Real Stories of Human-Machine Collaboration. Actual examples!
There is also Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans, and Avi Goldfarb, Power and Prediction: The Disruptive Economics of Artificial Intelligence, which I have not yet read.
Samuel Gregg, The Next American Economy: Nation, State, and Markets in an Uncertain World is a useful corrective to some recent attempts to overrate the import of industrial policy, especially in an American context.
Celia Paul, Letters to Gwen John I found a moving set of (imaginary) letters from one living female painter to another first-rate deceased female painter, both having lived through some similar situations. Excellent color plates too.
Christopher Marquis and Kunyuan Qiao, Mao and Markets: The Communist Roots of Chinese Enterprise. A good look at the essential continuity in Chinese history between the Maoist period and the “capitalist” period. Of course the main thesis no longer seems so crazy as it might have ten years ago.
How does such a “power grab” stay secret?
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced on Friday that former High Court Justice Virginia Bell will report on Nov. 25 on the findings of her inquiry into [Scott] Morrison’s secret power grab.
Morrison secretly appointed himself to five ministerial roles between March 2020 and May 2021, usually without the knowledge of the original minister.
Albanese, who replaced Morrison in May elections, cited Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue’s legal opinion that while the appointments were legal they undermined the principle of responsible government….
Morrison, who is now an opposition lawmaker, maintains that he gave himself the portfolios of health, finance, treasury, resources and home affairs as an emergency measure made necessary by the coronavirus crisis.
But his only known use of the secret powers had nothing to do with the pandemic. He overturned a decision by former Resources Minister Keith Pitt to approve a contentious gas drilling project near the north Sydney coast that would have harmed his conservative coalition’s reelection chances.
Here is the full story. But really people — how is this secrecy possible? No one was tempted to mention this on Twitter? Did it involve no paperwork? Isn’t such a “secret” minister just a windowless monad? Or why not install loyal “lackey type” subordinates instead? Or is this like Trump’s “document declassification,” existing mainly in the mind of the executive and nowhere else? Model this for me please!!
Friday assorted links
1. The sheep human contest in France.
2. The culture that is Illinois.
3. How does fear of failure affect performance on Master Chef?
4. “The AI startup erasing call center worker accents: is it fighting bias – or perpetuating it?”
5. Kevin Erdmann on rising rents.
6. Do people underestimate how much they will enjoy strangers? (NYT)
7. “Baidu claims it’s the world’s first hardware-software integrated quantum computer and it’s already available to use.” I have found such past reports unreliable, but…
8. Howard Rosenthal obituary (NYT).
Kin-based institutions and economic development
Though many theories have been advanced to account for global differences in economic prosperity, little attention has been paid to the oldest and most fundamental of human institutions: kin-based institutions—the set of social norms governing descent, marriage, clan membership, post-marital residence and family organization. Here, focusing on an anthropologically well established dimension of kinship, we establish a robust and economically significant negative association between the tightness and breadth of kin-based institutions—their kinship intensity—and economic development. To measure kinship intensity and economic development, we deploy both quantified ethnographic observations on kinship and genotypic measures (which proxy endogamous marriage patterns) with data on satellite nighttime luminosity and regional GDP. Our results are robust to controlling for a suite of geographic and cultural variables and hold across countries, within countries at both the regional and ethnolinguistic levels, and within countries in a spatial regression discontinuity analysis. Considering potential mechanisms, we discuss evidence consistent with kinship intensity indirectly impacting economic development via its effects on the division of labor, cultural psychology, institutions, and innovation.
That is a new and very important paper by Duman Bahrami-Rad, Jonathan Beauchamp, Joseph Henrich, and Jonathan Schulz, the two Jonathans being my colleagues at GMU.
Thursday assorted links
1. Why so few economies of scale in construction?
2. Salem Center/CSPI forecasting tournament.
3. Play Magnus Group receives Chess.com offer.
4. A Hollywood insider’s guide as to what to do in Belfast.
5. Megan McArdle on student loan forgiveness.
6. “We have created the first example of an engineering material that can simultaneously sense, think and act upon mechanical stress without requiring additional circuits to process such signals,” Harne said. “The soft polymer material acts like a brain that can receive digital strings of information that are then processed, resulting in new sequences of digital information that can control reactions.” Link here.
My Conversation with Cynthia L. Haven
Here is the audio and transcript, here is part of the summary:
…those two interests converged as they led her to interview and write books about three writers and thinkers whom she also came to call mentors: René Girard, Czeslaw Milosz, and Joseph Brodsky.
Cynthia joined Tyler to discuss what she’s gleaned from each of the three, including what traits they have in common, why her biography of Girard had to come from outside academia, Milosz’s reaction to the Berkley Free Speech Movement, Girard’s greatest talent — and flaw — as a thinker, whether Brodsky will fall down the memory hole, why he was so terrible on Ukraine, why Cynthia’s early career was much like The Devil Wears Prada, the failings of Twitter, and more.
And one excerpt:
COWEN: What is your philosophy of what is missing in most other people’s interviews?
HAVEN: I don’t know that it’s a philosophy.
COWEN: You must think you’re adding something, right?
HAVEN: I’m interested in big questions. I think a lot of people aren’t. A lot of interviewers aren’t. It’s not an era for big questions, is it?
COWEN: 2022? I’m not sure.
HAVEN: Really?
COWEN: Maybe the questions are either too big or too small and not enough in between.
HAVEN: That’s an interesting point of view.
COWEN: There’s plenty of ideology in the world and in this country. It doesn’t have to be a good thing, but —
HAVEN: Ideology is different than big questions, I think.
Interesting throughout.
*Of Boys and Men*
…I was shocked to discover that many social policy interventions, including some of the most touted, don’t help boys and men. The one that first caught my eye was a free college program in Kalamazoo, Michigan. According to its evaluation team, “women experienced large gains,” in terms of college completion (increasing by 50%), “while men seem to experience zero benefit.” This is an astonishing finding. Making college free had no impact on men…So not only are many boys and men struggling, they are less likely to be helped by policy interventions.
And:
In the U.S. for example, the 2020 decline in college enrollment was seven times greater for male than for female students.
And:
The bottom line is that Finland’s internationally acclaimed educational performance is entirely explained by the stunning performance of Finnish girls.
That is from the forthcoming Richard V. Reeves book, one of the most important of this year, perhaps the most important.