Category: Uncategorized

Very good paragraphs

From Timothy Taylor, spotted by Arnold Kling:

Through much of the 1990s, the ratio of owner’s equity to GDP fell, but in the early 1990s, that was partly a result of depressed regional real estate markets in certain states in the aftermath of the collapse of many savings and loan institutions in the late 1980s and early 1990s (which made the numerator of the ratio decline), and also a result of fast economic growth from the mid-1990s on (which made the denominator of the ratio rise). Again, the bottom line is that the spike in the total value of housing that ended around 2006 is well outside the post-World War II historical experience. And the drop since 2006 takes this ratio from by far its highest value since 1950 to by far its lowest value since 1950.

We are not as wealthy as we had thought.

India markets in everything

Premarital investigations cost $200 to $400 and take seven to 10 days. Detectives follow the subject for 12 to 18 hours daily and chat up co-workers, domestic help and tradesmen under various pretexts. “Beware — your neighbor knows everything,” says Sanjay Singh, chief executive of New Delhi’s Indian Detective Agency. “Sometimes more than you know yourself.”

Particularly useful are fake marketing surveys. Enticed into participating with the promise of a free gift, sometimes something as modest as a bottle of shampoo, the subject or a neighbor may reveal a secret relationship or details of a would-be bride or groom’s late-night entertainment activities and smoking or drinking habits.

“People love freebies,” says Krishna Kumar, an Anapol Institute graduate. “Most fall for it hook, line and sinker.”

She worked at a computer company for four years before deciding detective work would be a lot more challenging. Women have a big advantage as sleuths because they’re non-threatening, can mingle better and are more intuitive, she says.

“I like doing premarital investigations best,” she says. “You’re watching someone go in a new direction, and your work could make or break their future.”

…Most premarital investigations are ordered by parents, although sometimes spouses-to-be want a little snooping done, including women keen to size up their prospective mothers-in-law in a society where it is common for couples to live with the husband’s extended family.

The story is here, and for the pointer I thank Vishal Ganesan.  Oh, and the results?:

According to detectives, investigations turn up significant problems in about 60% of cases. In about 10%, the discoveries are explosive enough — such as previously undisclosed marriages or serious hereditary diseases — to cause cancellation of the wedding.

For the caste-conscious, a hidden Dalit relative, or so-called untouchable, is also problematic. “Caste and dowries remain huge issues today, and people like to exaggerate,” says Sachit Kumar, director of Globe Detective Agency.

A factor driving premarital investigations is the growing number of cases in which foreigners of Indian descent marry and then disappear, often taking huge dowries with them. It happens to 30,000 brides every year in northern Punjab state alone, according to India’s National Commission for Women.

Ten conspiracy theories for nerds (or conspiracy theory theory)

Not your usual cup of tea, here is one of them:

The Simulation Argument. This is legion in popular culture from “The Matrix” and “Inception” and other sci-fi, so we’ll just refer you to Nick Bostrom’s formulation of it. In theory we could tell the difference if something happened in the manner of The Truman Show where a light labeled “Sirius” falls from the sky. But are there any such events?

We offer one complexity-related observation. Although it is routine to say that classes like {\mathsf{P}} and {\mathsf{BQP}} have universal simulation, this isn’t strictly true. The universal function for {\mathsf{P}} doesn’t belong to {\mathsf{P}}—if it did, then {\mathsf{P}} would be in some fixed polynomial time bound, which it isn’t. Although proving this is technically murkier for “random” or “promise” classes like {\mathsf{BQP}}, the essential idea holds for any reasonable complexity class. Thus a universal simulation involves dropping down to a lower grade than the resources on which you draw. If our universe is convincingly universal, perhaps this is a well-motivated reason to reject the argument.

Perhaps the conspiracy is that so many people are intent on getting us to believe the simulation hypothesis.  Here is another one:

{\bullet } Factoring Really Is Easy. This is similar to the last, but now they can factor in polynomial time on a laptop, rather than need a quantum computer. Ken and I think this one has a much higher prior, almost on the order of “Breaking Engima Really Is Easy” in 1939.

If I understand properly, that is from a collaborative post from Pip and Ken Regan.

The Supreme Court and ACA

I liked Will’s post, these comments from John Cochrane, Ross Douthat, Megan McArdle, and these remarks by Ezra, among others.  See also Krauthammer.  A few points:

1. Trust is higher now, and that is worth something, even if like me you never favored the mandate segment of ACA.

2. Implicit in some of these writings is the notion of “contingent on the fact that Roberts upheld ACA.”  You might have thought ex ante: “I don’t think Roberts should uphold ACA.”  But Roberts is a smart and savvy guy, smarter and savvier than most of us and of course better informed about the Court than just about anyone.  You could have held this view ex ante and still now hold: “Conditional on the fact that Roberts upheld ACA, I should think he did the right thing.”

Hardly anyone employs that line of reasoning, but that is a sign of our irrationality.

3. The Court maximizing or at least defending its prestige is sometimes necessary, even in a well-established constitutional democracy.  The Court is not there to do what you want it to, or even necessarily to do what is right.  Get used to that.

4. You may have noticed that I haven’t blogged the legal challenge to ACA all year.  I think that plenty of what our government does is unconstitutional; just remember back to when an amendment was considered necessary for “The War against Alcohol”.  But I’ve also long considered health care policy a matter to be settled by the legislature not the courts.  Those are the modern rules of the game, for better or worse, and all along I have thought that trying to live outside those rules was a fool’s errand of sorts.

5. The Republican Party, by the way, still doesn’t have a coherent alternative for health care reform, nor do they seem willing to embrace many of the better parts of ACA, such as (partially) deregulating dentistry or the Medicare Advisory Board.  Romney seems to want to replace the mandate with more expensive tax credits.  Furthermore, I believe that many Republican legislators would rather run against an unpopular Obamacare than to have to craft an actual, legislate-able alternative.

6. I still believe the mandate segment of ACA will prove unworkable, but I won’t be expecting the courts to fix that.

7. I don’t vouch for this, but it is an angle I had not considered: “Making the mandate a tax has at least one other effect. It makes repeal easier. Now that the mandate has been deemed taxation, it can likely be jettisoned through use of the reconciliation process — meaning the Senate will need to muster only a bare majority for repeal, not 60 votes.”

8. I do think the Medicaid alterations in the Court’s decision will prove a big deal.  I am well aware that the large federal subsidies mean it still makes financial sense for states to continue with the program and the various extensions embedded in ACA.  But overall the program is not popular, and bringing it into the limelight in this fashion will go a long way toward making that common knowledge.  Most of the coverage extension under ACA came through Medicaid, I saw that as in danger in the first place, and now all the more so.

What kinds of financial risks do women prefer to take?

As mentioned, women make up about 5 percent of an average trading floor.  But these numbers change dramatically when we leave the banks and visit their clients, the asset-management companies.  Here we find a much higher percentage of women.  The absolute numbers are not large, because asset managers employ far fewer risk taker than banks, but at some of the big asset-management companies in the United Kingdom women make up as much as 60 percent of the risk takers.  This fact is, I believe, crucial to understanding the differences in risk taking between men and women.  Asset management is risk taking, so it is not the case that women do not take risks; it is just a different style of risk taking from the high-frequency variety so prevalent at the banks.  In asset management one can take time to analyze a security and then hold the resulting trade for days, weeks or years.  So the difference between men’s and women’s risk taking may be not so much the level of risk-aversion as it is the period of time over which they prefer to make their decisions.

Perhaps men have dominated the trading floors of banks because most of the trading done on them has traditionally been of the high-frequency variety.  Men love this quick decision-making, and the physical side of trading.

That is from The Hour Between Dog and Wolf.  The author is John Coates and you can buy the book here.  I would consider that hypothesis speculative, but nonetheless I found the passage of interest.

Assorted links

1. Markets in everything: condoms to get you pregnant.  Bonus prize for those who can guess the context without reading the article.

2. The popularity of in-game markets.

3. Employment at Apple stores, a good piece.

4.  What predicts Muslim anti-Americanism?, and Madonna markets in everything?

5. Jerry Brito on Stuxnet, though it is stopping nukes that could encourage bioweapons.

6. Forget the September result!

Ezra Klein predicts

…if the Affordable Care Act falls apart, the next time Democrats get a crack at passing universal health insurance, they’re going to want to do it in a way that avoids Republican obstruction and can’t be questioned by the Supreme Court. The most obvious policy path that achieves both goals is to expand public programs like Medicare and Medicaid, as that can be done through the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process and it can’t be touched by the Supreme Court.

At the link he asks for alternative predictions.  I am not sure the Democrats would have enough support — from other Democrats that is — to push through such a change.  Note by the way that Ezra is not endorsing his prediction, relative to ACA.

What are your predictions?

Today is probably a funny blogging day

If the Supreme Court strikes down ACA in part or as a whole, and you did not like the law in the first place, do not assume you should be happy.  It is far from obvious that we will end up with something better.  I do hope that today (or later this week) is not simply a big exchange of anger and recrimination.  No matter what happens, America still needs health care reform and this will require cooperation across the ideological spectrum.

By the way, didn’t it just come out in The Washington Post that the United States helped attack Iran with Flame, Stuxnet and related programs?  If they did this to us, wouldn’t we consider it an act of war?  Didn’t we just take a major step toward militarizing the internet?  Doesn’t it seem plausible to you that the cyber-assault is not yet over and thus we face immediate questions looking forward?  Won’t somebody fairly soon try to do it to us?  Won’t it encourage substitution into more dangerous biological weapons?

I do understand that these are fairly superficial questions and that I do not have the expertise to write a detailed and insightful blog post on these topics.  Still, it seems odd not to mention them at all.  While I read in limited circles, I do not see many writers devoting much attention to the matter.  Shouldn’t this have set off a large-scale national debate?