Category: Uncategorized
Steve Levitt on the future of economics
It’s really, right now, I think the profession is very inward-looking. It’s rewarding people who do things that are seen as hard. It’s really blurring the lines between theory and empirics was structural in a way that it is an experiment that I personally don’t think has worked out very well. And so, I think that it’s not that, I mean, the great ideas you’re talking about like Black-Scholes are few and far between anyway. But the rewards are not there for people who have practical insights are not rewarded greatly in the profession. The rewards come to people who make innovations, theoretical innovations, right? Who come up with new techniques, who do hard stuff that other people can’t do. So, I think in that sense, economics is going to become, my prediction is that economics is going to become less and less relevant, more and more inwardly focused. And honestly, I wouldn’t be that surprised if economics ends up going the way of anthropology or sociology, which works prominent and thought to be very promising and important disciplines, but have fallen dramatically in their stature because they ended up being more arcane and more focused inwardly. So, I have a really bad feeling about the future of economics, and I don’t see an easy way to change it.”
That is from Jon Hartley’s podcast with him, transcript included.
Friday assorted links
1. Casey Handmer on how to feed the AIs.
2. What we would like to know about aging.
3. Are there good reasons to create giant sheep?
4. My colleague Michael Clemens on how deportations would harm U.S. job creation.
5. Have the liberal arts gone conservative? (New Yorker)
6. Markets in everything? (speculative, pirate revenge edition)
The El Salvador tax reform
El Salvador’s Congress approved on Tuesday a reform to remove income taxes previously imposed on money from abroad, in a move to attract more foreign investment.
Money flows from abroad in forms such as remittances and investments in companies will now be exempt from tax, lawmakers said.
Prior to the reform, incomes equal to or greater than $150,000 had to pay a rate of 30% at the time of entry into the country.
There is no extra reason to click on this link. Here are other pieces. “Good, if you can keep it,” as they say…
Milei update
The shock therapy administered by Milei and his economy czar Luis Caputo right after the Dec. 10 inauguration is showing results. In a severely recessionary context, inflation is slowing down (February prices rose 13.2% in monthly terms compared with 25.5% in December) while foreign reserves grew by more than $7 billion despite debt repayments. Deposits on local dollar-denominated bank accounts have also recovered. Last week, Argentina’s sovereign spread (a measure of country risk) dropped to the lowest in more than two years and the nation has received the enthusiastic backing of the International Monetary Fund, its single largest creditor.
The exchange rate — historically the Argentine economy’s key indicator — has recently appreciated in parallel markets and now trades at just 15%-20% over the official peso, opening the door for authorities to consider unifying the currency market. As local economists have argued, it’s time to start dismantling the byzantine currency controls that have long strangled Argentina.
The flipside of the government’s deep spending cuts, however, is a near-collapse in economic activity, with industrial production falling more than 12% year-on-year in January and construction retreating even more.
And:
At the same time, the parallel peso’s appreciation in a context of high inflation is leading to a loss of competitiveness, with Argentina fast becoming expensive when measured in dollars. The result adds to speculation that a new devaluation will soon be unavoidable, reversing gains in the fight on inflation. “Our base scenario considers a correction of the exchange framework in May,” Buenos Aires-based consultant Equilibra said in a recent report. Monday night’s measures by the country’s central bank can be seen as an attempt to tame this appreciation.
The government’s gamble is that, by the second quarter, a strong crop from Argentina’s high-powered farmlands spurs a rebound in activity that helps contain some of the social discontent produced by the measures.
Here is more from Juan Pablo Spinetto at Bloomberg. And from the FT:
Argentina’s Senate has rejected President Javier Milei’s sweeping emergency decree to deregulate the economy, in a major blow to the libertarian leader and his attempt to deliver reforms for the crisis-stricken country. Senators voted 42 to 25 to reject the decree, with four abstentions. Issued in December it modifies or eliminates more than 300 regulations affecting the housing rental market, food retailers, air travel, land ownership, and more.
So further progress on the libertarian front may be tough. Also from the piece:
“This is a worry for the market because the president is on the verge of losing . . . the only set of substantial economic reforms he has been able to introduce so far,” he said. Milei already opted to withdraw the other plank of his legislative agenda — a multipronged omnibus bill aiming to overhaul the Argentine state — from the floor of the lower house last month after lawmakers rejected several key articles.
Things could be better.
Non-binary gender economics
Economics research has largely overlooked non-binary individuals. We aim to jump-start the literature by providing data on several economically-important beliefs and preferences. Among many results, non-binary individuals report more gender-based discrimination and express different career and life aspirations, including less desire for children. Anti-non-binary sentiment is stronger than anti-LGBT sentiment, and strongest among men. Non-binary respondents report lower assertiveness than men and women, and their social preferences are similar to men’s and less prosocial than women’s, with age an important moderator. Elicited beliefs reveal inaccurate stereotypes as people often mistake the direction of group differences or exaggerate their size.
Here is the new NBER working paper by Katherine B. Coffman, Lucas C. Coffman, and Keith Marzilli Ericson. P.s. comments are closed.
Thursday assorted links
Marc Andreessen and I talk AI at an a16z American Dynamism event
a16z has issued the talks from that event, and we are issuing it too, as a bonus episode of CWT. But note it is shorter than usual, and not the typical CWT format — this was done for an audience of actual DC human beings!
Excerpt:
COWEN: Why is open-source AI in particular important for national security?
ANDREESSEN: For a whole bunch of reasons. One is, it is really hard to do security without open source. There are actually two schools of thought on information security, computer security broadly, that have played out over the last 50 years. There was one school of security that says you want to basically hide the source code, and you want to hide the source code precisely. This seems intuitive because, presumably, you want to hide the source code so that bad guys can’t find the flaws in it, right? Presumably, that would be the safe way to do things.
Then over the course of the last 30 or 40 years, basically, what’s evolved is the realization in the field (and I think very broadly) that actually, that’s a mistake. In the software field, we call that “security through obscurity,” right? We hide the code. People can’t exploit it. The problem, of course, is: okay, but that means the flaws are still in there, right?
If anybody actually gets to the code, they just basically have a complete index of all the problems. There’s a whole bunch of ways for people to get the code. They hack in. It’s actually very easy to steal software code from a company. You hire the janitorial staff to stick a USB stick into a machine at 3:00 in the morning. Software companies are very easily penetrated. It turned out, security through obscurity was a very bad way to do it. The much more secure way to do it is actually open source.
Basically, put the code in public and then basically build the code in such a way that when it runs, it doesn’t matter whether somebody has access to the code. It’s still fully secure, and then you just have a lot more eyes on the code to discover the problems. In general, open source has turned out to be much more secure. I would start there. If we want secure systems, I think this is what we have to do.
Marc is always in top form.
Those new service sector jobs, squatter removal edition
Via the excellent Samir Varma, hail to Handyman Flash Shelton:
After local law enforcement couldn’t help, Shelton spent days dissecting laws around squatters’ rights. He managed to get rid of the women within a day by drafting a lease agreement with his mother designating him the legal resident of the home, then took over the house when the women stepped out one day and barred them from re-entering.
Now he uses his experience to provide squatter removal services for others and has successfully helped several landlords in California reclaim their homes.
“I think it’s just something that is coming to light … and I believe that it’s going to get worse,” Shelton told Fox News. “Squatters’ rights were never intended to allow the takeover of residential maintained properties. So until we make it criminal, it’s just going to keep happening, and people are going to be afraid to rent out or buy.”
In October, a 4,000 square foot, five-bedroom Atlanta home was taken over by squatters who ran an illegal strip club inside on weekends and kept horses on the property, neighbors told WSB-TV. Ultimately, the FBI arrested four people residing in the trashed house.
Another Atlanta resident discovered squatters had broken into her property that she was selling. She said there was prostitution, drug use and $30,000 worth of damage done to her home.
Here is the full story, here is (gated) LA Times coverage.
Wednesday assorted links
1. The largest worms on earth.
2. AI safety is not a model property.
3. Dan Schulz podcast with Nabeel Qureshi, with transcript.
4. African influencers who make it big in Brazil.
7. Be careful what you wish for: “The proposed legislation may force app stores to remove TikTok. But restricting access through web browsers or already-installed apps—which would be necessary to really limit the platform’s reach—would represent another level of intrusive regulation.” (WSJ)
Sentences of note
COVID-19 vaccination reduced the risk of post-COVID-19 cardiac and thromboembolic outcomes. These effects were more pronounced for acute COVID-19 outcomes, consistent with known reductions in disease severity following breakthrough versus unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Here is the full article by Núria Mercadé-Besora, et.al.
The Canadian economy is a worthwhile Canadian initiative
Contrary to some recent claims, the Canadian economy is not falling apart, and now I have a Bloomberg column on that point. Excerpt:
A chorus of doomsayers is pointing out that by some measures, Canadian per-capita GDP is in decline.
While there is genuine room for concern, the bad news is much overstated. Canada has not altered its fundamental and longstanding position: It is somewhat poorer than the US, but it is progressing at a more or less typical pace.
First, a note on the numbers: Canadian GDP per capita has not regressed to where it was in 2014. That metric deflates incomes by producer prices, whereas for actual living standards economists generally agree that a consumer-prices deflator of some kind is more appropriate. Using that metric, Canadian per-capita GDP mostly has been rising since 2014, the pandemic aside, and currently stands modestly above pre-pandemic levels, albeit with a very recent downturn. Yes, Canadian performance could be better, but there’s no reason to be pressing the panic button.
It is also noteworthy that the Canadian economy, historically, does better when measured by median income trends, which have been steadily positive for almost two decades, including since 2014.
As for concerns:
It is a fair to wonder why the Canadian economy, in relative terms, seems to be slipping behind the US. As a general observation, this is true of most developed economies, and perhaps it says more about American virtues than Canadian defects.
More specifically, though, the nature of the tech economy may suggest this widening gap is inevitable, at least for a while. Canadian contributors to the technology scene are numerous, most of all in artificial intelligence. But with some exceptions, these developments have had the most impact in the US. Canada can certainly be proud of the contributions of the brilliant Canadian-Israeli computer scientist Ilya Sutskever, a co-founder of OpenAI, but of course that means he was not working in Canada.
Think of it as the economic equivalent of the US’s exorbitant privilege in monetary policy: The more other economies become technology-centered, the more likely they will help the major tech clusters in the US, which will continue to attract global talent. So it is possible that the US will increase its relative lead over Canada, and many other economies, no matter what Canada does. Perhaps some Canadians will feel bad about that growing gap, but to the extent their country benefits from those same tech innovations, it is good for most Canadians.
I am looking forward to my next Canada trip, when will that be? I don’t think I will make it to the Candidates’ tourney, but I am picking Caruana to win.
Tuesday assorted links
1. Over 2015-2021, the number of Chinese workers in Africa fell by 64 percent (note the link has too many pop-ups, click only if you have to).
2. Seasonal pollen boosts traffic fatalities.
3. Golden Mall reopens in Flushing, Queens (NYT).
4. Katja Grace and AI worries (New Yorker). And a general update on the AI worries.
5. Henry Oliver on James Joyce.
6. A post-mortem on neoreaction.
7. The Alliance for the Future Manifesto, on AI, by Brian Chau.
Claude 3 Opus Also Fails Steve Landsburg’s Economics Exam
Almost one year ago, Steve Landsburg tried GPT-4 on one of his exams. It failed, badly. I tried out some of the same questions on Claude 3 Opus, by many accounts now the leading AI. It failed, badly. Steve’s exams are very clever. They aren’t technically difficult but they are tricky in the sense that the answer you would get by reading the textbook is almost certainly wrong. Not because the textbook is wrong but because you have failed to really understand. Here’s two examples:
Q. Apples are provided by a competitive industry. Pears are provided by a monopolist. Coincidentally, they sell at the same price. You are hungry, and would be equally happy with an apple or a pear. If you care about conserving societal resources, which should you buy?
A. If you care about conserving societal resources, you should buy the apple provided by the competitive industry rather than the pear provided by the monopolist. Here’s why:
In a competitive industry, firms are price takers and must operate efficiently to survive. They produce at the point where marginal cost equals price. This means they are producing at the socially optimal level, using society’s resources efficiently.
In contrast, a monopolist has market power and can set prices above marginal cost. They produce less than the socially optimal quantity in order to drive up prices and maximize profits. This results in a deadweight loss to society – there are potential gains from trade that are not being realized.
Even though the apple and pear are selling at the same price to you as the end consumer, the way that price was arrived at is very different:
- The competitive apple price reflects the true marginal cost of production
- The monopoly pear price is above the marginal cost of production
By buying the competitively produced apple, more of your money is going towards covering the actual costs of production. By buying the monopoly pear, some of your money is going towards monopoly profits rather than productive use of resources.
Of course, this is a simplification and there are other considerations, like quality, variety, innovation incentives, etc. But in general, competitive industries lead to more efficient outcomes than monopolies. So if your goal is conserving societal resources, buying from competitive producers is usually the better choice. The apple is the way to go in this case.
Claude has read the textbook. It knows that competitive industries are good and that monopolies are bad and it can explain why. Everything it says is correct and yet Claude gets the answer wrong. Do you see why? Pause and check your solution.
In Claude’s defense, I was able to prompt Claude via the Socratic method to the correct answer but it took several rounds of questioning:
The social cost of producing a good is the opportunity cost of the resources used in its production. In a competitive market, price equals marginal cost, so the price reflects the social cost of production. However, in a monopoly market, the price is higher than the marginal cost, so the price does not reflect the social cost.
Given:
- The price of apples (Pa) equals the price of pears (Pp)
- Apples are produced competitively, so Pa = MCa
- Pears are produced by a monopolist, so Pp > MCp
Therefore, MCa = Pa = Pp > MCp
The marginal cost of producing a pear (MCp) is lower than the marginal cost of producing an apple (MCa).
From society’s perspective, the cost of producing an additional pear is lower than the cost of producing an additional apple. The resources needed to produce a pear (MCp) are less than the resources needed to produce an apple (MCa).
Therefore, if you want to minimize the societal cost of your fruit consumption, you should choose the pear. By consuming a pear, you are using up fewer societal resources than if you consume an apple.
The monopoly pricing of the pear is a separate issue from the social cost of production. The higher price of the pear reflects a transfer from consumers to the monopoly producer, but it does not affect the underlying cost of the resources used to produce the pear.
So in conclusion, if your goal is to minimize the cost to society of your fruit consumption, you should buy the monopoly produced pear, as it has a lower marginal cost of production than the competitively produced apple, despite being sold at the same price.
A good answer and very clearly written with nice notation so Claude can “learn” within a session. Still, this isn’t very useful if you don’t already know the answer. Ok, one more.
Q. The town of Mayberry is thinking of expanding its airport. One problem with the expansion is that it would result in more airplane noise. For people who live near the airport, hearing that noise would cause as much unpleasantness as the collective loss of $100,000 every year. True or False: When Mayberry weighs the costs and benefits of its airport expansion, that $100,000 should count as a cost
A. True, the $100,000 in collective unpleasantness experienced by residents near the airport due to increased noise should be counted as a cost when weighing the costs and benefits of the airport expansion. Here’s why:
Externalities: The airplane noise is a negative externality – a cost imposed on third parties (the nearby residents) who are not directly involved in the economic activity (the airport expansion). Externalities lead to market inefficiencies because the full costs are not being accounted for by the decision-makers.
….a bunch more similar reasoning, all correct.
Once again, Claude gives a textbook answer and yet the answer is wrong. In a way this is more surprising than failing the first question because Coase got a Nobel prize for giving the correct answer (and it’s not, bargaining will solve the externality if that is what you are thinking.) I will let commentators work this one out. Do read the question carefully, it’s subtle. Again with Socratic prompting Claude got there eventually.
I wouldn’t underestimate the GPTs, textbook answers can be of great value, especially when the textbooks are long and diverse. Medical diagnostics, legal reasoning and coding are ideal tasks for GPTs. Economic reasoning less so, at this stage.
Congratulations to Steve Landsburg for the excellent questions.
Brazil fact of the day
Agriculture is now almost single-handedly propping up the nation’s economic fortunes. In the first quarter of 2023, the sector grew by an extraordinary 21 per cent and by more than 15 per cent across the year. This growth — the strongest since 1996, according to available data — helped bolster overall national growth, which surpassed expectations at 2.9 per cent.
A recent study of an elite group within Brazil’s richest people — those in the 0.1 per cent — found that the highest earners were from Mato Grosso, according to the Fiscal Policy Observatory at the Getulio Vargas Foundation. “In terms of state GDP per capita, today it is among the highest in the country,” says Sérgio Gobetti, an economist who authored the study. But he highlights that inequality is also growing, with the wealth heavily concentrated among the landowners — typically from Brazil’s south — and not the workers, usually from the country’s poorer north-east.
Here is more from Bryan Harris at the FT. Brazil’s trade surpluses are growing rapidly.
Monday assorted links
1. Claude 3 on Bach’s Goldberg Variations.
2. How raw milk became a political issue.
3. “First, we don’t find that increasing corporate competition driven by M&A is important for workers either through concentrating the market for the products the workers produce, which would in theory increase worker wages, or through concentrating the labor market, which would in theory decrease their wages.” Link here, Canadian.