Noah Stoffman asks me two questions

I have two pretty random questions about which I would love to see a discussion on MR:

  • What
    will applied economics research be like in 50 years? I spend a huge
    amount of time gathering, cleaning, and organizing data.  I spend a
    lot of time writing code to do analysis. Will this become unnecessary?
    Will I just be able to say to my computer "Check if this relationship
    exists in the data"? If that happens, what will be special about people
    with PhDs?

  • Suppose you were given a large amount of money (say $10
    million) and you wanted to make sure that you would remain (relatively)
    wealthy in as many future states of the world as possible. Where would
    you invest it? Remote arable land? Organizing a cult of followers?

  • The lesson, of course, is that "pretty random" questions rarely are.  Usually it is someone asking the same question twice.

    I believe with p = 0.6 that the world is in for a "great disruption."  It has come to MSM first but it will not end there.  In the longer run I am optimistic about the results of this change — computers will free up lots of human labor — but in the meantime it will have drastic implications for income redistribution, across both individuals and across economic sectors.  For a core metaphor, the internet displacing paid journalism and classified ads is a good place to start.  The value of newspapers has been sucked into Google. 

    Later, we'll be much better at measuring which research Ph.d's are contributing value and which ones are not, or at least we'll think we are.  Since academic achievements follow a Power Law, that will mean a huge ouch for many would-be academicians.  The new professor will need to be skilled in assembling collages of information, raising money, and communicating to broader public audiences.  Either that or his research should be very obviously of the top order.  The distribution of income across professors will become radically less equal as indeed the trend has been for well over a decade now.

    If you have $10 million, the safest thing to do is to diversify across currencies, buy government securities of various kinds, hold $1.5 million in gold, and otherwise not invest at all.  Oh yes, invest in some cheap hobbies.  In a real crunch remote land is worthless — transport costs — and your cult followers are as likely to betray you as not.  Trying to become a professor is no longer such a safe path.

    Once The Great Disruption becomes more evident, entertainment will be very very cheap.  Medical treatments will become either much more expensive or again very cheap.  If you get the wrong ailment, you're going to need the $10 million.

    Robin Hanson believes we are headed back toward a Malthusian equilibrium; in contrast I believe that machines will never outcompete humans across the board and so the scenario will more closely resemble Baumol and Bowen's "cost disease."  The variance of real wages will continue to rise.

    I predict the equity premium will go up.

    www.ideastorm.com

    Customers offer their suggestions for how to make products better or more useful.

    Many of the entries are pleas that firms give up some market power, such as people wishing for more transparent prices and people wishing that Windows wasn't bundled with PC purchases.  Some people don't like trialware.

    Other people wish for standardized power cables for laptops.

    Why don't they just ask for checks in the mail?

    I thank Melody Hildebrandt for the pointer.

    Markets in everything, Jesus vs. germs edition

    A company called Purity Communion Solutions
    was founded in 2007 to market "germ-free products that take the worry
    out of contracting germs while receiving communion, and ultimately
    increasing communion participation and church attendance." Purity
    Communion Solutions already has 375,000 client churches, church supply
    houses and the like, and its Web site features all sorts of information
    about the H1N1 virus, as well as products that aim to keep you in
    church, and keep you healthy. They include an automated host dispenser
    in gold, silver, or white, as well as wafers infused with wine:
    "Improved taste and texture" and "eliminates germs, spills &
    waste."

    And if you don't already know:

    Christians [sic] not only gather together for worship at least weekly, but
    they also dip their fingers in common fonts of holy water, pass baskets
    up and down the pews to collect donations, exchange handshakes and hugs
    at the sign of peace, and — in varying formats — share bread and wine
    at communion, sometimes drinking from a single chalice or picking from
    a loaf of bread. Those churches in which a priest or minister gives out
    individual wafers of consecrated bread aren't much better off, studies
    show, especially if the minister is dipping the Host in a chalice or
    placing it on each communicant's tongue.

    Here is the full story and I thank The Browser for the pointer.

    Addendum: Here is a related article.

    Exit decisions: no more Big Mac for Iceland

    Iceland’s McDonald’s Corp.
    restaurants will be closed at the end of the month after the
    collapse of the krona eroded profits at the fast-food chain,
    McDonald’s franchise holder Lyst ehf said.

    Here is the full story and how about that name "Lyst ehf"?  (It does check out.)  Is it silly for me to say I find this story just a wee bit scary?

    I thank Jason Brennan and Daniel Lippman for the pointers.

    China rule of the day

    Salute every passing car on your way to and from school.

    That's only in one town.  There's also this one:

    Another county in Guizhou Province in southern China compelled state workers last year to help inflate the number of tourists visiting the ruins of an ancient village. Every government office was ordered to organize field trips to the site so the county could report 5,000 visitors within two months.

    The involuntary visitors had to take several buses to get to a village 20 miles from the county seat. From there, they hired motorcycles to carry them another nine miles down dirt roads, the newspaper Guangzhou Daily reported.

    The Guizhou Commercial News reported that some government offices were left unattended while state employees served as tourists.

    The resurrection of the public plan?

    Have I seen twenty MSM articles on this theme in the last five days?  Yet the betting odds are only slightly above their minimum point.  Right now the contract is running at about twenty rather than eighteen or so a few days ago. 

    I don't follow the ins and outs of the trenches (try Ezra Klein), but as an outsider I don't understand why in strategic terms the Democrats are resurrecting this idea.  It's their most likely path to failure, namely that they can't pass a public plan and can't easily go back to a bill without a public plan either.  Any bill that is passed will be revised repeatedly in any case, so there's plenty of time to try to get a public plan in the future anyway.

    Interview with Denise Shull

    She is using neurobiology to better understand traders' behavior and also to advise traders.  Here is one bit:

    StockTickr: What single lesson did you learn along the way that has helped you the most in your trading?

    Denise: Learn how to process your emotions in real time. so that the emotion is not “acted out” in trade entries or exits.

    Here is a recent article on Denise Shull.  Unlike many contemporary researchers in her field, she still has a real attachment to Freud.  "Emotional intelligence" for traders is perhaps a good summary of her core message.  I wonder how many professions (bloggers? no) are lucrative enough to afford paid emotional intelligence consultants.

    Via Daniel Hawes, here is a piece on how length-ratios of second and fourth digits predict success among high-frequency stock traders.  I can't say I'm convinced that "prenatal androgen exposure may affect a trader by sensitizing his subsequent trading performance to changes in circulating testosterone" but it's worth a read.

    *From Eternity to Here*

    The author is Sean Carroll and the subtitle is The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time.  This book-to-appear offers a very good summary of the paradoxes of time.  The new contribution (new to me, at least) is to offer an integrated discussion of the multiverse, the law of entropy, de Sitter space, and the foundations of the so-called "arrow of time."

    Carroll argues that the invocation of baby universes clears up a lot of apparent puzzles:

    The prospect of baby universes makes all the difference in the world to the question of the arrow of time.  Remember the basic dilemma: The most natural universe to live in is de Sitter space, empty space with a positive vacuum energy…most observers will find themselves alone in the universe, having arisen as random arrangements of molecules out of the surrounding high-entropy gas of particles…

    Baby universes change this picture in a crucial way.  Now it's no longer true that the only thing that can happen is a thermal fluctuation away from equilibrium and then back again.  A baby universe is a kind of fluctuation, but it's one that never comes back — it grows and cools off, but it doesn't rejoin the original spacetime.

    What we've done is given the universe a way that it can increase its entropy without limit.

    …[pages later]  In this scenario, the multiverse on ultra-large scales is symmetric about the middle moment, statistically, at least, the far future and the far past are indistinguishable…[yet] The moment of "lowest" entropy is not actually a moment of "low" entropy.  That middle moment was not finely tuned to some special very-low-entropy initial condition, as in typical bouncing models.  It was as high as we could get, for a single connected universe in the presence of a positive vacuum energy.  That's the trick: allowing entropy to continue to rise in both directions of time, even though it started out large to begin with.  There isn't any state we could possibly have chosen that would have prevented this kind of evolution from happening.  An arrow of time is inevitable.

    Is it all true?  Beats me.  But if you read this book you will come away more hopeful about the prospects of a relatively simple "theory of everything."

    Here is the author's home page; he teaches at Cal Tech.  Here is his personal page.  Best of all, here are his talks.  His Twitter feed is here.

    Assorted links

    1. Advice for holiday shopping: buy it, don't wait.

    2. Rich Germans demand higher taxes.

    3. A Georgist approach to financing health care reform: tax water.

    4. Don Boudreaux defends insider trading.

    5. A simple look at dark pools and high-frequency trading.

    6. Essay on Freakonomics and other popular economics books, as they relate to the economics profession.  How fun is economics really?

    How an insurance mandate could leave many worse off

    Here is my NYT column this week and not surprisingly it covers health insurance.  Excerpt:

    At this point, it seems more plausible that the cost of health
    insurance will keep rising, just as the costs of health care services
    have continued to climb. The upshot is that the burdens of mandatory
    purchase, the subsidy costs and the associated implicit marginal tax
    rates will all increase, eventually to the point of unsustainability.

    A further problem is “mandate creep,” which we’ve seen at the state
    level, as groups lobby for various types of coverage – whether for acupuncture, alcoholism and fertility treatments, for example, or for chiropractor services or marriage counseling.

    There are now about 1,500 insurance mandates among the various states,
    and hundreds of others are under consideration. The dynamic at work
    here is that the affected groups have a big incentive to push for
    mandates, while most other people are unaware of the specific issues
    and don’t become involved.

    Because mandates don’t stay modest
    for long, health insurance would become all the more expensive. The
    Obama administration’s cost estimates haven’t considered these
    longer-run “political economy” issues.

    There is more to the argument and I urge you to read the whole thing.  Do not forget my penultimate paragraph:

    We’re often told that America should copy the health care institutions
    of Western Europe. Yet we’re failing to copy the single most important
    lesson from those systems – namely, to put cost control first. Instead,
    we’re putting our foot on the gas pedal and ratcheting up the fiscal
    pressures on the system, in the hope that someday, somehow, it will all
    work out.

    Of course much of this piece also can be taken as a plea for more government-supplied insurance; that debate didn't fit in the 900-word limit.  The more important lesson, for the time being, is that we're on the verging of passing a policy that simply cannot and will not work.

    How to flip a coin

    Chris Blattman reports:

    Using a high-speed camera that photographed people flipping coins,
    the three researchers determined that a coin is more likely to land
    facing the same side on which it started. If tails is facing up when
    the coin is perched on your thumb, it is more likely to land tails up.

    How much more likely? At least 51 percent of the time, the
    researchers claim, and possibly as much as 55 percent to 60 percent –
    depending on the flipping motion of the individual.

    The original research is here.