Rome markets in everything
Just down the Via di Ripetta, in the heart of Rome, the freshly unveiled Bulgari Hotel Roma, with hallways showcasing jewels, has a premier one-bedroom suite overlooking the Mausoleum of Augustus. It costs 38,000 euros, or about $41,000, a night.
At least at the upper end, is Rome making a comeback?:
Rome’s mayor, Roberto Gualtieri, says the hoteliers are perfectly sane, and know a future good thing when they see it. He points to better restaurants, restored museums, new ones in the works. Post-pandemic tourists have made Rome a prime destination, though he allows that the spritz-thirsty hordes settling in Airbnbs are a threat to the city’s soul.
Here is more from the NYT.
Where do you live and why?
Map shows most common type of home where people live in each European country. pic.twitter.com/JXEvkfO475
— Xavi Ruiz (@xruiztru) September 16, 2023
What should I ask Masaaki Suzuki?
Yes, I will be doing a Conversation with him. Here is the opening of his Wikipedia page:
Masaaki Suzuki (鈴木 雅明, Suzuki Masaaki, born 29 April 1954) is a Japanese organist, harpsichordist and conductor, and the founder and music director of the Bach Collegium Japan. With this ensemble he is recording the complete choral works of Johann Sebastian Bach for the Swedish label BIS Records, for which he is also recording Bach’s concertos, orchestral suites, and solo works for harpsichord and organ. He is also an artist-in-residence at Yale University and the principal guest conductor of its Schola Cantorum, and has conducted orchestras and choruses around the world.
He is not just an incredible artist, he is one of the most remarkable achievers of our time. So what should I ask him?
Saturday assorted links
IFOs
While strolling in the garden one day…a priest said to him, ‘Father Joseph, oh, how beautiful God has made heaven!’ Then Joseph, as if he had been called to heaven, gave a loud shriek, leapt off the ground, flew through the air, and knelt down atop an olive tree, and—as witnesses declared in his beatification inquest—that branch on which he rested waved as if a bird were perched upon it, and he remained up there about half an hour” (Paolo Agelli, Vita del Beato Giuseppe di Copertino, 1753).
What kind of nonsense is this? Who is this liar quoted above? Human beings can’t fly or kneel on slender tree limbs like little birds. So, how is it that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries—the very era that gave birth to aggressive skepticism and empirical science—countless people swore that they had witnessed such events? And how is it that some of these sworn testimonies are legal records, archived alongside lawsuits and murder trials, from all sorts of people, not just illiterate peasants but also elites at the apex of the social, intellectual, and political hierarchy?
…Levitation is one of the best of all entry points into the history of the impossible, principally because it is an event for which we have an overabundance of testimonies, not just in Western Christianity but throughout all of world history.
Carlos Eire argues in CommonWeal that these events should be taken seriously. Eire is cagey about what he means by take seriously but I agree that we can say something about the form such visions take and when and why they rise and fall in frequency. Eire notes, for example, that reporting of such events changed significantly with the Protestant Reformation.
…Protestants of all stripes also rejected the proposition that God had continued to perform miracles beyond the first century, a doctrine that came to be known as “the cessation of miracles” or “the cessation of the charismata.” The miracles mentioned in the Bible had really occurred, they argued, but such marvels became unnecessary after the birth of the early Church and would never happen again. Consequently, all of those miraculous supernatural phenomena associated with holiness throughout the Middle Ages, including levitation, could not be the work of God. But by designating these phenomena “false”—that is, not attributable to God—Protestants did not declare them impossible. As most Protestant Reformers and their later disciples saw it, ecstatic seizures, levitations, luminous irradiance, and all such phenomena did in fact occur, but they were all diabolical in origin.
…Given the religious, social, political, and intellectual turmoil caused by the advent of Protestantism and its great paradigm shift, it is not at all surprising that miracles became a marker of difference between Catholics and Protestants, as well as a flash point of discord and a polemical weapon.
That’s right but the author would have done better to refer to the work of my GMU colleagues. GMU (oddly?) is a leading center of experts on witch trials. See most notably Leeson and Russ and Johnson and Koyama.
People don’t report seeing flying people the way they used to. Is that because people have become more rational or because the socially acceptable form of vision has changed?
How often do I think of ancient Rome?
That question was first a Twitter meme, it is now a Washington Post story. The question is supposed to pick up something about the manliness of the manly mind? Who even knows these days?
In short, I think about ancient Rom pretty often! But not as much as I think about ancient Greece, and typically in reactive settings. Some of my CWT guests have some connection to ancient Rome, and I must prep for them. (This can be more guests than you might think — consider topics of Shakespeare, Montesquieu, Christianity, or even a China scholar.) I travel in the former Roman empire fairly often, usually at least once a year. I see pseudo-Roman architecture almost every time I go to Washington, D.C., which is maybe once every two weeks. There is a copy of the new Ovid translation sitting in the kitchen, and it has been there for a few months because I do not currently have time to read it. I see periodic Twitter updates about a Nat Friedman-Daniel Gross AI project to read ancient Roman scrolls. Christian references to ancient Rome cross my path all the time. Does it count to see Roman numerals? To write the words “per se”? To notice it is the month of August?
But I don’t just sit around “thinking of ancient Rome.” There are no works from ancient Rome that I long to reread, and there is no ancient Roman music to listen to. I’m not going to rewatch Ben Hur. I was in Rome itself about two years ago, which was recent enough. At this point, my reactions to signals, snippets, and trailers of ancient Rome are more than enough for me.
Populism fact of the day
Populism at the country level is at an all-time high, with more than 25% of nations currently governed by populists. How do economies perform under populist leaders? We build a new long run cross- country database to study the macroeconomic history of populism. We identify 51 populist presidents and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020 and show that the economic cost of populism is high. After 15 years, GDP per capita is 10% lower compared to a plausible non-populist counterfactual. Economic disintegration, decreasing macroeconomic stability, and the erosion of institutions typically go hand in hand with populist rule.
That is a new piece by Manuel Funke, Moritz Schularick, and Christoph Trebesch, forthcoming in The American Economic Review, arguably the number one journal of the economics profession.
Friday assorted links
1. New results for insect-scale robots.
2. Let’s build something better and more popular. Most of the rest of the talk is counterproductive. Maybe the AEA should try to raise some money and reverse this state of affairs? Yes? Should this situation not be considered a major failure of AEA efforts to date? Is there any actual mechanism of accountability in the AEA to consider and remedy this failure? How is it that nothing has been done for so long? Why are the incentives within the AEA so unfriendly to building successful new projects? How might um…an economist analyze the incentives there?
3. “In a series of papers, Blumberg articulated his theory that the brain uses rem sleep to “learn” the body.” New Yorker link here.
*The Origins of Woke*
That is the new Richard Hanania book, with the subtitle Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity Politics, and it is coming out next week. There are complex “Pierre Menard-like” issues surrounding the work at this point, and at the moment I don’t have the time or energy to sort through them. I can tell you however that I liked the book.
*How to Know a Person*
The author is David Brooks, and the subtitle is The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen. I think of it as a book on how to appreciate others, even if you do not necessarily deeply know them, which is slightly different from David’s subtitle. (Am I too skeptically Freudian when it comes to “knowing people”?) An excellent book, I read it straight through, and I view it as a milestone in David’s career. Does that mean I appreciate him? Know him even? Maybe just the former!
Due out October 24, you can pre-order here.
As I wrote to a friend: “If those who needed it would heed it, it would be one of the most useful books.” The rest is up to you.
Do LLMs diminish diversity of thought?
Put aside the political issues, do Large Language Models too often give “the correct answer” when a more diverse sequence of answers might be more useful and more representative? Peter S. Park, Pilipp Schoenegger, and Chongyang Zhu have a new paper on-line devoted to this question. Note the work is done with GPT3.5.
Here is one simple example. If you ask (non-deterministic) GPT 100 times in a row if you should prefer $50 or a kiss from a movie star, 100 times it will say you should prefer the kiss, at least in the trial runs of the authors. Of course some of you might be thinking — which movie star!? Others might be wondering about Fed policy for the next quarter. Either way, it does not seem the answer should be so clear. (GPT4 by the way refuses to give me a straightforward recommendation.)
Interestingly, when you pose GPT3.5 some standard trolley problems, the answers you get may vary a fair amount, for instance on one run it was utilitarian 36% of the time.
I found this result especially interesting (pp.21-22):
The second, arguably more surprising finding was that according to each of the three distance metrics, our sample of self-reported GPT liberals were still closer to the human conservative sample than it was to the human liberal sample. Also, the L1 distance metric found that self-reported GPT liberals were—among human liberals, human moderates, human conservatives, and human libertarians—closest in response to human conservatives…We thus robustly find that self-reported GPT liberals revealed right-leaning Moral
Foundations: a right-leaning bias of lower magnitude, but a right-leaning bias nonetheless.
The authors seem to think this represents an inability to GPT models to represent the diversity of human thought, on the contrary I think this shows their profundity. In my view many “liberals” (not my preferred term) actually have pretty conservative moral foundations in the Jon Haidt sense, namely, in spite of what they may say the liberals prioritize “in-group, authority, and purity,” rather than worrying so much about actual “harm and fairness.” Just like so many conservatives.
No, GPT does not know all, but sometimes it hits the nail on the head. An interesting paper, even if I part company with the authors on a number of their interpretations.
Via Ethan Mollick.
The museum culture that is internet
The Tank Museum in Bovington, England, doesn’t usually rank among the world’s great museums. Located next to a military base in serene countryside, the collection of around 300 armored vehicles attracts only a few hundred thousand visitors a year, mainly families on rained-out beach vacations.
Yet there is one place where it not only ranks among the world’s largest museums, but surpasses them: YouTube.
The Tank Museum’s channel has over 550,000 subscribers — surpassing the Museum of Modern Art (519,000), the Metropolitan Museum of Art (380,000) or the Louvre (106,000).
In April, it announced it was the first museum to get over 100 million views on YouTube, with weekly clips including intensely detailed discussions on tank history, chatty videos of the curators’ favorite war machines and newsier items on how armored vehicles are being used in Ukraine.
Here is more from the New York Times, via Philip Wallach.
From the comments, space daddy edition
Benny Lava
2. Personal quibble but I hate the direct links to twitter because I can’t read the comments since I don’t have an account. Wish there was a better system to post threads from twitter.
By far the easiest way to handle this is to get an account with twitter.
Anonymous
If you want to use their service, you should probably get an account. They’re free.
Benny Lava
That is precisely the problem. I don’t want to use their service.
Anonymous
You seem to want to use their service. You want the information contained there, as per your 13:33:30 post.
Reason
He’s big sads that space daddy took away his Lefty playground.
Here is the link to the debate.
Thursday assorted links
1. The pandemic as time machine (NYT).
2. Who really disapproves of single-parent families?
3. Nicholas Kristof on the new Melissa Kearney book (NYT).
4. Meloni is not stopping Lampedusa arrivals — what is the equilibrium here?
5. Has there been a savings glut?
6. Those new service sector jobs, Taylor Swift journalism edition.
India Gets Rid of its “Jones Act”
India has been liberalizing its cabotage laws over the past decade and now appears ready to end them completely:
Splash: India is planning to completely remove its cabotage laws which will allow foreign registered and flagged ships to work along its coast without obtaining a permit from the country’s Directorate General of Shipping.
This is seen as a massive move by the Narendra Modi-led government as the only ships currently allowed to work on local routes for carrying cargo are registered in India. Foreign ships can work along the coast only with an appropriate permit. When it came into force, the law was intended to protect domestic shipowners.
According to local media, this is seen as the biggest reform yet in the shipping sector but also a topic that will undoubtedly rile up Indian fleet owners.
The US’s Jones Act continues to raise shipping costs, increase fuel usage and harm the environment. We should follow India’s example.
Reminds me that there is no such thing as development economics.