Results for “400” 1127 found
The Latin American option
Estimates for the number of Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese in Brazil range from 10 to 12 million, with a reasonable degree of uncertainty. Most of them came over before those were distinct countries, for one thing. Other Latin American countries also have migrants from that region, Panama in particular, and as you may know Bukele of El Salvador is of Palestinian origin.
I don’t know of any formal statistics, but by repute those individuals have done quite well in Latin America. And it is hard to argue they have increased rates of violence or political disorder.
I would gladly see Brazil and other Latin polities open their immigration to current Palestinians in the Middle East.
The major Latin economies have very low fertility rates, about 1.55 for Brazil. They will need more people, and more young people, in any case. Now seems like a good time to act.
What the Kia-Hyundai Crime Wave Tells Us About the Long-Term Decline in Crime
Motor vehicle thefts (per capita) are about one third the level they were in the early 1990s, a drop which is consistent with the Great Crime Decline, the large fall in many crimes since the early 1990s. A lot of ink has been spent trying to explain the great crime decline–abortion legalization, lead abatement, increased imprisonment, more policing–these are just some of the leading theories.
In recent years, however, there has been a notable increased in motor vehicle theft–not back to earlier peaks–but a substantial increase. Theft hasn’t increased uniformly across the board, however. Thefts of Kias and Hyundais have seen massive increases–in some places thefts of these cars have increased by a factor of five or ten in just a few years. The reason is simple–most cars today have electronic immobilizers which mean that without the key present these cars can’t easily be hotwired. Some enterprising thieves, however, discovered that Kia and Hyundai neglected to install these devices and they spread the word through Tik-Tok videos about a method to quickly and efficiently jack these cars.
I propose that the micro can shed light on the macro. Consider the four theories for the great crime decline that I mentioned earlier–abortion legalization, lead abatement, increased imprisonment and more policing. The first two, abortion legalization and lead abatement, are theories about why there are fewer criminals–these theories say that people improved and that is why crime declined. But better people shouldn’t steal any car models, including Kias and Hyundais! Moreover, people haven’t suddenly become worse. Thus, offender-based theories cannot explain the sharp rise in motor vehicle thefts. There have been some changes in punishment, imprisonment and policing, in recent years but these have been slow moving and fairly small and in addition they also don’t explain the rise in Kia and Hyundia thefts in particular.
Obviously, what explains the rise in thefts of Kias and Hyundias in particular is the discovery that these vehicles were unguarded, unprotected and unsecured. Notice that being unguarded, unprotected and unsecured swamped any effect coming from abortion legalization, lead abatement, increased imprisonment or more policing.
The failure of the big four to explain the rise in Kia and Hyundai thefts isn’t proof that these theories are wrong. But lets ask the inverse question, can the rise in Kia and Hyundai thefts suggest an explanation for the great crime decline? In other words, can we explain the great crime decline by an increase in security. Begin with the most direct case, motor vehicle theft. Car immobilizes and other security devices began to be installed in the 1990s so the timing fits. Moreover, the timing fits multiple countries. One of the weaknesses of theories of the great crime decline such as increased imprisonment and policing is that these theories work for the United States but the crime decline occurred in many industrialized countries at about the same time. Canadian crime rates, for example, fall in near lockstep with US rates but with very different prison and policing strategies. Immobilizer technology, however, happened at similar times in similar places and where we saw delays or early adoption we also see delayed or early falls in motor vehicle theft. In addition, motor theft declined first for newer cars (secured) rather than for older cars despite the fact that the newer cars are the more desirable for thieves–again this fits the security hypothesis better than an offender or punishment hypothesis.
The security hypothesis fits motor vehicle theft but the connection is less clear with respect to other crimes. Home security devices have increased and become higher quality over time but the change was less rapid and less precisely timed to the early 1990s. The rise of credit cards and decline of cash could have reduced muggings, although again the timing doesn’t appear to be precise. Violent crime would seem even less likely to be security related–although cameras and lights surely matter–but keep in mind that a lot of violent crime is a side-effect of property crime. Vehicle thefts, muggings and drug deals turn into homicides, for example. In addition, there are “life of crime” or “career” effects. If you make motor vehicle theft and burglary less profitable that makes a life of crime less profitable which can reduce crime in general even without specific deterrence.
Overall, the security hypothesis carries some weight, especially in explaining multiple countries. I don’t fully discount any of the major theories, however. Multiple causation is important.
The main less I draw is this: The increase in Kia and Hyundai thefts suggests that the crime wave declined not because the ocean became more gentle but because we built more secure sea walls. The big waves are still out there in the vast ocean and if we lower the walls we shouldn’t be surprised if another big crime wave comes rolling in.
Behavioral Economics and GPT-4: From William Shakespeare to Elena Ferrante
There is a new paper on LLMs by Gabriel Abrams, here is the abstract:
We prompted GPT-4 (a large language model) to play the Dictator game, a classic behavioral economics experiment, as 148 literary fictional characters from the 17th century to the 21st century.
Of literary interest, this paper analyzed character selfishness by century, the relative frequency of literary character personality traits, and the average valence of these traits. The paper also analyzed character gender differences in selfishness.
From an economics/AI perspective, this paper generates specific and quantifiable Turing tests which the model passed for zero price effect, lack of spitefulness and altruism, and failed for human sensitivity to relative ordinal position and price elasticity (elasticity is significantly lower than humans). Model updates from March to August 2023 had relatively minor impacts on Turing test outcomes.
There is a general and mainly monotonic decrease in selfish behavior over time in literary characters. 50% of the decisions of characters from the 17th century are selfish compared to just 19% of the decisions of characters from the 21st century. Overall, humans exhibited much more selfish behavior than AI characters, with 51% of human decisions being selfish compared to 32% of decisions made by AI characters.
Historical literary characters have a surprisingly strong net positive valence across 2,785 personality traits generated by GPT-4 (3.2X more positive than negative). However, valence varied significantly across centuries. The most positive century, in terms of personality traits, was the 21st — over 10X the ratio of positive to negative traits. The least positive century was the 17th at just 1.8X. “Empathetic,” “fair” and “selfless,” were the most overweight traits in the 20th century. Conversely, “manipulative,” “ambitious” and “ruthless” were the most overweight traits in the 17th century.
Male characters were more selfish than female characters: 35% of male decisions were selfish compared to just 24% for female characters. The skew was highest in the 17th century where selfish decisions for male and female were 62% and 20% respectively.
This analysis offers a specific and quantifiable partial Turing test. In a few ways, the model is remarkably human-like; The key human-like characteristics are the zero price effect, lack of spitefulness and altruism. However, in other ways, GPT-4 reflects unusual or inhuman preferences. The model does not appear to have human sensitivity to relative ordinal position and has significantly lower price elasticity than humans.
Model updates in GPT-4 have made it slightly more sensitive to ordinal value, but not more selfish. The model shows preference consistency across model runs for each character with respect to selfishness.
To which journal might you advise him to send this paper?
The Burial
I loved The Burial on Amazon Prime. Not because it’s a great movie but because it serves as a cinematic representation of my academic paper with Eric Helland, Race, Poverty, and American Tort Awards. Be warned—this isn’t a spoiler-free discussion, but the plot points are largely predictable.
The Burial is a legal drama based on real events starring Jamie Foxx as Willie Gary, a flashy personal injury lawyer who takes the case of Jeremiah O’Keefe, a staid funeral home operator played by Tommy Lee Jones. O’Keefe is suing a Canadian conglomerate over a contract dispute and he hires Gary because he’s suing in a majority black district where Gary has been extremely successful at bringing cases (always black clients against big corporations).
As a drama, I’d rate the film a B-. The major failing is the implausible friendship between the young, black, flamboyant Willie Gary and the older, white subdued Jeremiah O’Keefe. Frankly, the pair lack chemistry and the viewer is left puzzled about the foundation of their friendship. The standout performance belongs to Jurnee Smollett, who excels as the whip-smart opposing counsel.
What makes The Burial interesting, however, is that it tells two stories about Willie Gary and the lawsuits. The veneer is that Gary is a crusading lawyer who uncovers abuse to bring justice. Most reviews review the veneer. Hence we are told this is a David versus Goliath story, a Rousing True Story and a story about the “dogged pursuit of justice.” The veneer is there to appease the simple minded, an interpretation solidified by The Telegraph which writes, without hint of irony:
The audience at the showing was basically adult and they applauded at the end which you often see in children’s movies but rarely in adult films.
The real story is that Gary is a huckster who wins cases in poor, black districts using a combination of racial resentment and homespun black-church preaching to persuade juries to redistribute the wealth from out-of-state big corporations to local knuckleheads. I use the latter term without approbation. Indeed, Gary says as much in his opening trial where he persuades the jury to give his “drunk”, “tanked” “wasted”, “no-good”, “depressed,” “suicidal” client, $75 million dollars for being hit by a truck! Why award damages against the corporation? Because, “they got the bank.” (He adds that his client had a green light–this is obviously a lie. Use your common sense.)
My paper with Helland, Race, Poverty, and American Tort Awards, finds that tort awards during this period were indeed much higher in counties with lots of poverty, especially black poverty. We find, for example, that the average tort award in a county with 0-5% poverty was $398 thousand but rose to a whopping $2.6 million in counties with poverty rates of 35% or greater! The Burial is very open about all of this. The movie goes out of its way to explain, for example, that 2/3rds of the population of Hinds county, the county in which the trial will take place, is black and that is why Willie Gary is hired.
The case on which the movie turns is as absurd as the opening teaser about the drunk, suicidal no-good who collects $75 million. Indeed, the two trials parallel one another. The funeral home conglomerate, the Loewen group, offered to buy three of O’Keefe’s funeral homes but after shaking on a deal they didn’t sign the contract. That’s it. That’s the dispute. The whole premise is bizarre as Loewen could have walked away at any time. Moreover, O’Keefe claims huge damages–$100 million!–when it’s obvious that O’Keefe’s entire failing business isn’t worth anywhere near as much. So why the large claim of damages? Have you not being paying attention? Because the Loewen group, “they got the bank.”
Furthermore, and in parallel with the earlier case, it’s O’Keefe who is the no-gooder. O’Keefe’s business is failing because he has taken money from burial insurance premiums–money that didn’t belong to him and that should have been invested conservatively to pay out awards–and lost it all in a high-risk venture run by a scam artist. Negligence at best and potential fraud at worst. Moreover, in a strange scene motivated by what actually happened, O’Keefe agrees to sell to Loewen only if he gets to keep a monopoly on the burial insurance market. Thus, it’s O’Keefe who is the one scheming to maintain high prices.
Indeed, the whole point of both of Gary’s cases is that he is such a great lawyer that he can win huge awards even for no-good clients. As if this wasn’t obvious enough, there is an extended discussion of Willie Gary’s hero….the great Johnnie Cochran, most famous for getting a murderer set free.
Loewen should have won the case easily on summary judgment but, of course, [spoiler alert!] the charismatic Gary wows the judge and the jury with entirely irrelevant tales of racial resentment and envy. The jury eats it up and reward O’Keefe with $100 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages! The awards are entirely without reason or merit. The awards drive the noble Canadians of the Loewen group out of business.
The Burial is a courtroom drama surfaced with only the thinnest of veneers to let the credulous walk away feeling that justice was done. But for anyone with willing eyes, the interplay of racism, poverty, and resentment is truthfully presented and the resulting miscarriage of justice is plain to see. I enjoyed it.
Addendum: My legal commentary pertains only to the case as presented in the movie although in that respect the movie hews reasonably close to the facts.
Google searches for inequality (from my email)
From Jared Sleeper:
I was surprised to see this magnitude of effect. Google searches for “inequality” are twice as high during the academic year as they are during the summer. They double in September vs. August and then collapse by 50% in June vs. May.
Wednesday assorted links
Where have all the young founders gone?
Only 1% of The #Forbes400 is under 40, the lowest percentage in at least two decades.
Link here, via Sean Patrick Hughes.
Oxford fact of the day, medieval murder edition
The research suggests that Oxford’s student population was by far the most lethally violent social or professional group in any of the three cities.
The team behind the Medieval Murder Maps – a digital resource that plots crime scenes based on translated investigations from 700-year-old coroners’ inquests – estimate the per capita homicide rate in Oxford to have been 4-5 times higher than late medieval London or York.
Among Oxford perpetrators with a known background, 75% were identified by the coroner as “clericus”, as were 72% of all Oxford’s homicide victims. During this period, clericus is most likely to refer to a student or member of the early university.
“A medieval university city such as Oxford had a deadly mix of conditions,” said Prof Manuel Eisner, murder map investigator and Director of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology.
“Oxford students were all male and typically aged between fourteen and twenty-one, the peak for violence and risk-taking. These were young men freed from tight controls of family, parish or guild, and thrust into an environment full of weapons, with ample access to alehouses and sex workers.”
Yes that is from University of Cambridge, via Anecdotal.
Wednesday assorted links
1. How should prestige TV treat fascism?
2. The pushback against Melissa Kearney is an object lesson in mood affiliation.
3. New science writing fellowship. And Stigler Center journalists in residence program.
4. The Longevity Fund, from Laura Deming.
5. Foiled Danish art markets in everything.
6. New results on animals talking (NYT).
Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Divides
We investigate the origins and implications of zero-sum thinking – the belief that gains for one individual or group tend to come at the cost of others. Using a new survey of a representative sample of 20,400 US residents, we measure zero-sum thinking, political preferences, policy views, and a rich array of ancestral information spanning four generations. We find that a more zero-sum mindset is strongly associated with more support for government redistribution, race- and gender-based affirmative action, and more restrictive immigration policies. Furthermore, zero-sum thinking can be traced back to the experiences of both the individual and their ancestors, encompassing factors such as the degree of intergenerational upward mobility they experienced, whether they immigrated to the United States or lived in a location with more immigrants, and whether they were enslaved or lived in a location with more enslavement.
That is from a new NBER working paper by Sahil Chinoy, Nathan Nunn, Sandra Sequeira, and Stefanie Stantcheva.
U.S. immigration policy is slightly better than you think
Keep in mind that Canadian immigration policy also is U.S. immigration policy. Currently Canada is taking in about 400,000 people a year, with plans to raise that to 500,000. At the same time, the U.S. is doing little to boost high-skilled immigration. But Canada is serving as a kind of farm system for the U.S. The very best Canadian arrivals — or their children — have the best chance of getting into the United States, if only through O-1 visas.
So if the quantity of Canadian immigration is going up, the quality of U.S. immigration is going up too, through Canada in this case. Call it cherry-picking if you like.
Not surprisingly, neither side in the immigration debate wants to scream this loudly from the rooftops. The pro-immigration side wants to present the status quo as dire. The immigration-skeptical side does not want to stress that there are perfectly good ways of screening for immigrant quality, some of which already are in place.
Deregulating Oregon (from my email)
It is now legal to pump one’s own gas at gas stations in Oregon, making New Jersey the only US state where it’s not. (Article link.) The surprising part of the new Oregon law: The price must be identical for self-serve and attendant-pumped gas. Also, at least half the pumps must have an attendant. I’m no economist, but it does seem like the self-pump patrons will be subsidizing the “free” labor received by the others. I’m also no political scientist, but I wonder if this bit is intentional to dampen the possible success of self-serve gas. I’m also curious what the calculations on the part of station owners will be in terms of how much labor to employ. My estimate would be that if a $15/hr attendant takes about 4 minutes per service and each is $50, labor costs would be adding about 1% to the fuel price, but this would be much higher in places that are less busy and not working constantly, and lower in places that are busy enough to constantly have many overlapping cars being filled. There’s some sort of equilibrium balancing waiting times for attendants and gas prices that awaits…
That is from Raghuveer Parthasarathy.
Happy Birthday Singapore!
Singapore is a wonderful instance of the advantage of the unrestricted enterprise of free trade: so late as the year 1822 there was scarcely a native hut, certainly not one European habitation on the island; in eight years it had not only grown into the most important settlement in the whole of the Malay Archipelago, but was the emporium of more trade than the whole of the other ports put together. The trade is almost exclusively one of barter, the English merchant procuring profitable exports in exchange for English goods. The annual value of importations in 1830 was five millions sterling.
The advantages the native merchants experience in finding free trade established at Singapore has withdrawn the whole commerce from the neighboring Dutch ports. On my subsequently going to Batavia I found the harbour there perfectly denuded between 300 and 400 at anchor bringing produce from every island in the archipelago.
The society of Singapore was tolerably extensive, and most hospitable, and conviviality and good fellowship reigned pre-eminent.
That is from Major Thomas Skinner, Fifty Years in Ceylon, published in 1891, largely compiled in 1868. Overall an interesting and forthright book, mostly about Ceylon of course.
Behavioral Economics and ChatGPT: From William Shakespeare to Elena Ferrante
We prompted GPT-4 (an artificial intelligence large language model) to use literary fictional characters to play the Dictator game, a classic behavioral economics experiment. We prompted GPT-4 with 148 characters from the 17th century to the 21st century. Their 888 decisions were used to compare characters over time as well as characters to human players. There is a general and mainly monotonic decrease in selfish behavior over time in literary characters. 41% of the decisions of 17th century characters are selfish compared to just 21% of the decisions of characters from the 21st century. In the Human-AI comparison, Humans are much more selfish than the AI characters with 51% of humans making selfish decisions compared to 28% of the AI characters.
Here is the full (short) paper by Gabriel Abrams (a junior in high school).
Saturday assorted links
1. #lazygirljob (WSJ).
2. The economic foundations of Kenyan street protests. And some interest groups are rebelling against Nigerian reforms.
3. Product liability for defective AI. A law and economics study.
4. Diagnostic medical errors are a huge problem.
5. Lebanese man holds up bank to get his own money out (NYT).