Saturday assorted links
1. “Using spatial regression discontinuity and instrumental variable designs, we find that areas with greater historical exposure to homesteading are poorer and more rural today.” From Harvard job market candidate Ross Mattheis.
2. Steve Mariotti, RIP (NYT).
3. Costco hearing aids as loss leader (WSJ).
4. Interview with Cynthia Haven.
5. The new trench warfare in Ukraine (NYT).
6. How macro works if people think about the economy in only a “shallow” fashion.
The Immigration Rap Battle
From the team that brought you Hayek v. Keynes we have the immigration rap battle featuring “George Borjas,” “Garett Jones” and “Stephen Miller” on team build the wall and “Bryan Caplan” and “Alex Nowrasteh” on open the border. I wouldn’t say the actors (AI?), look very much like their real world counterparts but much respect to the author of the rap lyrics who has brilliantly captured the essence of the ideas economically and thematically.
Germany fact of the day, the work culture that is German
Workers missed an average of 19.4 days because of illness in 2023, according to Techniker Krankenkasse, the country’s largest public health insurance provider.
Preliminary figures suggest the trend is on course to continue its upward trajectory, TK told the Financial Times, exacerbating challenges for an economy that many expect to contract for the second year running in 2024.
While it is notoriously difficult to compare data from country to country, Christopher Prinz, an expert on employment at the OECD, said Germany was “definitely among the higher countries” when it came to sick leave.
study published in January by the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA), an industry body, found that were it not for the country’s above-average number of sick days, the German economy would have grown 0.5 per cent last year, rather than shrinking 0.3 per cent.
Here is more from Laura Pitel at the Financial Times. Via Roland Stephen.
Should Notre Dame charge admission?
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, as the Cathedral is reopening in December. The government wants to charge visitors five euros, but the Church is opposed. Here is part of my proffered solution:
First, charge a fee — but make it €10 rather than €5. If seeing Notre Dame is worth only €7 or €8 to someone, I don’t mind excluding them, for the benefit of those who really want to see the place. The crowds should diminish — and if they don’t, just raise the admission fee. St. Paul’s in London, by the way, charges £25 for adult admission, and Saint-Denis in Paris charges €11. Anyone who can afford to visit Paris can afford to pay more than €5 to see Notre Dame.
Second, assign a priest, nun or other religious counsel to the church, to service any religiously minded visitor who might require assistance in matters of the soul. If need be, that person can walk the God-searching visitor to a nearby church where visits are free. Admission fees will help fund this service, which would be symbolically important even if little used.
Third, set aside further time for Notre Dame to be a quiet and more religious place. Maybe make admission free for one day per week — but only for residents of Paris. Since most visitors stay in Paris for more than a day, the determined tourist still should be able to see the church.
And note this:
The commercialization of churches has some major downsides — but an admission fee can be a partial antidote to commercialization, not its apogee.
And this:
To put it another way: Extreme crowding is a fee of another sort, even if its nominal price remains at zero.
Let’s hope they do it.
Friday assorted links
1. The gender gap in apologies. Marshall Mo is on the job market from Stanford, and has a very interesting broader portfolio.
2. Haitian zombie show at Quai Branly in Paris (NYT).
3. Is dark energy from black holes? And axions as dark matter? (NYT)
4. The Rational Optimist Society.
6. Hungary enters its second recession in two years.
7. Short documentary about network states.
8. Botswana is somewhat ailing (FT).
Instructor value-added in higher education
On average, moving to a 1 standard deviation better instructor would increase a student’s next semester GPA by 0.13 points, and earnings six years after college entry by 17%. Strikingly, value-added is only weakly correlated with student evaluations. An instructor retention policy based on value-added would result in 2.7% higher earnings for students attending Texas universities.
That is from a new job market paper by Merrill Warnick, Jacob Light, and Anthony Yim from Stanford. Here is Warnick’s job market portfolio.
Sugar Babies
Science: We examined the impact of sugar exposure within 1000 days since conception on diabetes and hypertension, leveraging quasi-experimental variation from the end of the United Kingdom’s sugar rationing in September 1953. Rationing restricted sugar intake to levels within current dietary guidelines, yet consumption nearly doubled immediately post-rationing. Using an event study design with UK Biobank data comparing adults conceived just before or after rationing ended, we found that early-life rationing reduced diabetes and hypertension risk by about 35% and 20%, respectively, and delayed disease onset by 4 and 2 years. Protection was evident with in-utero exposure and increased with postnatal sugar restriction, especially after six months when solid foods likely began. In-utero sugar rationing alone accounted for about one third of the risk reduction.
Pregnant women might want to ration their sugar intake, as well as alcohol, during pregnancy.
Hat tip: Kevin Lewis.
Are sports bettors overly optimistic?
Corrective policy in sports betting markets is motivated by concerns that demand may be distorted by behavioral bias. We conduct a field experiment with frequent sports bettors to measure the impact of two biases, overoptimism about financial returns and self-control problems, on the demand for sports betting. We find widespread overoptimism about financial returns. The average participant predicts that they will break even, but in fact loses 7.5 cents for every dollar wagered. We also find evidence of significant self-control problems, though these are smaller than overoptimism. We estimate a model of biased betting and use it to evaluate several corrective policies. Our estimates imply that the surplus-maximizing corrective excise tax on sports betting is twice as large as prevailing tax rates. We estimate substantial heterogeneity in bias across bettors, which implies that targeted interventions that directly eliminate bias could improve on a tax. However, eliminating bias is challenging: we show that two bias-correction interventions favored by the gambling industry are not effective.
That is from a new paper by Matthew Brown, Nick Grasley, and Mariana Guido. Matthew Brown is a job market candidate from Stanford, and has a very interesting broader portfolio.
I do not, by the way, favor a ban on sports betting, but it is worth asking, when appropriate, what is the utilitarian cost of one’s libertarianism. On this particular issue, I would say “rising!”
The evolution of nepotism in academia, 1088-1800
We have constructed a comprehensive database that traces the publications of father–son pairs in the premodern academic realm and examined the contribution of inherited human capital versus nepotism to occupational persistence. We find that human capital was strongly transmitted from parents to children and that nepotism declined when the misallocation of talent across professions incurred greater social costs. Specifically, nepotism was less common in fields experiencing rapid changes in the knowledge frontier, such as the sciences and within Protestant institutions. Most notably, nepotism sharply declined during the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, when departures from meritocracy arguably became both increasingly inefficient and socially intolerable.
That is from a new paper by David de la Croix & Marc Goñi. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
Thursday assorted links
My EconEd talk on how technology is remixing the political spectrum
Here is the video, delivered in Chicago, mostly fresh material not in my other talks. Twenty-seven mimnutes or so, recommended.
South Africa update
President Cyril Ramaphosa earlier this month said economic progress since the formation of the new coalition in June meant annual GDP growth could triple to 3 per cent after a decade at less than 1 per cent.
But in the government’s first half-year budget on Wednesday, finance minister Enoch Godongwana cut the growth target for this year to 1.1 per cent from the 1.3 per cent target set by the previous government in February. Over the next three years, he said he expected GDP growth to average 1.8 per cent.
Here is more from the FT.
My Conversation with the excellent Christopher Kirchhoff
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is the intro:
Christopher Kirchhoff is an expert in emerging technology who founded the Pentagon’s Silicon Valley office. He’s led teams for President Obama, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and CEO of Google. He’s worked in worlds as far apart as weapons development and philanthropy. His pioneering efforts to link Silicon Valley technology and startups to Washington has made him responsible for $70 billion in technology acquisition by the Department of Defense. He’s penned many landmark reports, and he is the author of Unit X: How the Pentagon and Silicon Valley are Transforming the Future of War.
Tyler and Christopher cover the ascendancy of drone warfare and how it will affect tactics both off and on the battlefield, the sobering prospect of hypersonic weapons and how they will shift the balance of power, EMP attacks, AI as the new arms race (and who’s winning), the completely different technology ecosystem of an iPhone vs. an F-35, why we shouldn’t nationalize AI labs, the problem with security clearances, why the major defense contractors lost their dynamism, how to overcome the “Valley of Death” in defense acquisition, the lack of executive authority in government, how Unit X began, the most effective type of government commission, what he’ll learn next, and more.
Excerpt:
COWEN: Now, I never understand what I read about hypersonic missiles. I see in the media, “China has launched the world’s first nuclear-capable hypersonic, and it goes 10x the speed of sound.” And people are worried. If mutual assured destruction is already in place, what exactly is the nature of the worry? Is it just we don’t have enough response time?
KIRCHHOFF: It’s a number of things, and when you add them up, they really are quite frightening. Hypersonic weapons, because of the way they maneuver, don’t necessarily have to follow a ballistic trajectory. We have very sophisticated space-based systems that can detect the launch of a missile, particularly a nuclear missile, but right then you’re immediately calculating where it’s going to go based on its ballistic trajectory. Well, a hypersonic weapon can steer. It can turn left, it can turn right, it can dive up, it can dive down.
COWEN: But that’s distinct from hypersonic, right?
KIRCHHOFF: Well, ICBMs don’t have the same maneuverability. That’s one factor that makes hypersonic weapons different. Second is just speed. With an ICBM launch, you have 20 to 25 minutes or so. This is why the rule for a presidential nuclear decision conference is, you have to be able to get the president online with his national security advisers in, I think, five or seven minutes. The whole system is timed to defeat adversary threats. The whole continuity-of-government system is upended by the timeline of hypersonic weapons.
Oh, by the way, there’s no way to defend against them, so forget the fact that they’re nuclear capable — if you want to take out an aircraft carrier or a service combatant, or assassinate a world leader, a hypersonic weapon is a fantastic way to do it. Watch them very carefully because more than anything else, they will shift the balance of military power in the next five years.
COWEN: Do you think they shift the power to China in particular, or to larger nations, or nations willing to take big chances? At the conceptual level, what’s the nature of the shift, above and beyond whoever has them?
KIRCHHOFF: Well, right now, they’re incredibly hard to produce. Right now, they’re essentially in a research and development phase. The first nation that figures out how to make titanium just a little bit more heat resistant, to make the guidance systems just a little bit better, and enables manufacturing at scale — not just five or seven weapons that are test-fired every year, but 25 or 50 or 75 or 100 — that really would change the balance of power in a remarkable number of military scenarios.
COWEN: How much China has them now? Are you at liberty to address that? They just have one or two that are not really that useful, or they’re on the verge of having 300?
KIRCHHOFF: What’s in the media and what’s been discussed quite a bit publicly is that China has more successful R&D tests of hypersonic weapons. Hypersonic weapons are very difficult to make fly for long periods. They tend to self-destruct at some point during flight. China has demonstrated a much fuller flight cycle of what looks to be an almost operational weapon.
COWEN: Where is Russia in this space?
KIRCHHOFF: Russia is also trying. Russia is developing a panoply of Dr. Evil weapons. The latest one to emerge in public is this idea of putting a nuclear payload on a satellite that would effectively stop modern life as we know it by ending GPS and satellite communications. That’s really somebody sitting in a Dr. Evil lair, stroking their cat, coming up with ideas that are game-changing. They’ve come up with a number of other weapons that are quite striking — supercavitating torpedoes that could take out an entire aircraft carrier group. Advanced states are now coming up with incredibly potent weapons.
Intelligent and interesting throughout. Again, I am happy to recommend Christopher’s recent book Unit X: How the Pentagon and Silicon Valley are Transforming the Future of War, co-authored with Raj M. Shah.
How Low Socioeconomic Status Hinders Organ Donation
Past studies find that lower socioeconomic status (SES) individuals are less likely to donate organs. Building on the extended self literature, we propose that this effect occurs in part because the body is more central to the sense of self of lower-SES individuals. We test our predictions across seven studies (N = 8,782) conducted in different countries (United States and Brazil) with qualitative, observational, and experimental data in controlled and field settings. Results show that lower-SES individuals ascribe a greater weight to their bodies in forming their self-concept, which reduces their willingness to donate organs.
That is from a new paper by Yan Vietes and Chiraag Mittal. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
Wednesday assorted links
1. “The study shows that users with many more criminal verdicts, more time spent in foster care, better primary school grades, and higher childhood socioeconomic status are more hostile on social media, in part, because such factors predict online engagement in political discussions, which is a major correlate of hostility.” Link here.
2. Is annoyance the essence of love?
3. Mark Skousen on Gross Output and national income accounting.
5. “…the paper also describes seven pragmatic near-term reforms to promote anti-aging medicines.”
6. Daniel Ellsberg was a consistent doomster, made no excuses.