From the Department of Energy
PIER Plans will be evaluated as part of the merit review process and will be used to inform funding decisions. The review criterion, Quality and Efficacy of the Plan for Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research, will be included as one of the merit review criteria that peer reviewers will use to evaluate applications.
The Office of Science’s standard merit review criteria are set forth by 10 CFR Part 605.10 and may include additional criteria relevant to the scope and objectives of the solicitation.
Here is the notice, with further detail, it seems that will apply to all of their grant funding?
Via a loyal MR reader.
Friday assorted links
2. Why are fewer men going to college?
3. Warren Nutter’s Soviet research for the CIA.
4. Those new service sector jobs: “This Texas Mom Charges Over $1,000 for Her Elaborate Pumpkin Displays.”
5. Pizza Hut Will Deliver Your Resume Printed on a Pizza Box to Prospective Employers (NYC only).
Optimus personal assistant robot
U.S.A. facts of the day
The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation minority staff (Committee), which oversees federal science agencies including NSF, analyzed 32,198 Prime Award grants NSF awarded to 2,443 different entities with project start dates between January 2021 and April 2024.
Committee analysis found 3,483 grants, more than ten percent of all NSF grants and totaling over $2.05 billion in federal dollars, went to questionable projects that promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) tenets or pushed onto science neo-Marxist perspectives about enduring class struggle. The Committee grouped these grants into five categories: Status, Social Justice, Gender, Race, and Environmental Justice. For the purposes for this report, “DEI funding,” a “DEI grant,” or “DEI research” refers to taxpayer dollars NSF provided to a research or engagement program that fell into one of these five groups.
Here is the full report. Note that by early 2024, that figure had risen to 27 percent.
Arbitrage! (at multiple levels)
Starting today: Kalshi will pay you 4.05% interest on both your cash and open positions.
Here is the link.
Thursday assorted links
The Economic Way of Thinking in a Pandemic
During the pandemic, economists often found themselves at odds with politicians, physicians, epidemiologists and others. Some politicians, for example, were worried that the pharma companies might engage in profiteering while economists worried that the pharma companies were not nearly profitable enough. Physicians focused on maximizing the health of patients while economists focused on maximizing the health of society–during the pandemic these were not the same and this led to disputes over testing, first doses first and human challenge trials. During the pandemic economists were often accused of not staying in their lane. But what is the economist’s lane?
In this talk, I discuss the economic way of thinking and how it conflicted with other ways of thinking. My talk pairs well with my recent paper also titled The Economic Way of Thinking in a Pandemic.
South Africa update
The African National Congress no longer regards privatisation as a “swear word” and has accepted that “bringing private sector money on board is not selling your soul”, said South Africa’s deputy president Paul Mashatile.
In an interview with the Financial Times at the end of a week-long investor roadshow to Britain and Ireland, Mashatile said South Africa’s new government, in which the ANC is sharing power with the market-leaning Democratic Alliance, had understood the need for more private investment in sectors such as energy, water and infrastructure. “We don’t have the money to do it, so we need the private sector,” said Mashatile, considered a potential successor to President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Investor sentiment towards South Africa has improved dramatically since the formation of the GNU, after 15 years in which the economy has barely grown against the backdrop of corruption scandals and government mismanagement of basic services.
The South African rand has risen more than 12 per cent against the US dollar this year, behind only the Argentine peso and Turkish lira. The Johannesburg bourse’s benchmark index is up 21 per cent in US dollar terms including dividends.
Here is more from the FT.
My excellent Conversation with Tom Tugendhat
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is the episode summary:
Tom Tugendhat has served as a Member of Parliament since 2015, holding roles such as Security Minister and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Before entering Parliament, Tom served in in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also worked for the Foreign Office, helped establish the National Security Council of Afghanistan, and served as military assistant and principal adviser to the Chief of the Defense Staff.
Tyler and Tom examine the evolving landscape of governance and leadership in the UK today, touching on the challenges of managing London under the UK’s centralized system, why England remains economically unbalanced, his most controversial view on London’s architecture, whether YIMBYism in England can succeed, the unique politics and history of Kent, whether the system of private schools needs reform, his pick for the greatest unselected prime minister, whether Brexit revealed a defect in the parliamentary system, whether the House of Lords should be abolished, why the British monarchy continues to captivate the world, devolution in Scotland and Northern Ireland, how learning Arabic in Yemen affected his life trajectory, his read on the Middle East and Russia, the Tom Tugendhat production function, his pitch for why a talented young person should work in the British Civil Service, and more.
And here is an excerpt:
COWEN: Okay. First question, what is your favorite walk around London, and what does it show about the city that outsiders might not understand?
TUGENDHAT: Oh, my favorite walk is down the river. A lot of people walk down the river. One of the best things about walking down the river in London is, first of all, it shows two things. One, that London is actually an incredibly private place. You can be completely on your own in the center of one of the biggest cities in the world within seconds, just by walking down the river. Very often, even in the middle of the day, there’s nobody there. You walk past things that are just extraordinary. You walk past a customs house. It’s not used anymore, but it was the customs house for 300, 400, 500 years. You walk past, obviously, the Tower of London. You walk past Tower Bridge. You walk past many things like that.
Actually, you’re walking past a lot of modern London as well, and you see the reality of London, which is — the truth is, London isn’t a single city. It’s many, many different villages, all cobbled together in various different ways. I think outsiders miss the fact that there’s a real intimacy to London that you miss if all you’re doing is you’re going on the Tube, or if you’re going on the bus. If you walk down that river, you see a very, very different kind of London. You see real communities and real smaller communities.
And:
COWEN: Can the British system of government in its current parliamentary form — how well can that work without broadly liberal individualistic foundations in public opinion?
TUGENDHAT: I think it works extremely well at ensuring that truly liberal foundations are maintained. I mean that not in the American sense; I mean in a genuine, the old liberal tradition that emerges from the UK in the 1700s, 1800s, where freedom of thought, freedom of assembly, the right to own property, and all those principles that then became embedded in various different constitutions around the world, including your own. I think it does very well at doing that because it forces you, our system forces you, into partnership. There are 650 people who you have to work with in some way in Parliament over the next four or five years.
And there’s four of us currently going for leadership at the Conservative Party. There’s one reason why, despite the fact that we’re competing almost in a US primary system, the way in which we are dealing with each other is very different, is because we’re all going to have to work together for the next four years. Whoever wins is going to have to work with the other three, and the idea that you can simply ignore each other isn’t true. There’s only 121 of us Conservative MPs in Parliament, and what this system forces on us is the need to deal with each other in a way that you have to deal with somebody if you’re going to deal with them tomorrow. I think that’s one of the reasons why the British political system has endured because it forces you to remember that there’s a long-term interest, not an immediate one, not just a short-term one.
Recommended, highly intelligent throughout, including on China, Russia, and Yemen.
How economists think about victims of natural disasters
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one excerpt:
First, whenever possible it is better to use private insurance, such as homeowner’s insurance and flood insurance, to protect against loss. One of the functions of insurance is to make losers at least partially whole after the fact, but another is to make risky decisions too expensive to contemplate in the first place.
This second function of insurance is especially important for Florida. The state is vulnerable to storms, so market prices for insurance should be allowed to adjust to higher levels, most of all for vulnerable properties. High prices in an area are a sign that building and renovation should not take place there. With fewer people living in vulnerable areas, the cost of storms will fall accordingly.
That sounds harsh, but “incentives matter” is the first and primary principle of economics, and sometimes incentives should be allowed to operate. Unfortunately, Florida has a state-run insurer of last resort which continues to bail out homeowners.
Political debates tend to frame this issue as whether to help poor, struggling homeowners. And indeed they may well suffer some terrifying losses because of storms. But whatever you think of such bailouts after the fact, with better incentives ahead of time, that issue will come up less often.
Economists are better at ex ante institutional design than at adjudicating all claims on the public purse ex post.
Advice that is not always heeded.
Wednesday assorted links
“Das was damals, das ist jetzt”
The Council for German Orthography (RdR) caused a stir amongst grammar perfectionists on Monday when it announced that as of 2025, an apostrophe used to indicate possession will be considered correct.
Since 2004, the RdR has been considered the leading source on Standard High German spelling and grammar, and is relied on for school textbooks in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
In English, possession of an object is almost always implied by use of an apostrophe, as in: Henry’s Bar, Bloomingdale’s department store.
Not so in German, where possession is either shown by use of the genitive grammatical case, or without an apostrophe as in the case of Annes Cafe (Anne’s cafe).
However, in recent decades it has become increasingly common, especially for small businesses, to use the apostrophe in German to indicate possession: Andi’s Imbiss (Andi’s restaurant), Kim’s Kiosk.
Here is the full story, the informing email was Mike Doherty’s.
Joshua Rauh on fiscal sustainability
In 2009, 2010, and 2011 respectively, Greek government interest payments as a share of revenues were 13.4%, 14.7%, and 16.8% respectively, based on a 2012 IMF report.1 If one removes “Social Contributions” linked to government programs from the revenue measure, the ratio peaked at 24.1% in 2011. Of course, since Greece had adopted the euro it didn’t control its own money supply, so investors might reasonably have worried about an actual hard default as opposed to a slower monetization of debt.
Where is the US federal government’s interest coverage today? Using Table 1-1 from the latest (June 2024) updates to the Budget and Economic Outlook from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), interest expenditures as a share of federal revenues will be 18.2% this year ($892 billion of interest on $4.890 trillion of revenue) and 20.2% in 2025 ($1.016 trillion of interest on $5.038 trillion of revenue), in the absence of changes to taxes or spending.
I am more optimistic on these issues than many people I know, but still this is a matter of concern. As for CBO projections:
As the end portion of the green dashed line in the graph shows, the CBO expects the average interest rate on the federal debt to hardly budge over the next 10 years, sitting at 3.36% and 3.38% respectively in 2025 and 2034.3
Is this assumption reasonable?
And this oopsie-doopsie:
But let’s not ask what would happen to interest coverage if the average interest rate on the federal debt were to reach its 1982 level of 9.2%, or even its 1991 level of 7.2%. Instead, let’s just consider what would happen if over the coming decade interest rates were slightly higher each year, cumulating in a 1.0% rate difference in 2034. That is, instead of ending the next 10 years exactly where we’re starting, at less than 3.4% as the CBO forecasts, what if the average interest rate the federal government paid on its debt crept up to just 4.4%?
The next graph shows that if this happens under current law, interest payments will consume 29.7% of revenues and 40.4% of revenues excluding Social Security OASDI payroll tax revenues. If you think there’s going to be appetite for accessing the Social Security payroll tax revenues for non-Social Security purposes, keep in mind that starting in 2035 the revenues from those taxes will only be able to fund 83% of the benefits.
Here is the whole essay.
HBO film says Bitcoin creator is Peter Todd
Here is one link, I am watching it now. And possibly with the aid of Adam Back? No opinion of my own on this one!
Who benefits from working with AI?
We use a controlled experiment to show that ability and belief calibration jointly determine the benefits of working with Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI improves performance more for people with low baseline ability. However, holding ability constant, AI assistance is more valuable for people who are calibrated, meaning they have accurate beliefs about their own ability. People who know they have low ability gain the most from working with AI. In a counterfactual analysis, we show that eliminating miscalibration would cause AI to reduce performance inequality nearly twice as much as it already does.
That is from a new NBER working paper by