The post In Development magazine appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• I started a war between where the Apes were Congo, and Russia, ... by Ben Lager

Related Stories

• Revising Modern Principles
• Rescind Davis Bacon
• Moonsteading

 

2. Podcast on Houellebecq’s Submission.  With transcript.

3. “A majority of Australian children under age 16 still use social media apps despite a ban implemented in December, according to new research.

Sixty-one percent of Australian children between the ages of 12 and 15 told researchers from a prominent UK foundation and an Australian youth research agency that they can still access accounts on major platforms just as they did before the ban was put in place.”  Link here.

4. “If anything, nationalists are fighting to reassure pro-EU voters. Marine Le Pen has softened her line on Brussels over the years to remain electorally competitive in France. Giorgia Meloni has mostly co-operated with the EU during her three-and-a-half surprising years as a hard-right Italian prime minister. Both will have watched events in Hungary over the weekend and felt themselves vindicated. Of all the varied reasons for Viktor Orbán’s landslide defeat, the public’s desire to mend relations with the EU was prominent. The election winner Péter Magyar, no kind of liberal, and in fact a former Orbán man, favours a “return to Europe”.” (Ganesh in the FT)

5. Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection across West Eurasia.  And a useful thread.

6. Alex Imas on the evolution of employment with AI.

The post Thursday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Sure. In some senses immigration control for ... by M
• In reply to Gilligan. “I heard it the opposite way; 2027 is ... by Lord Action
• In reply to M. See this sort of analysis I just don't get it. ... by Sure
• In reply to TMC. Trump wants the EU to be strong enough to ... by (Not That) Bill O'Reilly
• In reply to Lord Action. Now do this in reverse: I DON'T ... by Harun
• Plus 10 more...

 

The post Robert Skidelsky, RIP appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• I met Skidelsky once. Seemed to be a good bloke but I was ... by dearieme
• I still fondly remember a chat with Lord Skidelsky during a ... by Sergio Luna
• In reply to Calvin Hobbes. I just came across this amazing ... by Kenya Hamm
• WTF do you know about Keynesianism ? you've been a supporter of ... by Dada Maravilha
• In reply to rayward. “Later, when Keynes criticized the ... by Calvin Hobbes
• Plus 3 more...

Related Stories

• The Venetian empire and the Mongols (modeling Marco Polo)
• That was then, this is now
• Revising Modern Principles

 

The post Revising Modern Principles appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to ElsieT. Average lifespan after you reach a ... by Non-economist
• In reply to steve. What type of insurance allows you to eat ... by TMC
• In reply to John Mansfield. It proves your human, not AI slop. by Gilligan
• In reply to Sure. I just came across this amazing way to earn ... by Kenya Hamm
• Alex, I would leave “pharmacists” and add “artificial ... by Roger Barris
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Moonsteading
• The economic value of eliminating cancer
• AI, Unemployment and Work

 

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics has been awarded annually since 1969. Who wins the prize is a topic of much interest and tracks the whole course of the academic discipline over the last 57 years. Explaining who wins the prize in any given year is a complex process, which involves the subtle endogeneity of the choice of the field and the individual(s) who should be honoured. Citations, track records, networks of past winners, institutional factors along with field rotation and Economic Prize Committee composition may all play a role. A dynamic sample involving a changing stock of would-be candidates along with a moving flow—both into and out of the sample—add complexities to the modelling. We find robust evidence that the Nobel Prize rotates in a semi-regular way between the fields of economics. Earlier awards were for a single paper, later ones for a body of work. Networks do not matter, but having a Nobel student or co-author does. There is some evidence that the personal preferences of Committee members had an effect on either field or individual winner. The Committee’s decisions changed after Lindbeck retired.

That is from a new paper by Peter J. Dolton and Richard S.J. Tol.  Via Niclas Berggren.

The post The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, 1969-2025 appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Anon. I just came across this amazing way to earn ... by Kenya Hamm
• This seems to be a common thing, for example Oscars for best ... by luzh
• The prize should awarded once every ten years and be open to ... by Luke Lea
• The prize has gone under about 12 name changes throughout its ... by Anon
• The prize has gone under about a dozen name changes throughout ... by Anon
• Plus 6 more...

 

1. The early large pieces from Colonna and Castello — how many of you are going to get there to see them in situ?

2. A mini-exhibit of works from Perugino, Raphael’s teacher and mentor, and a wonderful painter in his own right.

3. A small set of knockout Leonardo drawings.

4. Two Roman sculptures that showed some background influences behind Raphael’s work.

5. Three full-size “derivations” based upon the Vatican tapestries, from 16th century Flemish studios.

6. Plenty of light-sensitive drawings, which are not displayed much or are held in very scattered locales.

It is rare to have so much original content in a single exhibit, and of such high quality, and unrelated to previous exhibits one might have seen.  This was an event.

The Alba Madonna, in DC’s National Gallery, still strikes me as Raphael’s best creation.

My main beef: the opening panel of explanation for the show was just plain, flat out stupid, and started by referring to Raphael as “One of the most important influencers of all time…”, followed by nothing of any substance.

This exhibit needs no endorsement from me, but ultimately it did not elevate Raphael into the tier of my very very favorite painters.  He is at the top for beauty and charm, but very few of his paintings confound me in say the way that a top Leonardo or Velazquez might.  Perhaps the Castiglione portrait from the Louvre would qualify there, but the others not.  His was nonetheless a remarkable achievement, and this is very likely the best view of it you will get in this lifetime.

It was crowded, but on a Monday not intolerable and I had good views of the art works most of the time.

The post The Raphael show at the NYC Met appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• I live a few blocks from the Met and have been to the Raphael ... by MikeD
• I think Raphael is underrated by people who should know better ... by Stephen Covell
• Rule #1 in Art Museums (at least since the 1980s): Never read ... by Faze
• In reply to Vin Diesel. I just came across this amazing way ... by Kenya Hamm
• I always found Raphael to be cool but crude by D
• Plus 3 more...

Related Stories

• The Venetian empire and the Mongols (modeling Marco Polo)
• That was then, this is now
• EV Arts Patronage Tranche

 

2. More math progress from GPT.

3. “Anthropic’s automated alignment researchers already outperform humans…“

The post Wake up people assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Randall. I just came across this amazing way to ... by Kenya Hamm
• In reply to rsm. Maybe he did. The chickens have a lot less ... by Anti-Gnostic
• In reply to Neurotic. Trading known vulnerabilities that get ... by Sinister
• In reply to Anti-Gnostic. Would Thomas Jefferson have used ... by rsm
• In reply to And yet,. Unfortunately, Tyler has been ... by Joseph K
• Plus 10 more...

 

2. Arnold Kling on marginalism.

3. “You should be holding more babies.”

4. Hayekian welfare states.

5. Why Hungary will prove hard to change (FT).

6. Miami-Dade is losing residents?

7. Brazilian real on the rise.

8. Peter Thiel and Emmanuel Todd discussion.  Imperfect sound however.

The post Wednesday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Steven. Strange how upset some people seem to get ... by Agorabum
• In reply to M. @Hazel, OK, let's park the rest of the ... by M
• In reply to MT. Besarionis dze Jughashvili was born to a ... by Sure
• In reply to Lord Action. “Put more simply, the firm is a ... by Lord Action
• In reply to M. @M, I haven't argued for austerity and ... by Hazel Meade
• Plus 10 more...

 

Mike Schmidt, Director of the CHIPS Program Office, has an excellent piece on how Davis-Bacon impacted the CHIPS program. My initial understanding was that it simply required paying construction workers more—an unnecessary transfer from taxpayers to a politically favored group, but not one that would impede efficiency. I was wrong.

Start with the complexity. Davis-Bacon’s prevailing wage isn’t a simple minimum wage: plumbers are not electricians are not fitters, and the required rate varies by locale. The Department of Labor maintains a list of more than 130,000 (!) wage rates to implement it.

That’s complicated enough. But it gets worse. Some firms building fabs used their own employees rather than contractors—and Davis-Bacon applies regardless but it covers only the portion of time an employee spends on “construction” work:

[A]pplying Davis-Bacon to company employees rather than contractors proved to be a big hurdle. Davis-Bacon required tracking every hour each employee spent on covered construction activities — by trade classification, with a different prevailing wage applying to each — and paying a wage differential for that portion of their work as distinct from fab operations work or non-Davis-Bacon construction work. The company also relied heavily on profit-sharing (where a portion of employees’ pay was tied to the firm’s profits) and Davis-Bacon’s guaranteed wage floor was difficult to reconcile with a pay structure that was inherently variable. Moreover, Davis-Bacon has a statutory requirement to pay wages weekly, meaning the company would need to change its payroll systems for a portion of the pay for a portion of its workforce.

Thus, DB required that two salaried employee with equal salaries and profit-sharing plans be paid differentially depending on whether one of them did “construction” work. This created internal strife.

Davis-Bacon was passed in 1931, when a carpenter was a carpenter. How does it apply to building a semiconductor factory?

The construction tasks involved in building and modernizing semiconductor fabs don’t always map cleanly onto DOL’s Davis-Bacon classifications, so applicants must go through a construction plan line-by-line to determine which rate applies to which activity. In traditional Davis-Bacon contexts this is less burdensome because contractors know the system and have processes in place. But semiconductor construction was a novel application, and all of our applicants — and most of their contractors — were navigating Davis-Bacon for the first time.

For large recipients, the administrative cost of this work was real but manageable relative to project scale: they could hire consultants, procure software systems, and build internal compliance capacity….

Perhaps the biggest fiasco involved timing. The government wanted firms to move quickly and encouraged them to break ground before the Act’s rules were finalized. But when Davis-Bacon was added to the Act it required that the firms pay the prevailing wage *retroactively*:

The financial and operational implications of retroactive application were significant. A leading-edge project might have 10,000–12,000 construction workers on site at peak, with a rotating workforce totaling perhaps 30,000 individuals over the project’s life. Working through 300-plus subcontractors across multiple tiers, retroactive application could require identifying wages paid to 20,000 workers who had already cycled off the project, determining what each worker should have been paid under Davis-Bacon, and paying the difference — resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in additional cost.

The retroactive pay exposes the law’s true nature. Firms and workers had already struck voluntary agreements; the work was done, the wages paid. No one can pretend this has anything to do with incentives. Workers received a pure windfall (“DB Christmas!”) for one reason only: “construction workers” are a politically favored class. Janitors and scientists got nothing extra.

Moreover, a large fraction of the cost wasn’t the higher wages at all—it was compliance. Firms likely spent as much reworking payroll systems and hunting down thousands of former workers in this Byzantine classification system as they spent on the wage premiums themselves. Every dollar transferred to workers may have cost firms—and ultimately taxpayers—two dollars or more. A very leaky bucket indeed.

If the Trump administration is serious about cutting regulatory costs and reviving industrial competitiveness, Davis-Bacon is an obvious target. It delivers little to workers, plenty to lawyers and consultants, and a bill to taxpayers for both. Rescind it.

The post Rescind Davis Bacon appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to M. Cutting taxes and borrowing during a recession ... by Hazel Meade
• In reply to Hazel Meade. Let's say we want to argue against ... by M
• In reply to Hazel Meade. What crisis? Japan measures its debt ... by Anti-Gnostic
• In reply to Anti-Gnostic. You realize ALL of the ... by Hazel Meade
• In reply to M. I think in the case of Japan, the reason it ... by Hazel Meade
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Moonsteading
• Prediction Market Details
• Revising Modern Principles

 

In contrast, the Polo brothers who went to Asia, Niccolo the elder and Matteo the elder, amassed wealth both in tangible and intangible assets.  It was Marco “the voyager” who benefited most from the family business, both as the heir to substantial portions of the family estate, and as a shrewd and cautious — and perhaps tight-fisted — private investor.  His will and inventory of his assets reveal a considerable amount of cash, real estate, and valuables.  Marco Polo traveled for business even after he returned to Venice, but not for long.  After 1300, although he continued to invest in various enterprises, it appears that Marco stayed in Venice.  Perhaps this was due to his advancing age (he turned fifty in 1304), although his energy was most likely taken up by overseeing his interests and local investments, and abo ve all in publicity for his book.  He commissioned numerous copies to be distributed to powerful and influential people.

And:

However, Marco had great difficulty leaving the empire.  The Polos required the khan’s consent not only to be given official leave, but above all to have adequate protection.  As Marco recounts, despite thee riches they had accumulated, they were not free to leave.  By then, the khan had also grown old, and they were concerned that he might die, leaving their fate in the hands of his successor, who may not have granted the necessary permits.  Marco’s account reveals that the three Polos had a subservient relationship with the khan, as they were in the khan’s service and depended on him.  He continually rejected their pleas to return to Venice, as he “loved them too much” and could not accept the idea that they should leave him.

That is all from the new and noteworthy Venice and the Mongols: The Eurasian Exchange that Transformed the Medieval World, by Nicola di Cosmo and Lorenzo Pubblici.

The post The Venetian empire and the Mongols (modeling Marco Polo) appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Wayfaring Stranger. I just came across this ... by Ness Valentin
• Click. Click. Click. This book link nudged me to plug the ... by RAD
• I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. ... by AudreyCAnstett
• In reply to Wayfaring Stranger. My understanding is that ... by Tom T.
• tldr: he was rich but had to abide. duh. by dada merveilleux
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Robert Skidelsky, RIP
• That was then, this is now
• Revising Modern Principles

 

Although there is growing evidence that the subjective wellbeing among the young declined in recent years, the evidence is not consistent across surveys. We examine the relationship between age and various measures of wellbeing and illbeing across three major surveys – the Gallup World Poll (GWP, Global Minds (GM) and the Global Flourishing Survey (GFS). The GWP is conducted via face-to-face and telephone surveys; GM surveys are web-based; and GFS uses both telephone and web-based surveys. We focus on 23 countries appearing in all three surveys. The clearest evidence that wellbeing rises with age and illbeing declines with age comes from the web-based surveys in both GM and GFS. The age profiles look very different when surveys are conducted by telephone: the higher rates of illbeing among the young are far less apparent in these surveys. Because survey mode is not randomly assigned, we cannot be sure differences in age profiles of wellbeing and illbeing are causally affected by survey mode. Selection into survey mode, both across and within country, plus differential non-response by survey across the age range, may be playing a role. However, the evidence indicates very different age patterns in wellbeing and illbeing emerge across different survey modes.

That is from a new NBER working paper by David G. Blanchflower and Alex Bryson.

The post Are we underestimating youth well-being? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Brian Villanueva. I just came across this amazing ... by AMY
• In reply to steve. I was responding to Tyler's header “Are ... by Sure
• Many Zoomers (and even some Millennials) are inordinately ... by Vaquero
• In reply to Sure. I preach this to homeschoolers (who are ... by Brian Villanueva
• Yep, Tyler and Alex still trying to pretend that the kids are ... by Brian Villanueva
• Plus 10 more...

 

But despite the pitiful state into which the country had descended, the major outside powers, Russian and the Ottoman Empire, did not intervene as they had in 1722-1725.  It was partly that they were busy elsewhere, and surely also that the outcome of their previous attempts had not encouraged them to repeat the experiment.

That is from Michael Axworthy’s A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, a good general introduction to the history of the country.

The post That was then, this is now appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Hazel Meade. “talked some spine back into Trump ... by Wayfaring Stranger
• In reply to Hazel Meade. I just came across this amazing way ... by Ness Valentin
• In reply to Hazel Meade. Are you sure your concept of risk is ... by rsm
• In reply to Mark C. This is now: enter China, the newer, ... by CB
• I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. ... by AudreyCAnstett
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• The Venetian empire and the Mongols (modeling Marco Polo)
• What should I ask Bob Spitz?
• Moonsteading

 

2. Is Mississippi running out of liquor?

3. Four classic Chinese texts and their relevance.

4. Redux post from 1/28.

5. Seb Krier.

6. The penguin-tracking culture that is Kyoto, Japan.

7. The Economist will be using bylines and putting people in front of the camera (NYT).

8. Marginal Literary Revolution.

9. New Rebecca Lowe and Henry Oliver podcast.

The post Tuesday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to MT. I just came across this amazing way to earn ... by AMY
• In reply to Mark C. I disagree with that definition of a ... by BF
• In reply to jonathan doensky. Learn classical chinese! If you ... by Sidd
• I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. ... by AudreyCAnstett
• In reply to dearieme. The opportunity cost of getting off ... by Sidd
• Plus 10 more...

 

I propose the development of an international Lunar Development Authority (LDA), chartered and led by the United States, that would serve as a quasi-governmental regulator. The base on the Moon would be managed as a master-planned infrastructure development project, with NASA as the key strategic partner, emphasizing commercial methods and an investor mindset to drive economic viability in both the near and long term. The LDA would prioritize development of lunar resources to lower costs and serve customers, and treat the United States government and the governments of our allies as anchor tenant customers. The LDA would leverage public-private partnerships and cooperation among both governmental and private industry tenants from many countries to finance and develop lunar infrastructure in a commercial manner.

The model is New York’s famous Commissioners’ Plan of 1811, which imposed a simple, legible order on what was then mostly undeveloped land. The plan coordinated future development around a grid with standardized lots and clearly demarcated spaces for public and private infrastructure. Miller proposes a similar sequence for the Moon: first survey, standards, shared infrastructure, and a governing authority; then private tenants, resource extraction, construction, and finance.

The main legal obstacle is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which paired a ban on weapons of mass destruction in space with “anti-colonial” restrictions on national appropriation. The OST, however, doesn’t prohibit economic activity per se—the target was national land grabs, not commercial development. The more recent Artemis Accords address this directly:

The ability to extract and utilize resources on the Moon, Mars, and asteroids is critical to support safe and sustainable space exploration and development.

The Artemis Accords reinforce that space resource extraction and utilization can and should be executed in a manner that complies with the Outer Space Treaty and in support of safe and sustainable space activities.

The Homesteading Act granted title rights in return for development. The likely path forward on the moon reverses that sequence, development first, title later. Ownership of extracted resources is already widely accepted, next will come toleration of exclusive operational zones, then long-duration concessions, then transferable development rights around fixed infrastructure.

The OST may delay ordinary land markets, but it cannot repeal the deeper economic fact that settlement happens only when builders can keep enough of what they create. TANSTAAFL.

The post Moonsteading appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Dada maravilha. I just came across this amazing ... by AMY
• In reply to Wayfaring Stranger. Copied from below the fold: ... by Lord Action
• In reply to Wayfaring Stranger. The 1990 cost for one ton of ... by Lord Action
• I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. ... by AudreyCAnstett
• Good framework, and good analogy, so far as it goes. But ... by Tzvika Barenholz
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• AI, Unemployment and Work
• Rescind Davis Bacon
• Incentives matter, Mexican cartel edition

 

This paper estimates the economic value to the United States of eliminating cancer mortality over a 35-year horizon beginning in 2030, which would eliminate 30.7 million cancer deaths with a total mortality burden of 380 million life-years. We quantify the economic value of this substantial reduction in cancer mortality by incorporating the monetized value of increased longevity. To value the longevity gains in monetary terms, we utilize the valuations used by the U.S. federal government in its cost-benefit evaluations of regulations. Eliminating cancer mortality generates $197 trillion in economic benefits over 35 years, corresponding to approximately $16,282 per American per year, or $41,684 per American household per year. If cancer elimination is viewed as an R&D investment, it yields an enormous internal rate of return, ranging from 570% to 1,024%, based on benchmarked R&D costs. In addition, we perform a sensitivity analysis by varying the elimination durations and the degree of success, using the benchmark case scenario in which cancer mortality is reduced by 80 percent over a 20-year transition. This achieves about 70 percent of the total economic value of full elimination above, corresponding to aggregate benefits of about $134 trillion, or approximately $11,112 per person per year.

That is from a new NBER working paper by Tomas J. Philipson, Deyu Zhang, Shumaila Abbasi & Noah Fisher.  I will note in passing this is an argument for wanting to see reasonable Chinese progress in AI.

The post The economic value of eliminating cancer appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to M. I just came across this amazing way to earn ... by Ness Valentin
• I get paid more than $120 to $130 per hour for working online. ... by AudreyCAnstett
• Is cancer cure a seatbelt? by Mort Main
• In reply to Pshrnk. So open minded. Such intellectual ... by Anti-Gnostic
• In reply to Mark Bahner. In other words, less fun. by Dismalist
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Revising Modern Principles
• In Development magazine
• Rescind Davis Bacon