Tyler and I just published a list of the recipients of the New Aesthetics grants: https://newaesthetics.art/grants.

Thank you very much to all who applied. There were far more applications than we expected. We funded 28 grantees and are excited to see what they create. My reflections on the whole thing:

• Though there are clearly selection dynamics afoot, figuring out some route beyond the current aesthetic moment seems to be of wider interest in the art community than I would have guessed. Many applicants described their dissatisfaction with the status quo, some in strong terms. We had to close applications after a few weeks because there were so many.

• It’s too early to call it, but it seems that both beauty as an unapologetic goal (contra much that is in modernist and contemporary approaches), and ways to channel pre-modern styles into something new for the present era, are of growing interest.

• The awards made me reflect on the perhaps obvious issue of how hard it must be for an artist to persistently do something new: schools, galleries, buyers, etc., all have structurally embedded preferences as well. These individual awards made me wonder what form supporting new clusters could take.

• Architecture seems to me like the discipline most ripe for new ideas. One correspondent observed: “American architects are somewhat constrained by the association with the academy, in addition to the well known regulation issues. There is a tendency to overthink things so that the designs are formally interesting to someone deep in the conversation, but lacking poetry and magic. There are more firms in Europe, South America and beyond that “just do things” (especially in places where it is easier to build).” This was evident in the submissions.

• AI seems to be making people rethink things in a quite fundamental way, just as urbanization/industrialization/popularization of photography did at the end of the 19th century. For some that will mean interesting new forms of AI-augmented art, but the effects of the rethinking will likely be wider.

• Arts funding is clearly as precarious and scarce as ever. That’s unfortunate, but it probably also means that individual actors can have meaningful impact, and I encourage others to get involved if interested.

• There’s a lot to know that is not written down, and I’m very grateful to those who have helped and advised me along the way.

I will offer thoughts of my own soon.  Here is our original call for proposals.

The post New Aesthetics awards appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to rayward. Just wait until the final design of the ... by Wayfaring Stranger
• In reply to Dylan. You are missing that there is a cult in ... by HM
• “Architecture seems to me like the discipline most ripe for ... by Dylan
• Not to call anyone out, BUUT for a *design* competition, it's ... by Bruce, Chess Club Wrestling Federation World Champ
• nice to see architecture is seen as focus point by chava
• Plus 5 more...

Related Stories

• Ross Douthat on what AI money should learn from the golden age of philanthropy
• Repugnant Economics
• Detroit notes

 

2. The making of Indian statistics.

3. What happens if your iPhone is stolen in London? (NYT)

4. Brazil school phone bans: “We then show that test scores, which were trending similarly in the two groups prior to the ban, improved by 0.06 s.d. in treatment schools relative to control.”

5. Travels in the Stans.

6. Modifying research paper formats using AI.

The post Monday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• No mentioned or discussion of Thiel’s Enhanced Games? by Jim
• In reply to Vivek Iyer. I should mention, India had a great ... by Vivek Iyer
• Mahalanobis, Rao etc. are indeed notable Statisticians. Sadly, ... by Vivek Iyer
• In reply to Cancelled for wongthink. When I was in Tajikistan ... by ElsieT
• In reply to dearieme. Tiny and apparently consistent with ... by Frank
• Plus 9 more...

 

The post Campo Grande bleg, Brazil appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• many ufo sightings, check it out . by dada merveilleux
• In reply to ddh. The original post said “Campo Grande” ... by ddh
• I just moved to Campo Grande – MS myself, I can't believe it! ... by DataTom
• Beans, always, river fish, meat – cupim is a fatty cut you ... by Nat
• In reply to Steve. Eat pao de queijo with every meal that you ... by Joao
• Plus 9 more...

Related Stories

• The new tranche of UAP videos
• What else is special about southeastern Michigan? (from my email)
• Detroit notes

 

Imagine two companies which are secretly controlled by the same people. If company A imported some phones, then sold them to company B, it charged VAT on the deal. If company B then exported the phones, it reclaimed — from the government — the VAT it had paid to company A. the integrity of the VAT system depends on the two totals balancing out. The money that A pays in is equl to the money that B takes back. The scam lay in A disappearing and not handing over the money it owed, but B till claiming it. The hidden owners of the two firms therefore earned for themselves 17.5 per cent (the rate at which VAT was then charged) of the value of the shipment of the phones. The more phones you sold to yourself, the more money you made.

That is John Lanchester in the LRB, citing Oliver Bullough’s Everybody Loves Our Dollars: How Money Laundering Won.

The post The carousel trade (arbitrage) appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to The Pros and Cons of Venezuela’s Currency ... by Michael
• In reply to Sohail. AI: Sohail argues that the carousel ... by rsm
• In reply to Michael. “To circumvent currency controls in ... by The lessons learned from government currency controls are worth noting
• In reply to Dismalist. Actually, this is a re-export. Under ... by Dismalist
• VAT is charged on imports. So, A pays VAT and B pays VAT. B's ... by Dismalist
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Liberal Economists Score an Own Goal Against Bezos
• Repugnant Economics
• Robert Wright’s *The God Test*

 

Jolie Gan, Calgary/SF, a publication on science and meta-science.

Hudson Mitchell-Pullman, 16, San Diego, how users interact with LLMs to learn.

Adnan Manna, 17, Amman, Jordan, finding exoplanets.

Heloise Hoffman, Stanford, biomedical research to cure her own rare disease.

M.F. Libano-Monteiro, Portugal/LSE, economics education through video.

Scott Ellis, Mississauga, Ontario, making movies with AI.

Adrian Martinez, 17, Mission Viejo, CA, math, education.

Aadil Ali, San Francisco, biographies of young achievers.

Chandler Reilly, Denver, Substack on Denver and its economics.

Jeremy Kingsley, London, AI, podcasting and Substack.

Michelle Lin, 15, Mclean, VA, curved-surface stitching on deformable materials, and algorithms.

Brunella Tipismana, general career support, writing, Peru/New Haven/NYC.

Theo Cross-Zamirski, Cambridge, UK, platform to power math education.

Beatrice Erkers, Stockholm, progress ideas in Sweden.

The post Emergent Ventures winners, 54th cohort appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• A fantastic list, congratulations to all. I enjoyed ... by dmcharette
• In reply to rayward. Didn't freakonomics tell us that ... by Etalon d'Silomar
• I don't know from which cohort, but Abi Olivera has a very ... by Thomas L Hutcheson
• Self-cure: I admire Ms. Hoffman, but I suspect that researchers ... by rayward
• All this AI stuff; isn't it a bit backward-looking? How about ... by dearieme
• I hope we will see the results of this one here. This is an ... by Uair01

Related Stories

• What should I ask Chase Koch?
• The new tranche of UAP videos
• Repugnant Economics

 

2. Profile of Camille Paglia at age 79 (London Times, gated).

3. Olivier Blanchard: ” I certainly worry about the evolution of US public debt and the size of primary deficits. But, while there is a lot of discussion/worry about the increase in nominal interest rates, the 10-year inflation indexed rate, which is the relevant one for debt dynamics, has remained surprisingly stable.”

4. Revana Sharfuddin: “Uncertainty around immigration policy may have downstream effects on fertility decisions. We probably underestimate how much family formation responds to policy instability.”

6. Nagel on Scanlon.

7. “No child deaths have been definitively linked to Covid vaccines, according to a report from the FDA that was quietly made public.”  Article here.

The post Sunday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Thomas L Hutcheson. Why not view Treasury as ... by rsm
• In reply to Cancelled for wongthink. Was there a physical ... by rsm
• In reply to rsm. For the record, that's not at all what I'm ... by Bill Allen
• In reply to Stephen Covell. This was essentially the plan ... by scott
• In reply to Matt. It's really amazing how many times I have ... by scott
• Plus 10 more...

 

Yes, the United States has the most progressive tax system in the world. The top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes. We can make it even more progressive by zeroing out taxes on the bottom half. It’s a small amount of the total tax revenue but very meaningful to people in this group.

Strangely, a chorus of liberal economists rushed to attack Bezos. Gabriel Zucman replied:

Contrary to what you claim, working-class people contribute significantly to funding American society today. Payroll taxes and consumption taxes absorb a high fraction of their income.

Justin Wolfers piled on:

If you only count the progressive taxes the U.S. levies, then the U.S. system is quite progressive. But if you also count regressive taxes (payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc), it’s not very progressive.

Bezos called for cutting taxes on the bottom half to make the tax system more progressive and the redistributionists came out swinging–to argue he was wrong about how progressive the current system already is. Own goal. Heretics are worse than unbelievers.

But there’s a second, more interesting thing going on. To make the regressivity case, Zucman and Wolfers have to count payroll payments as taxes. That cuts directly against eighty years of liberal doctrine. Beginning with FDR, the argument on the liberal side has always been that payroll taxes are not taxes but contributions or premiums entitling the payer to benefits as an “earned right.” Here’s FDR to Luther Gulick in 1941:

We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.

That framing isn’t a historical curiosity. It runs straight through liberal social security stalwarts like Arthur Altmeyer, Wilbur Cohen, and Robert Ball, and it’s alive today in Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson’s Social Security Works!, which attacks billionaires and insists Social Security benefits are “earned compensation.” The whole political durability of the program–the third rail–rests on this framing.

So the modern left wants it both ways. When the question is whether to cut Social Security, FICA is a premium and benefits are earned compensation. When the question is whether the tax system is progressive, FICA is suddenly a regressive tax. Pick a lane.

Is there a principled way to resolve this? Yes, and it follows Jim Buchanan (see my earlier post here) and Larry Summers who laid out the economics in his classic paper Some Simple Economics of Mandated Benefits. The principled test is whether a payment reduces labor supply. The wedge between marginal product and the worker’s reservation wage isn’t the statutory rate–it’s the gap between the mandated payment and the worker’s marginal benefit. Sylvain Catherine made exactly this point in reply to Wolfers:

Payroll taxes are not regressive! They are mandatory contributions to a retirement system that offers higher rates of returns at the bottom than at the top.

Consider a forced savings program: everyone must pay 12.4% of income into a 401(k). Is this a tax? For someone who was going to save 15% anyway, not at all. For someone who was going to save 10%, only the extra 2.4% bites. Mandatory does not mean tax. The marginal valuation of the mandated benefit is the key.

Now apply this to the two payroll taxes.

Medicare (HI): Every marginal dollar buys zero marginal benefit. Thus, it’s a tax. Part A eligibility is binary–40 quarters gets you in–and once in, your benefit is whatever Medicare spends on your care. No relationship on the margin. (Moreover, the raw HI schedule is unambiguously progressive: 2.9% flat, rising to 3.8% above $200K/$250K thresholds, plus the NIIT.)

Social Security (OASDI): The 90/32/15 Primary Insurance Amount bend points mean a low earner gets a much better return than a high earner. So the gross statutory rate is flat-then-regressive; but the net rate is progressive. In short, OASDI isn’t a tax for low earners but it is a tax for higher earners, thus the tax is progressive.

So: HI is a progressive tax. OASDI is a contribution at the bottom and a tax at the top. Either way, the Zucman-Wolfers framing—payroll payments as straightforward regressive taxes—is wrong and rhetorically it abandons the framing the left has spent eighty years building to protect these programs.

Personally, I’d prefer a system truer to the old rhetoric–a forced savings program with a closer connection between marginal payments and benefits. But if the left wants to reframe Social Security contributions as taxes, and thus make Social Security all about redistribution to the poor, rather than a wise savings program, roll the dice. Just remember that Altmeyer, Cohen, and Ball spent decades building the “earned right” framing precisely because they understood it was the program’s structural defense against means-testing and privatization. Drop the framing and you drop the defense. I suspect the privatizers at AEI and Cato will happily take that trade but the left may come to regret making it for them.

The post Liberal Economists Score an Own Goal Against Bezos appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Floccina. nterestingly 12.4/106.2 is not 12.4. ... by Floccina
• In reply to Thomas L Hutcheson. But FICA benefits aren't ... by Slocum
• In reply to Rebes. “50% of the people have no interest in ... by Rob
• In reply to OldTrader. If you turned age 65 this year, one ... by BenefitJack
• When adopted 113+ years ago, the federal income tax applied to ... by Jack Towarnicky
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• The carousel trade (arbitrage)
• The economics of unions
• Repugnant Economics

 

The post *Equality of Permission* appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• As someone who read several of her books on quite different ... by David Walker
• In reply to THOMAS HUTCHESON. Pretty much. But that's also ... by mkt42
• “Yes, in The Rhetoric of Economics (1985/1998), Deirdre ... by rsm
• If you already thhink that Capitalim is OK, reading McClossky ... by THOMAS HUTCHESON
• [Second attempt to comment, the first one was rejected by the ... by mkt42
• Plus 3 more...

 

In the first chapter, Wright summarizes four of his perspectives, these are my paraphrases of his pp.5-6:

1. When it comes to AI, we should be somewhere on the awe spectrum.

2. We can create a future where the upside of AI far outweights the downside, though that involves steering human understanding toward the better side of the awe spectrum.

3. A major reorientation of human thought is required, and right now few people seem inclined to do that.

4. The worldviews of the current AI acclerationists and also doomers are not cosmic enough.

It is a good time for this book to be published, and I agree with much more of it than I disagree with.  My main difference is that I am more focused on very small things — such as Rainier cherries and the forthcoming three to four hour Apichatpong movie — than on cosmic awe per se.  For better or worse, I was not born with those genes, and unlike Wright I am far from Buddhism.  I do think there will be a transformation of “observed awe,” and I am somewhat worried that it will not go well.  Will we be good at building a fairly new world, if not from scratch, on the basis of some new premises about what is possible and what is not?  I will in any case interpret the pending transformation through a Straussian lens, namely thinking that a lot of the observed transformation of awe will be about something other than what people are claiming.  It will be about people arguing over relative status, but under different guises.  Not as tasty as a good Rainier cherry, but interesting to follow as well.

But are we still good at steering and evolving grand visions?  Christianity and the Enlightenment are a hard act to follow.

The post Robert Wright’s *The God Test* appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to we are all on the spectrum on this blessed day. ... by Peter Akuleyev
• In reply to bazza. I don't know about that; I think ... by M
• Zed's dead baby. by Wayfaring Stranger
• In reply to Hoosier. Christianity, particularly Prostestant ... by bazza
• In reply to Old Programmer. LLMs aren't sycophantic. That's ... by bazza
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• What should I ask Chase Koch?
• Repugnant Economics
• Revealing Life Preferences Through LLMs

 

2. SGA does seem to flop more.

3. Marc Andreessen on AI.

4. Thomas Sargent lectures on YouTube.

5. Why Japanese companies do so many different things.

6. Fresh Knausgård.

7. ““The Boys of Dungeon Lane” is absolutely the best album ever recorded and released by a rock star in his 80s.“

The post Saturday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Rahul. Stupid guys are all over money like flies ... by Gnom
• In reply to rsm. Man's wants are definitely not infinite, but ... by M
• In reply to Hazel Meade. Hmm… Sounds like some kind of ... by M
• In reply to Hazel Meade. I honestly thought it was more ... by M
• In reply to Hazel Meade. Poe's Law. Hard to distinguish ... by BC
• Plus 10 more...

 

This was a great failure of the most recent philanthropic era. At its best, the infrastructure established by figures like Gates delivered effective efforts to reduce poverty and fight disease; at its worst, it threw money after fashionable political causes and education fads. But there was no real legacy when it came to physical infrastructure — no great beautification campaigns, no beloved architectural landmarks, no equivalent of the Gilded Age’s expansions of museums and libraries and concert halls, and few personal expressions of extravagance (like the Newport mansions or Hearst Castle) for future tourists to admire.

At the beginning of the 20th century, philanthropic dollars had already helped build the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Carnegie Hall, the campuses of Vanderbilt, Stanford and the University of Chicago, a network of urban parks, various impressive churches and an array of private homes that would themselves become public spaces within a few generations. Tastes vary, but I do not think that the monuments raised by today’s superrich are in any way comparable.

Here is the full NYT piece.

The post Ross Douthat on what AI money should learn from the golden age of philanthropy appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Lord Action. IIRC, the Rockefeller Foundation ... by albatross
• In reply to Lizard Man. One other distinction here is how ... by albatross
• In reply to Wayfaring Stranger. Have you listened to “Five ... by rsm
• In reply to Engineer. Yes. To avoid capture, good ... by Randall
• In reply to Randall. Experience suggests that any long term ... by Engineer
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• New Aesthetics awards
• *In the Realm of the Last Man*
• Repugnant Economics

 

The post What should I ask Chase Koch? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to gimmeabreak. What does he think the Freedom ... by RM
• In reply to David R Henderson. Yeah I wonder how much those ... by Moo cow
• A question concerning, diffuse consumer benefits vs. ... by Panderer
• See if he has some good stories about his grandfather. I ... by KP
• Koch Disruptive Technologies has made significant bets across ... by Harrison Brewton
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Robert Wright’s *The God Test*
• Repugnant Economics
• Revealing Life Preferences Through LLMs

 

Ten notable facts from India’s new SRS Statistical Report 2024 published two days ago:

1) India’s total fertility rate (TFR) has dropped to 1.88 (rounded up to 1.9 in the figures) in 2024 from 1.92 in 2023.

2) This drop is roughly the historical speed of the last few decades. India’s TFR was 4.3 in 1985 and it has been falling around 0.06 per year since then.

3) For those who think “smartphones are the reason for the fall of TFR,” there is not much change in India’s TFR after their introduction. Of course, this might only apply to India.

4) India’s sex ratio at birth continues moving toward natural levels. It has grown from 907 girls per 1000 boys in 2018-2020 to 918 in 2022-2024. Without sex selection (e.g., selective abortions), it should be around 952.

5) Nonetheless, this bias still means that India’s replacement rate is around 2.15, not 2.1 as in other advanced economies.

6) Hence, India is already 0.27 children below the replacement rate and the gap continues growing.

7) However, this figure hides large regional differences. Kerala is at 1.3, well below the U.S. and approaching Italian and Spanish levels (Delhi is even lower, at 1.2, but it is a peculiar case), while Bihar remains at 2.9.

8) In terms of the rural/urban divide, rural India is at 2.1 and urban India at 1.5.

9) From everything I can see, India’s TFR will continue to fall, and it should reach 1.57 (the current level of the U.S.) around 2031 unless something significant changes.

10) Having said that, India’s data has a non-trivial margin of error, and a new Census might change our reading of the situation. In summary, India is following the same path as everyone else. No Indian fertility Sonderweg!

That is all from Jesús Fernández-Villaverde.

The post India fertility facts of the day appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Kaleberg. I see your argument :). In my “we ... by Kaz Stanczak
• Just got to get back to knocking boots. Way more fun than ... by PM
• This cynic would argue that the declining birthrate is a result ... by Kaleberg
• In reply to rayward. It's not just education. It's higher ... by Kaleberg
• In reply to Kaz Stanczak. I'm still waiting for someone to ... by Kaleberg
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Tajikistan fact of the day
• Who is losing out in marriage market competition?
• Why I am skeptical on the relationship between smart phones and fertility

 

As Mark Lilla, a recovering Straussian, once remarked, they [the Straussians] were like craftsmen building a house brick by brick on a foundation that Leo Strauss had laid.  But they would never become architects of that house, or decide that the house was too small for them to comfortably live in.  Moreoever, Strauss disparaged social science and what he considered naive forms of positivism prevalent in American universities.  This led some of his followers to disdain merely empirical accounts of current events.  If you are more of a Hegelian, you need to pay attention to actual history if you are to give an account of how ideas play out in the real world.

That is from Frank Fukuyama’s forthcoming memoir, recommended of course.

The post *In the Realm of the Last Man* appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• Google on “the end of history” as the end of well defined ... by James Harris
• Fukuyama’s books are well worth the time and effort. I ... by Tom Meadowcroft
• I thought that a Fukuyama's major error was that he assumes ... by Todd K
• In reply to ElsieT. I’ve probably read Fukuyama’s name a ... by Cancelled for wongthink
• If a Straussian comes out as a Hegelian, in a Straussian manner ... by Anon
• Plus 10 more...

Related Stories

• Weapons, Wealth, and the Fates of Societies
• Christopher Nolan, Straussian?
• The carousel trade (arbitrage)

 

2. “For the first time in decades, new and recent graduates with at least a bachelor’s degree have consistently higher unemployment rates than the overall American workforce, according to data on 22-to-27-year-olds compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.” Link here.

3. Redux of my 2021 Bloomberg column on the ideal university.

4. 15-minute weird Brazilian album.

5. History of social science funding at the NSF.

6. Furman and Laibson on Harvard grade inflation (NYT).

7. Who gets laid off first?  The measurers?

8. Work from home may be the problem for young workers, not AI.

The post Friday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

       

Comments

• In reply to Kaleberg. Granted but the bigger issue is the ... by bazza
• In reply to bazza. AI is going to create an entire new ... by Kaleberg
• In reply to Scott H.. If you get rid of all the employees who ... by kwazii
• In reply to MikeP. COVID was (is) risky for fat people too. by TWBC
• In reply to JNM. It seems pretty obvious that if you can get ... by Scott H.
• Plus 10 more...