Thursday assorted links

by  Tyler Cowen

1. Interview with Ulrike Malmendier, a regional thinker in the best sense of the term.

2. “Paying Off People’s Medical Debt Has Little Impact on Their Lives, Study Finds.” (NYT)  Model that.

3. Another look at suicide rates.

4. Should you have privacy rights to your brainwaves? (NYT)  And should you have the right to sell or give away those rights?

5. C. Thi Nguyen on Value Capture, an interesting philosophy paper about overreliance on metrics and external evaluations.

6. Alas, Robert Hessen has passed away, RIP.

7. Productivity problems and sometimes even declines in African agriculture.

8. The Milei incomes policy for health care?

Do protests matter?

by  Tyler Cowen in

Only rarely:

Recent social movements stand out by their spontaneous nature and lack of stable leadership, raising doubts on their ability to generate political change. This article provides systematic evidence on the effects of protests on public opinion and political attitudes. Drawing on a database covering the quasi-universe of protests held in the United States, we identify 14 social movements that took place from 2017 to 2022, covering topics related to environmental protection, gender equality, gun control, immigration, national and international politics, and racial issues. We use Twitter data, Google search volumes, and high-frequency surveys to track the evolution of online interest, policy views, and vote intentions before and after the outset of each movement. Combining national-level event studies with difference-in-differences designs exploiting variation in local protest intensity, we find that protests generate substantial internet activity but have limited effects on political attitudes. Except for the Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd, which shifted views on racial discrimination and increased votes for the Democrats, we estimate precise null effects of protests on public opinion and electoral behavior.

That is from a new NBER working paper by Amory Gethin and Vincent Pons.

My excellent Conversation with Peter Thiel

by  Tyler Cowen in

Here is the audio, video, and transcript, along with almost thirty minutes of audience questions, filmed in Miami.  Here is the episode summary:

Tyler and Peter Thiel dive deep into the complexities of political theology, including why it’s a concept we still need today, why Peter’s against Calvinism (and rationalism), whether the Old Testament should lead us to be woke, why Carl Schmitt is enjoying a resurgence, whether we’re entering a new age of millenarian thought, the one existential risk Peter thinks we’re overlooking, why everyone just muddling through leads to disaster, the role of the katechon, the political vision in Shakespeare, how AI will affect the influence of wordcels, Straussian messages in the Bible, what worries Peter about Miami, and more.

Here is an excerpt:

COWEN: Let’s say you’re trying to track the probability that the Western world and its allies somehow muddle through, and just keep on muddling through. What variable or variables do you look at to try to track or estimate that? What do you watch?

THIEL: Well, I don’t think it’s a really empirical question. If you could convince me that it was empirical, and you’d say, “These are the variables we should pay attention to” — if I agreed with that frame, you’ve already won half the argument. It’d be like variables . . . Well, the sun has risen and set every day, so it’ll probably keep doing that, so we shouldn’t worry. Or the planet has always muddled through, so Greta’s wrong, and we shouldn’t really pay attention to her. I’m sympathetic to not paying attention to her, but I don’t think this is a great argument.

Of course, if we think about the globalization project of the post–Cold War period where, in some sense, globalization just happens, there’s going to be more movement of goods and people and ideas and money, and we’re going to become this more peaceful, better-integrated world. You don’t need to sweat the details. We’re just going to muddle through.

Then, in my telling, there were a lot of things around that story that went very haywire. One simple version is, the US-China thing hasn’t quite worked the way Fukuyama and all these people envisioned it back in 1989. I think one could have figured this out much earlier if we had not been told, “You’re just going to muddle through.” The alarm bells would’ve gone off much sooner.

Maybe globalization is leading towards a neoliberal paradise. Maybe it’s leading to the totalitarian state of the Antichrist. Let’s say it’s not a very empirical argument, but if someone like you didn’t ask questions about muddling through, I’d be so much — like an optimistic boomer libertarian like you stop asking questions about muddling through, I’d be so much more assured, so much more hopeful.

COWEN: Are you saying it’s ultimately a metaphysical question rather than an empirical question?

THIEL: I don’t think it’s metaphysical, but it’s somewhat analytic.

COWEN: And moral, even. You’re laying down some duty by talking about muddling through.

THIEL: Well, it does tie into all these bigger questions. I don’t think that if we had a one-world state, this would automatically be for the best. I’m not sure that if we do a classical liberal or libertarian intuition on this, it would be maybe the absolute power that a one-world state would corrupt absolutely. I don’t think the libertarians were critical enough of it the last 20 or 30 years, so there was some way they didn’t believe their own theories. They didn’t connect things enough. I don’t know if I’d say that’s a moral failure, but there was some failure of the imagination.

COWEN: This multi-pronged skepticism about muddling through — would you say that’s your actual real political theology if we got into the bottom of this now?

THIEL: Whenever people think you can just muddle through, you’re probably set up for some kind of disaster. That’s fair. It’s not as positive as an agenda, but I always think . . .

One of my chapters in the Zero to One book was, “You are not a lottery ticket.” The basic advice is, if you’re an investor and you can just think, “Okay, I’m just muddling through as an investor here. I have no idea what to invest in. There are all these people. I can’t pay attention to any of them. I’m just going to write checks to everyone, make them go away. I’m just going to set up a desk somewhere here on South Beach, and I’m going to give a check to everyone who comes up to the desk, or not everybody. It’s just some writing lottery tickets.”

That’s just a formula for losing all your money. The place where I react so violently to the muddling through — again, we’re just not thinking. It can be Calvinist. It can be rationalist. It’s anti-intellectual. It’s not thinking about things.

Interesting throughout, definitely recommended.  You may recall that the very first CWT episode (2015!) was with Peter, that is here.

Economic growth sentences to ponder, Argentina fact of the day

by  Tyler Cowen in

Wednesday assorted links

by  Tyler Cowen

1. Lyman Stone criticizes the Pope paper on church attendance.  Good criticisms, see also the points by Sure and others in the comment section.  This paper doesn’t seem to hold up?  I’ll gladly publish a response by the author, otherwise a withdrawal might be in order?

2. Good critique of the AGI concept.  And AI regulation is unsafe, by Max T.

3. Ruxandra on the anti-cavities thing.

4. Mass shootings are down considerably.

5. First chat between humans and whales?

6. Open access version of Ran Spiegler’s The Curious Culture of Economic Theory.

7. 14 years ago, Thomas Schelling session on Iran and nuclear weapons.  Let’s hope this does not very soon become more relevant.

Why is the Biden Administration Against Fee Transparency in Education?

by  Alex Tabarrok in

President Biden has made a big deal of simplifying fees:

The FTC is proposing a rule that…would ban businesses from charging hidden and misleading fees and require them to show the full price up front. The rule would also require companies disclose up front whether fees are refundable. This would mean no more surprise resort fees at check out or unexpected service fees to buy a live event ticket.

Like everyone, I dislike these kinds of fees, although I don’t think they are a good subject for legislation. But I would certainly not prevent firms from offering a simple, up-front fee. And yet that is exactly what the Biden administration is doing in higher education.

So called Inclusive Access programs let colleges package textbooks with tuition and other fees. Students get one bill and access to textbooks on the first day of college. It’s convenient, no more hunting for textbooks or sticker shock. In addition, inclusive access programs give colleges bargaining power when negotiating prices.

Strangely, the Biden administration’s Department of Education wants to ban colleges from offering inclusive access programs. Thus, the Dept. of Education is arguing that simplified pricing is bad for consumers at the same time as the FTC is arguing that simplified pricing is good for consumers. What makes this contradiction even more baffling is that Inclusive Access was a program promoted in 2015 by the Obama-Biden Administration!

Proponents of the ban argue that letting students negotiate their own purchases lets them better tailor the outcome. Maybe, but that’s the same argument for letting airlines unbundle seat choice and baggage allowances. Hard to have it both ways. Pricing is complex.

Tyler and I are textbook authors so you might wonder where our interests lie. I actually have no idea. It’s complicated. I suspect inclusive access leads to a more winner-take-all market on textbooks. Modern Principles is a winner, thus on those grounds I would favor. More generally, however, I would get the FTC and the Dept. of Education out of pricing decisions and let colleges and firms negotiate. Pricing decisions are more complicated and contextual than simplified bans or regulations.

Barcelona escalates its role in the war against tourism

by  Tyler Cowen

…residents of La Salut neighbourhood in Barcelona are celebrating a move to wipe themselves off the map.

For years, residents had complained that they could not get home because the number 116 bus was always crammed with tourists visiting Antoni Gaudí’s Park Güell. The park is the city’s second most popular attraction after the Sagrada Familia basilica.

Now they have the bus to themselves after the city council arranged to have the route removed from Google and Apple maps.

“We laughed at the idea at first,” said César Sánchez, a local activist. “But we’re amazed that the measure has been so effective.”

Here is the full story, via Konstantin.

The Ludwig von Mises comeback

by  Tyler Cowen in

That is the subject of my latest Bloomberg column.  Here is one excerpt:

The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises is having a moment, especially in Latin America. Argentine President Javier Milei admires Mises, and he has adopted some Misesian ideas, such as the notion that “the middle of the road leads to socialism.” Milei used to be an academic economist and knows the ideas of Mises well.

More colorfully, on Saturday the Brazilian UFC fighter Renato Moicano delivered an on-camera polemic (warning: audio in link NSFW) in praise of Mises and defending free speech and private property. His impromptu lecture pointed listeners to Mises and what he called the six lessons of the Austrian School of Economics, as well as his forthcoming podcast. Those lessons — as well as a G-rated version of Moicano’s economics lecture, and a Mises-inspired speech on business-cycle theory by President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador — are available on the website of the (US-based) Mises Institute.

And this:

Meanwhile, among free-market types, the vibes have shifted in a way that has boosted the influence of Mises. For a comparison, the ideas of Friedrich A. Hayek were ascendant in classical liberal circles during the 1990s, in part because Hayek had won a Nobel Prize. Hayek’s writing style was also more gentle, while Mises was uncompromising. As Hayek said about Mises’s book on socialism, published in 1922: “At first we all felt he was frightfully exaggerating and even offensive in tone.”

Milton Friedman was another great economic thinker of the 20th century, and he was renowned for always smiling and never losing his temper at his intellectual opponents. Friedman wrote a book called Capitalism and Freedom. Hayek’s was called The Constitution of Liberty. Mises, meanwhile, was producing books with titles such as Omnipotent Government and The Anti-Capitalist Mentality. He was the one of that troika who allied himself with Ayn Rand.

Today, however, many of Mises’s proclamations no longer sound as outdated as they might have a few decades ago. In his treatise Human Action, he was fond of stressing “Man Acts” as a fundamental principle of economic and social analysis. Whatever that might have meant at the time, these days I would not be surprised to find a comparable phrase in a Jordan Peterson book. Indeed, Peterson recently expressed his admiration for Moicano’s endorsement of Mises.

Finally:

As for Latin America, Mises may be just the kind of market-oriented thinker the region needs. Polemics do sometimes cut through the obfuscations of political discourse. Friedman and Hayek’s generosity toward their opponents is perhaps not the best strategy for the notoriously brutal politics of Latin America. And some of Mises’s more impolite notions — such as the idea that economic policy can simply become worse and worse over time — seem to be proving out in countries such as Brazil, which has been mostly stagnant for a long time now.

Worth a ponder.

Does the NYT not recognize child abuse?

by  Tyler Cowen in

“I have one partner now with three kids. He is transmasc, and he’s radical about the way he raises them. They’re radically home-schooled. They’re 17 and nonbinary, 6 and 5. They know everything in age-appropriate ways. They’ve seen their mommy undergo the transmasc experience, seen their mom become who they really are.”

5 and 6!  Here is their latest polyamory story, the tone of the story, including the treatment of the children, seems to be entirely normal or possibly positive?  (I have nothing against polyamory per se.)  Is no one at the NYT made uncomfortable by this?  Is it permissible to speak up internally on such issues?  Or not?  The stronger left-wing take would be that this is one of the better arguments for public education, namely that parent-dominated cults can truly harm children, most of all when they control their education.

Data on private security forces

by  Tyler Cowen in

From a recent paper:

We bring novel data to bear on these questions, presenting the largest empirical study of private security to date. We introduce an administrative dataset covering nearly 300,000 licensed private security officers in the State of Florida. By linking this dataset to similarly comprehensive information about public law enforcement, we have, for the first time, a nearly complete picture of the entire security labor market in one state. We report two principal findings. First, the public and private security markets are predominantly characterized by occupational segregation, not integration. The individuals who compose the private security sector differ markedly from the public police; they are, for example, significantly less likely to be white men. We also find that few private officers, roughly 2%, have previously worked in public policing, and even fewer will go on to policing in the future. Second, while former police make up a small share of all private security, roughly a quarter of cops who do cross over have been fired from a policing job. In fact, fired police officers are nearly as likely to land in private security as to find another policing job, and a full quarter end up in one or the other. We explore the implications of these findings, including intersections with police abolition and the future of policing, at the paper’s close.

That is by Ben Grunwald, John Rappaport, and Michael Berg.  Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.

LDS and indeed USA fact of the day

by  Tyler Cowen in

Thus, approximately 1 out of 7 people who I classify as a Latter-day Saint attends [religious service] weekly.

And:

However, only 5% of Americans attend services “weekly”, far fewer than the ~22% who report to do so in surveys.

Oh, and this:

The religions with the longest average visit duration are Orthodox Christians (116 minutes), Latter-day Saints (115 minutes), and Jehovah Witnesses (115 minutes). The religions with the shortest average visit duration include Muslims (51 minutes), Catholics (66 minutes), and Buddhists (71 minutes). Jews (92 minutes) and Protestants (102 minutes) have average durations in the middle of the distribution.

That is from a new Devin G. Pope paper on religious attendance, measured by using cellphone data rather than self-reports.  Interesting throughout.

The progress in Progress Studies

by  Tyler Cowen in

Here is a very good article by Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine.  Excerpt:

The contours of the new progress movement stretch from the Human Progress project at the libertarian Cato Institute to the “eco-modernist” initiatives at the Breakthrough Institute and the Pritzker Innovation Fund. Four relatively new groups at the forefront of the pro-progress forces are The Roots of Progress, the Institute for Progress, The Progress Network, and Works in Progress. Together, they are—as The Progress Network puts it—”building an idea movement that speaks to a better future in a world dominated by voices that suggest a worse one.”

And:

The heads of all four organizations cite the animating influence of the July 2019 Atlantic article “We Need a New Science of Progress,” written by Cowen and Patrick Collison, the billionaire founder of the internet payments company Stripe. “The success of Progress Studies will come from its ability to identify effective progress-increasing interventions and the extent to which they are adopted by universities, funding agencies, philanthropists, entrepreneurs, policy makers, and other institutions,” Cowen and Collison argued. “In that sense, Progress Studies is closer to medicine than biology: The goal is to treat, not merely to understand.”

Cowen and Collison are involved in the movements in other ways too. Both The Roots of Progress and Works in Progress have received grants from the Emergent Ventures project, administered by Cowen. Works in Progress became part of Stripe Press in 2022.

Recommended, interesting throughout.

A portrait of Portugal

by  Tyler Cowen in

…at least half of a population of ten million depend on the state in some way—35% are retirees, 10% government workers, and another 5% receive either unemployment benefits or integration benefits. They would see a country with less youth than they once saw; they would see what is in fact, after Italy, the second-oldest country in Europe, with 23% of the population being older than 65. And they would further see that like so many other democratic and less democratic countries, Portugal is having elections and that this election will, once again, pit the country’s aging population against its young people.

So-called “seniors” are reliable voters, while young people aren’t, and so this perverse incentive ensures that seniors vote, effectively, to extract rent for themselves from young people through the state. This is reflected in voting intentions: people over 54 are disproportionately likely to vote for the Socialist Party, while those who are under 25 are disproportionately unlikely to vote for it.

One in three people ages 15-39 has left for overseas.  Here is more from Vasco Queirós, via The Browser.