Year: 2023

Collapsible Boats You Can Store in Your Apartment: ORU Folding Kayaks and MyCanoe Canoes

Scott BuchananLeave a comment

My wife and I were sitting on a bench near a local lake, having a picnic dinner. On a little grassy spot nearby I noticed a young woman put down a large bag, and then slide out some large, odd-looking plastic pieces. Then she unfolded something, and, oh my goodness, she had brought a fold-up kayak in that bag:

A friend joined her with sliding some joiner tubular pieces over the seams on top to zip these seams together:

The whole assembly took less than ten minutes. The resulting kayak was very light to carry:

And away she paddled:

I had drifted over to talk to her as she was assembling the kayak, and she said she just stored the boat in its bag in a closet in her apartment. Also, that it was great  fun to use.

This was one of a selection of foldable kayaks sole by ORU. They make smaller, lighter, cheaper models for paddling on still water, and heavier-duty kayaks for ocean waves and white-water rivers. These kayaks get generally very high reviews. They are a bit pricy, and may not stand up for long scraping over rocks. But they are  clearly  full-blown, worth-paddling kayaks with rigid sides and clean lines.

This resonated with me, because maybe twenty years ago, I got a pair of inflatable kayaks that we could store in the basement and pull out and inflate at the lake. Paddling them was an awful experience. Although we inflated them to spec, they sagged in the middle, with the two ends sticking up in the air and catching the wind. It was like paddling a bathtub which was being constantly carried downwind.

I also found through that experience that kayaking was very uncomfortable for me. But I do like canoeing. So, after seeing how great the folding kayak was, I looked online and found a similar collapsible canoe, made by MyCanoe.  The design is a little harder to execute, because with a canoe you have an open top, whereas with a kayak you can seal up the top and get the whole boat to be something of a nice structural tubular structure. But the MyCanoe seems to work OK, and has the same advantages of being lightweight (19 lb for one-person Solo, 43lb for two-person Duo) and of folding into a small package for transport and storage. There is an oar-lock accessory so you can row it with two oars, as an alternative to paddling. The Solo is pretty short and wide, so it is very maneuverable , but I would be surprised if it tracks well in a straight line when you just want to paddle from point A to point B using one paddle.

You can find plenty of demos and reviews on YouTube for these folding kayaks and canoes. And there are other collapsible kayaks out there, per this review, but some of them are heavier and more involved to assemble.

Anyway, these folding craft are a pretty classy, free-enterprise technology solution for folks who like to get out on the water, but don’t have a garage or backyard to store a regular kayak or canoe, much less a trailer for a motorboat or a sailboat.

When is success uncorrelated with competence?

mdmakowsky1 Comment

I agree with Tyler’s assessment that the top performers in pretty much any field of endeavor tend to be incredibly intelligent, regardless of whether that field is broadly associated with intelligence per se. He closes with an open question: in what fields can success belie intelligence?

The older I get, the more complex and messier I find intelligence to be as a construct. If we broaden the concept from intelligence to “competence” or “capability”, however, I think it becomes an even more interesting question. In what fields can we expect to observe top performers who are, in actuality, objectively bad at their jobs?

This is not to say I that I believe there are any fields or jobs where success doesn’t positively correlate with capability. Rather, it is to ask in what fields, if any, is the variance on outcomes is so great as to be able to fully obscure average or expected outcomes within individuals? Framed this way, the fields we should be looking for are those that emphasize high leverage, high risk wagers made with low frequencies. If you’re trying to identify ostensibly high-performers who are, in reality, grossly incompetent in the fields that made them wealthy, look for a series of ex ante negative expected value wagers combined with large initial endowments and foolish leverage ratios. Probalistically most such individuals will be punished accordingly, but given enough players, a highly visible few will hit big with an initial sequence of winners. Their subsequent anointment as virtuosos combined with the sheer weight of their capital will permit them to coast for decades before, if ever, their underlying incompetence catches up with them.

As for specific fields, it’s pretty easy for me to see such dynamics at play in real estate and angel investing. Not to be confused with construction or venture capital, in which “wagers” are made with much higher frequency, lower risk, and, in turn, lower returns on investment. Success in such fields reveal competence for the same reason it reveals them in professional poker: the law of large numbers eventually comes for everyone. Real estate speculation, on the other hand, whether its developed or undeveloped properties is exactly the kind of field where otherwise incompetent boobs, if given a large enough initial endowment and the opportunity to leverage to the hilt, can become giants on the heels of a relatively small number of bets. If they were in the right zip codes for the last few decades, it’s entirely possible to turn a half million into a few billion, without any insight in the slightest. Angel investing, on the other hand, tends to be less about leverage than simply buying lottery tickets: negative ROI, but in a landscape of thousands of angel investors, most of whom will experience losses approaching 100% on their portfolio, someone will fall into a 5000x return on something originally coded in a dorm. To be clear, more capable and competent investors will on average perform better speculating in real estate and early stage start-ups, but the absolutely biggest winners will be chosen more by chance than talent.

A similar question we might ask is what are the fields where the quality of outcomes is orthogonal to the capability being ostensibly being selected for? Allow me to explain through a standard scam story. A stock broker cold calls 100 people, tells each his pick for the week, half he says Stock A will go up, half he tells Stock A will go down. He then calls back the 50 people he correctly prognosticated to. He repeat this several times, until there are 3 people who believe that this previously unknown stranger has correctly predicted future stock prices 5 times in a row, a feat that seems unlikely by chance. Customers think the quality they are observing is forecasting expertise, when in actuality it is the ability to spend 60 hours a week being energetic and charismatic on the phone with strangers. This is, unto itself, a rare ability, just not the one that the customers in question think they are observing evidence of. Related to our earlier story, a strong argument can be made the most important skill in real estate speculation isn’t forecasting, but gaining access to leverage i.e. convincing people to loan you enough money that you can particpate in a casino with a such a high minimum stake.

The moral of the story is we should take care when attributing success to narrow capability or competence. Sometimes it’s because of selection on observability, obscuring the role that luck has played in success. Sometimes its because success demands obscuring the criteria on which it is selected, whether because of legality or simple social disapprobation. We should be doubly careful when considering fields/sectors where success remains somewhat mysterious or even magical. When observers are consistently attributing success to intangible factors, whether its charisma in politicians, inspiration in coaches, instinct in investors, or genius in futurists, your antennae should raise. If we don’t really know why and how someone succeeds, then there is a decent chance they don’t know either.

Top EWED Blogs of 2023

Joy Buchanan3 Comments

It’s the 3-year anniversary of EWED. Thanks for reading and sharing. Our blog has been cited by The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, Reason Magazine, Marginal Revolution, and many others.

The following posts are in order, starting with the entry that got the most page views so far in 2023.

“Why Tenure” Mike Makowsky on academic tenure and the unintended consequences of taking it away.

“Steal My Paper Ideas!” James offered the internet research ideas that he does not have time to pursue.

“ChatGPT Cites Economics Papers That Do Not Exist” I wrote about a problem with ChatGPT hallucinations. This idea has now been more formally explored in my working paper available on SSRN (which has been trending in top-10 download lists on SSRN throughout the summer). The point is not just that GPT will create fake citations. The important take-away is that GPT can fabricate falsehoods of all kinds that sound serious. Citations are easy to count and verify. Once we have a quantitative measure, we can also demonstrate that accuracy declines when a topic is less general.

“On EJMR, status competitions, and tapeworms” Mike on ill will in the profession.

“On the paucity of new ideas and the paradox of choice in modern research” It’s Mike. He is a whole pattern in the data this year. (Maybe we can get new ideas from James!)

“Bank for International Settlements: $70 Trillion Dollars Is Missing from Official Global Financial Accounting” A December, 2022 report from the Bank for International Settlements stated that $70 trillion was missing missing from normally reported global financial statistics. That is nearly three times the size of the U.S. GDP. Scott’s January post delineated what was going on and why this might turn into a problem.  

“The Value of Student Organizations and On-Campus Education: Anecdotal Evidence from Tim Keller” Me on what happens at The University besides delivering information in lectures.

“Is College Enrollment Falling?” Jeremy on a big question for academics. Here’s a recent tweet from him on demographics.


“Spending on Housing: It Hasn’t Really Increased in the Past 40 Years” Jeremy. Incidentally, some of his posts from last year are still so popular that they have more traffic than the top 2023 posts. That includes: Who is the Wealthiest Generation? and The Wealth of Generations: Latest Update

If you ever want to know what people were saying about my generation when we were fresh out of college, watch an SNL sketch called “The Millennials”. Now we are just the parents at the parent-teacher conferences. Our jams play at the grocery store at 8am (Wonderwall, anyone?). And Jeremy is documenting the state of our finances.

“Mortgage Fraud Is Surprisingly Common Among Real Estate Investors” from James. Who knew?

“House Rich – House Poor” Zachary created create an affordability index. And also note that he provides tips for getting better teaching evaluations in “5 Easy Steps to Improve Your Course Evals”

Lastly, congrats to our friends and mentors at Marginal Revolution who are celebrating 20 years of blogging.

Life Tables are Cool

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

Demography is cool generally, but life tables are really cool in their elegance. Don’t know what a life table is? Let me ‘splain.

A life table uses data from private or public death registers, or even genealogical records, to identify a variety of survival and death estimates. Briefly, the tables include for each age:

  • Probability of death in the next year
  • Probability of surviving to the age
  • The life expectancy

There is more in the tables, but these are the big items that people often want to know. All of the various table columns can be calculated from survival rates. The US government and the UN each has created many such tables for a variety of time, locations, and development details. For example, the earliest and most dependable one is from 1901 and includes separate tables by race, sex, migrant status, urbanity, and even for some specific states.

Continue reading →

The Least Terrible Car Safety Sites

James Bailey1 Comment

I’m looking for a new car now and would like to know what the safest reasonable option is. There are lots of ways to get some information about this, but none are very good.

The government provides safety ratings based on crash tests they perform. This is better than nothing but the crash tests only test certain things and don’t necessarily tell you how a car performs in the real world. They also have a habit of just giving their top rating (5 stars) to tons of vehicles so it doesn’t help you pick between them, and they only compare cars to other cars in the same “class”, ignoring that some classes are safer than others. On top of all the problems with the ratings themselves, they also don’t provide any lists of their ratings, instead making you search one car at a time.

Several other sites improve on the government ratings by using real-world data on how often cars actually crash (much of which comes from the government, which as usual is great at collecting data but not so great at presenting it in helpful user-friendly ways). The Auto Professor grades cars using real-world data but otherwise has the same problems as the government (NHTSA) site. Cars get letter grades rather than a rank or meaningful number, so it’s not actually clear which car is best, or how much better the good cars are than the average or bad cars. You can search the grades for one car at a time but they don’t just list the safest cars anywhere, including on their page labelled “safest cars list“.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety uses real world data and provides actual numbers of fatality rates for different vehicles. This is great because you don’t have the problem of “dozens of cars all have 5-star / A, which is best?” or the problem of “how much better is 5 star than 4 star, or A than B?”. But they don’t include data from the 2 most recent years, and they only post their ratings for a handful of cars. Not only do they not present a complete list, they seem to have no search function whatsoever for their real-world data (they do for their NHSTA-style crash test data). Some 3rd party sites seem to have posted more complete versions of their data, but it still doesn’t show data for most car models.

The least-terrible car safety site I have found is Real Safe Cars. The good: they use real-world safety data, they apply reasonable-sounding corrections and controls do it, they present meaningful quantitative measures like “vehicle lifetime fatality chance” and “vehicle lifetime injury chance”, and they present the data using both a search function and lists of “safest vehicles”. For 2020 you can see that the #1 car, the 2020 Audi e-tron Sportback, has a vehicle lifetime fatality chance of 0.0158%. Compare this to the #100 car, which is about average overall- the 2020 Acura TLX has a vehicle lifetime fatality chance of 0.0435% (almost 3x the safest). The site makes it hard to find the very worst car but near the bottom is the 2020 Hyundai Accent, which “has a vehicle lifetime fatality chance of 0.0744%”.

The lists could be better; the only list that includes all vehicle classes is restricted to only 2020 makes. Meanwhile when you search a car it ranks it only relative to cars in the same year, though you can make comparisons across years yourself using the quantitative “fatality chance” and “injury chance” measures. I’m not totally convinced of the ratings themselves, given how well many smaller sedans do. Their front page explains how taller cars are generally safer, but also lists the Mini Cooper as the #18 safest car of 2020 across all classes. But Real Safe Cars seems like the current best site to me (maybe I’m biased since one of its creators is an economics professor).

I hope these sites will address some of the weaknesses I identified here, though I’m not optimistic about most of them, because other than Real Safe Cars the “bad” decisions seem to be clearly driven by incentives like keeping car companies happy or SEO.

I also think there’s still room for another effort by economists or other quantitatively-skilled people to make another site. The underlying crash data is public and the statistical problems are not especially hard; I think a single economist could run the numbers in about the time it takes to write a typical economics paper (weeks to months for a 1st draft), and a decent website could be built off that quickly as well. You could probably make a decent amount of money off the site, though perhaps not if you do the right thing and publicly post all the data and code. Posting the data would make it easy for others to copy you and make their own sites. You could fight that with copyright, but given the huge public good aspect here and the lives at stake it might make more sense to get grant funding up front and then make the data and code totally public. A sane world would have done this already; NHTSA’s annual budget is over $1 billion, with $35 million of that going to research and analysis. I think any decent funder should be able to do at least as well as the sites above with under $200k, or anyone with good data chops could do it out of the goodness of their heart in a few months. I don’t have a few months right now but perhaps one of you could take this up or start applying for grants to do it.

For everyone who just wants to know about which cars are safe, for now I think Real Safe Cars is the best bet, though I’d also like to hear if you think I missed anything.

Does the Unemployment Rate Tell the Whole Story about the Labor Market?

Jeremy Horpedahl2 Comments

The answer to that question is, of course, “no.” No one number can alone tell us the whole story, whether we are talking about the economy, health, education, population, or any other social statistic. But when you look at other measures of the health of the labor market, you usually find that they tell a similar story to the unemployment rate.

My goal in this post is to dive a little deeper into the data on the labor market, but really the goal is broader: to give you a little insight about how to interpret data. Some rules of thumb, perhaps. But really there is One Big Rule: numbers need context. A number on its own doesn’t tell us much of anything. How does it compare to the past? How does it compare to other places?

With the unemployment rate at historic lows for both the US and many states, I’ve started to see many people saying that, not only doesn’t the unemployment rate give us the full story, but many other indicators point in the opposite direction. Is this true? Let’s dig into the data. Here’s one example of someone saying this for Arkansas. I’ll focus on Arkansas, since that’s where I live and I pay attention to the economic data here pretty closely, but I’ll also refer to national data where appropriate.

Continue reading →

Help! My Celery is Too Stringy to Eat!

Scott Buchanan2 Comments

For maybe three purchases of celery, bought in 2023 from different stores, the fibers or strings in them were so tough that we could not chew them to point of chopping them into small enough pieces to comfortably swallow. We would chew away for several minutes, masticating and swallowing most of what we bit off from the stalk, but this left a tangle of intact strings in our mouths, to be spit out. Prior to 2023, we never recall having a batch of celery that was simply inedible like this. For at least one batch we were so disgusted that we just threw it out.

I tried steaming a couple of stalks for a minute or so in microwave. This turned most of the celery into unappealing mush, whilst doing the stalks no apparent harm.

For the most recent bunch of unchewable celery, I finally got wise and harnessed the vast power of the internet to solve this problem. I did not have to invoke ChatGPT, so I was perhaps spared an AI hallucination regarding string theory. A simple DuckDuckGo search (this search engine respects your privacy, unlike You Know Who) found there are at least three reasonable ways to strip the offending strings out of a celery stalk. This article from Kitchen Ambitions does a great job describing these three ways:

( 1 ) Carefully snap the stalks in half the correct way (it is obvious when you think about it; or see the article), leaving the two halves connected by the strings. Then you can peel the strings down the lengths of the stalks. This is the easiest and cleanest way. I found I usually had to do a second round of snapping and peeling to get the rest of the strings.

Or

( 2 ) At one end of the stalk, use sharp knife to tease up the ends of several strings at a time, and peel them down the length of the stalk.

Or

( 3 ) A brute force approach is to use a vegetable/carrot peeler. This does work, but removes more of good celery along with the strings.

Hurray for economical life hacks – – the internet knows everything.

Why aren’t the writers and actors guilds trying to break the studio cartel?

mdmakowskyLeave a comment

The Writer’s Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild of America are currently on strike. They are on strike because the highest paid actors are and, as best I can tell, all of the writers were getting entirely screwed by previous deal. A deal, I would note, they negotiated after realizing that they were getting screwed by the previous deal. Screenwriters do not appear to be a position to negotiate particularly good deals.

There’s no shame in that, by the way. This isn’t necessarily about shrewdness. The NFL players union has never been able to negotiate the deals on the level of major league baseball. Sometimes the structure of an industry and a labor market simply favor one side of the bargain. In the case of Hollywood, actors have always struggled with the reservation wages of non-guild members i.e. people will to act in movies for free in the hopes of hitting the jackpot and becoming a big star. I think the writers have a different problem.

The problem for writers is that the studios don’t know anything. They don’t know what they want, who’s good, who’s not. More importantly they don’t know what anybody or anything is worth. As best I can tell, the only thing they know is that paying less is better than paying more.

“Nobody knows anything…… Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work. Every time out it’s a guess and, if you’re lucky, an educated one.” ― William Goldman, Adventures in the Screen Trade

This is a problem for writers because you can’t collectively bargain on behalf of thousands of writers against an idiot. The writers guild will tell you that they have no choice to bargain with said idiot because that idiot controls the studios and without the studios there is no business.

Ok, I get that. I’m not going to play the “Just make all your movies on an iPhone and distribute them on YouTube card…<whispers> even though a lot of you would be better off making your movies on an iPhone and distributing them independently. What I am saying that you don’t have to negotiate with studios. Plural. You can negotiate with a studio. Singular. Get it?

I’m telling you to break the cartel. DC is getting killed by Marvel. Negotiate a deal with DC. A24 is making the best movies in the world. They are small and they need their output in theaters selling tickets. Negotiate a deal with just them. Will it pay more than Marvel? Of course not. But it will employ 0.3% of your members for 6 weeks and set a precedent for small individual studio deals. Pretty soon that turns into 4.1%. Set the precedent that your guild is here to play hardball and will play the studios off against each other on behalf of your members. Each new deal is a valve that lowers the pressure on your members while simultanesouly ratcheting it up for the hold out studios that aren’t producing anything. If the larger studios attempt to punish those who negotiate deals with the guild, sue them for antitrust. Sue them for $200 billion. When it comes to “cartel-like” behavior, unions have vastly more legal latitude than industry players. It’s your job to take advantage of it.

And while you’re at it, negotiating all these bespoke deals, maybe add in a little flexibility. Maybe be a little more humble about your ability to prognosticate the future and don’t tie your selves to outragenously bad arrangements that leave writers of hit shows walking away with $3000 and a negative account balance. And if and when you realize your deal is this bad, strike sooner. Years sooner. The whole point of a union is gain bargaining power through collective action. If you can’t take action until something has passed the point of complete disaster, that doesn’t speak well of the union.

I am in the somewhat unusual position of generally liking private unions* that can survive on their own merits specifically because they represent another power player that balances the playing field, which leads to more competition, and more competition is better for everyone. But just because a union is a collective entity does not mean that they have to treat the opposition as a de facto collective entity. Play them off against each other. Break them down. Play dirty.

This isn’t show friends. Or even show cartels. This is show business. Bloody start acting like it.

*Public unions are a vastly different story and, full disclosure, I tend to be far more skeptical of them.

Confronting my Macroeconomics Professor

Joy BuchananLeave a comment

I’m gearing up to teach macroeconomics for the first time. The following is a story that I will keep in mind as I work to make technical material relevant to undergraduates.

Years ago, I was an undergraduate sitting in a macroeconomics class. As it happened, I was in an intermediate-level macro class with no relevant background or context for the material. (If I had taken principles-level econ, then maybe I wouldn’t have been in this situation.)

My instructor was grinding through theory in a methodical way. By the end of the first month, as I remember it, we had covered the short run and the medium-term effects of monetary policy.

For anyone who is not familiar, see these MRU videos on shifting the aggregate supply curve.

“The Short-Run Aggregate Supply Curve“

“Office Hours: Using the AD-AS Model“

In summary, the government can inject money into the economy to achieve a short-term increase in output. For a short amount of time, you can help, and that seemed good to me. I had signed up for the course to understand how to reduce poverty and make the world better. I was acing the exams. Things were going well at first.

Then we got bad news. Increasing the money supply does not work for long. Consumers realize that everything is more expensive, so they cut back on real spending. The economy shifts back to where it was before. Nothing actually improves. I had spent a month of my life on this class and we were getting nowhere.

After the lecture on returning to the long-run aggregate supply curve, I went up to the professor after class. I asked him what was going on and when would we learn something that matters. (I was polite. I realized I was going to sound dumb to him, but life is short. I needed to know if this class was going to deliver anything.)

He looked at me, surely confused that I was unsatisfied with the standard progression of material in his course. Then he explained, “Oh. You are talking about the long term, and we will get to that next month.” That’s what I needed. I did not drop the course or the major. I’m an economics professor today because I didn’t mind looking like an idiot if I could get my questions answered.

This story helps me remember what it was like to be an undergrad in an economics class. Tyler says “context is that which is scarce.” Economics teachers need to do two things at once: present technical material and provide context. I will try to get that mix right going forward.

Note to students: Students, don’t be afraid to ask stupid questions. This is your chance. A good teacher will be glad you took the initiative. However, if the question occurs to you right in the middle of a lecture, then it may or may not be the appropriate time for the lecturer to stop and have a conversation with you. Teachers will be most amenable to having a deep conversation after class or during office hours.

My macro-related research:

Published paper: “If Wages Fell During a Recession” YouTube video presentation of this paper from minute 19:00-32:00.

Working paper (no draft yet): “Sticky Prices as Coordination Failure: An Experimental Investigation”

Everyone Happy? Student Loan Repayment

Zachary Bartsch3 Comments

I like a good lump sum tax. People *must* pay the tax without exception and the advantage over current progressive marginal income taxes is that the marginal wage received doesn’t fall with greater earnings. Employment rises and output rises. To the extent that college students fail to understand their student loans, the indebted graduates essentially pay a lump sum tax each period.

Of course, the exception is income based repayment (IBR) – especially with forgiveness after X years. IBR adjusts the incentives substantially. Under the standard system, your wages are garnished if you fail to make loan payments. Under IBR, lower earnings trigger lower monthly payments. Clearly, in contrast to the standard method, IBR incentivizes more leisure, less income, more black market activity, and higher loan balances. Indeed, all the more so if there is a forgiveness horizon. Someone just has to have low enough income for say 15 years, and their past debt is forgiven (with caveats & conditions).

My principal objection to IBR policy is the resulting malinvestment in human capital. Defaulting on loans is a sign that some investment was inadequately productive to repay the resources consumed by its endeavor. We call that a loss. Real resources of time, attention, and goods and services were consumed in order to produce capital that failed to serve others more than the opportunity cost of those resources.

Continue reading →