Datasets can be pulled offline for all sorts of reasons. As I wrote in February, this shows the value of being a data hoarder– just downloading now any data you think you might want later:
Several major datasets produced by the federal government went offline this week…. This serves as a reminder of the value of redundancy- keeping datasets on multiple sites as well as in local storage. Because you never really know when one site will go down- whether due to ideological changes, mistakes, natural disasters, or key personnel moving on.
The US Federal government shutdown this month provides another reminder of this. So far most datasets are still up, but I’ve seen some availability issues:
The good news is that a number of institutions have stepped up in 2025 to host at-risk datasets (joining those like IPUMS, NBER, and Archive.org that have been hosting datasets for many years, but are scaling up to meet the moment):
Restore CDC hosts all CDC data as it was in January 2025.
Harvard Library’s project is less user-friendly but more powerful, archiving all 16 terabytes of Data.gov.
For the last few years the blog Astral Codex Ten has run contests for the best reader-submitted book reviews. This year Scott mixed things up and asked people to review anything except books.
You can review a movie, song, or video game. You can review a product, restaurant, or tourist attraction. But don’t let the usual categories limit you. Review comic books or blog posts. Review political parties – no, whole societies! Review animals or trees! Review an oddly-shaped pebble, or a passing cloud! Review abstract concepts! Mathematical proofs! Review love, death, or God Himself!
“This is not like Iraq” the Ukrainian recruiting officer soberly told me with a thick accent. “You have 50% chance of dying.” That wasn’t actually true, but it was a lot closer to being true than almost anything you can voluntarily sign up for in an organized way. I decided it was worth it.
Recommended, I thought several of the essays were excellent, voting goes through October 13th.
Given where we are starting from, the average American would probably be satisfied with a fairly low bar, like “not obese” or “can run a mile without stopping”. But the kind of person who writes about the topic a lot tends to be a fitness nut insisting on crazily high standards. So what makes for a reasonable middle-ground measure?
I think the US military’s standards do. They vary by branch and are changing, but here are some previous military fitness standards from the Air Force:
Pushups and sit-ups arehow many can be done in one minute
Here’s what the Marines expect from recruits before they show up for training:
The Army has a complex points system that varies by age and gender, but their minimum standards for a 20-year-old Male include: hex bar deadlift 150 lbs for 3 reps, 15 hand-release pushups within 2 minutes, plank for a minute 30, and a 2 mile run in 19:57 (plus their own sprint/drag/carry test in 2:28).
I like that the standards all involve a mix of strength and speed, and that they might take some work but should be achievable in a reasonable amount of time for a healthy person. I also like that they give stretch goals for the over-achievers in addition to their minimums.
What about the real over-achievers, the ones who want to be not just “in shape” but “in great shape” or “in excellent shape”? For them, there are the special forces fitness tests. Here’s the Green Berets:
I’m in no way an authority on any of this, but for what it’s worth, you have my permission to say you’re in shape if you can meet any branch’s minimum requirements.
The Fraser Institute released their latest report on the Economic Freedom of the World today, measuring economic policy in all countries as of 2023. They made this excellent Rosling-style graphic that sums up their data along with why it matters:
In short: almost every country with high economic freedom gets rich, and every country that gets rich either has high economic freedom or tons of oil. This rising tide of prosperity lifts all boats:
This greater prosperity that comes with economic freedom goes well beyond “just having more stuff”:
The full report, along with the underlying data going back to 1970, is here. The authors are doing great work and releasing it for free, so no complaints, but two additional things I’d like to see from them are a graphic showing which countries had the biggest changes in economic freedom since last year, and links to the underlying program used to create the above graphs so that readers could hover over each dot to identify the country (I suppose an independent blogger could do the first thing as easily as they could…).
FRDM is an ETF that invests in emerging markets with high economic freedom (I hold some), I imagine they will be rebalancing following the new report.
But as Jeremy often points out here, young adults have actually been doing pretty well at building wealth. So why are they so gloomy?
Since I’ve now aged out of the young adult category, I’m obligated to start by wondering if kids these days are just whinier, and need to quit doomscrolling and toughen up. But if I try to see things their way, here’s what I can come up with for why their pessimism could be rational:
It’s About The Future: Sure things have been fine, but that is about to change. The more farsighted youth know they will be the ones expected to pay back the big deficits the Federal government is running. They have student loans to pay today now that payments have fully resumed. I predicted after the 2022 student loan forgiveness that we would be back to all-time highs in student debt by 2028, but in fact we are there already. The youth unemployment rate is now 10.5%, up from 6.6% in April 2023, and could rise a lot more if AI really starts displacing jobs:
Source: Brynjolfsson, Chandar and Chen 2025.Source: Michigan Consumer Survey
2. It’s About Housing: House prices are at all time highs (far above the prices during the 2000s “bubble”). Mortgage rates remain high, and to the extent that Fed rate cuts push them down, they will likely push prices higher, leaving homes hard to afford. High credit standards post-Dodd-Frank mean younger buyers in particular find it hard to get a mortgage; homeownership rates are falling while the average age of homeowners shoots upward. Most older people already own a house, while most young people want to buy but see that as increasingly out of reach.
Good luck getting a mortgage without super-prime creditEveryone thinks it’s a bad time to buy a house, but this matters most if you’re young and don’t already own oneThe median American is 39 years old but the median homebuyer is 56
The Fed has had an official inflation target of 2% since 2012, a commitment they reaffirmed just last month after their policy review:
The Committee reaffirms its judgment that inflation at the rate of 2 percent, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve’s statutory maximum employment and price stability mandates.
But since 2020, they haven’t been acting like it. Lets look at their preferred measure of inflation, the annual change in the PCE price index:
The last time annual inflation was at or below 2.0% was February 2021. The Fed just cut rates despite inflation being at 2.6%. If you didn’t know about their 2% target and were trying to infer their target based solely on their actions, what would you guess their target is?
Considering the post-Covid period, I see their actions as being more consistent with a 3% target than a 2% target. They stopped raising rates once inflation got below 3.4%, and started cutting them again once inflation got below 2.4%. The Fed’s own projections show more rate cuts coming despite the fact that they don’t expect inflation to get back to 2.0% until 2028! Bloomberg’s Anna Wong does the math and infers their target is 2.8%:
Perhaps the Fed’s target should be higher than 2%, but if they have a higher target, they should make it explicit so as not to undermine their credibility. Or at least make explicit that their target is loose and they’d rather miss high than low, if that is in fact the case. This is what Greg Mankiw would prefer:
I feel strongly that a target of 2 percent is superior to a target of 2.0 percent….. It would be better if central bankers admitted to the public how imprecise their ability to control inflation is. They should not be concerned if the inflation rate falls to 1.6. That comfortably rounds up to 2. And they should be ready to declare victory in fighting inflation when the inflation rate gets back to 2.5. As the adage goes, that is good enough for government work. Maybe the Fed should even ditch a specific numerical target for inflation and instead offer a range, as some other central banks do. The Fed could say, for example, that it wants to keep the inflation rate between 1 and 3. Doing so would admit that the Fed governors are notquite as godlike as they sometimes feign.
The Fed seems to have taken Mankiw’s approach to heart, except with a preferred range of 2.0-3.5%. I take Mankiw’s point about not being able to fine-tune everything, but given the bigger picture I think the Fed should if anything err on the low side of 2.0%. The Federal deficit is in the trillions and rising, inflation has been above target since 2021, and consumers never got over the Covid-era increase in the price level:
Source: Michigan Consumer Survey
The Fed let inflation stay mostly below 2% during the 2010s, to the detriment of the labor market. They updated their policy framework in 2020 to allow for “Flexible Average Inflation Targeting”, where they would let inflation stay above 2% for a while to make up for the years of below 2% inflation. This is part of why they let inflation get so out of hand in 2022. This made up for the 2010s and then some- our price level is now 3-4% higher than it would be if we’d had 2.0% inflation each year since 2007. But the sudden big burst of inflation in 2022 led the Fed to abandon this flexible targeting idea in the 2025 framework. The lack of “make up” policy latest framework means that they don’t see themselves as needing to do anything to repair their 2022 mistake- “just don’t do it again”.
We’re certainly being stuck with permanently higher prices as a result, and I worry we will be stuck with higher inflation too.
The Federal Reserve will probably cut rates next week:
I can’t advise them on the complexpolitics of this, but based on the economics I think cutting would be a mistake. I see one good reason they want to cut: hiring is slow and apparently has been for a year. But that could be driven by falling labor supply rather than falling demand, and most other indicators suggest holding rates steady or even raising them.
Most importantly, inflation is currently well above their 2% target, 2.9% over the past year and a higher pace than that in August. Inflation expectations remain somewhat elevated. Real GDP growth was strong in Q2 and looks set to be strong in Q3 too, and NGDP growth is still well above trend.. The Conference Board’s measure of consumer confidence looks bad, but Michigan’s looks fine.
Financial conditions are loose, with stocks at all time highs and credit spreads low. Its only September and we’ve already seen more Initial Public Offerings than in any year since 2021 (when the last big bout of inflation kicked off):
Crypto prices are back near all time highs and crypto is becoming more integrated into public stocks through bitcoin treasury companies and IPOs from Gemini and Figure.
The Taylor Rule provides a way of putting all this together into a concrete suggestion for interest rates. Some versions of the rule say rates are about on target, while others including my preferred Bernanke versionsuggest they should be closer to 6%. To me this is what the debate should be- do we keep rates steady or raise them? I see good arguments each way, but the case for a cut seems very weak.
I look forward to finding out in a year or two whether I or the FOMC is the crazy one here.
* The Usual Disclaimer, hopefully extra obvious in this case: These views are mine and I’m not speaking for any part of the Federal Reserve System.
Formerteammates of athletes who died of CTE would require $6 million to offset this disamenity and $1million to be indifferent between exiting and staying in the profession.
So concludes a paper by Josh Martin. I thought this paper would be about a small group, since CTE deaths mostly happen among long-retired players with few or no former teammates still playing. But it turns out there were a fair number of early deaths, and each player had many teammates who can be affected, totaling 23% of NHL players and 14% of NFL players:
But teams mostly won’t pay worried players enough extra to stay, especially in hockey. So many of them retire early:
Athletes who were teammateswith a former teammate who died with CTE for three or more years and played for a team withthem at least two years before their death are 7.22 percentage points more likely to retire thancharacteristically similar non-treated players in the same years. Relative to the pre-treatmentmean, this represents a 69% increase.
People still respond to incentives though, and if you do pay them enough they mostly take the risk and stay:
The remaining players will take measures to protect themselves, like skipping games to recover from concussions:
Michael previously pointed out here that these concerns matter more for certain positions, like running backs:
If you want millionaires to show up every week to willingly endure the equivalent of a half-dozen car accidents, you’re going to have to pay them.
This all makes for a good illustration of the theory of compensating differentials, which is sometimes surprisingly hard to observe in the labor market. But sports tend to have the sort of data we can only dream of elsewhere. Which other workers have millions of people observing, measuring, and debating their on-the-job productivity and performance?
This summer I was one of thousands of people crowding into Foxborough just to watch them practice:
The NFL season kicks off today, and I say the players deserve the millions they are about to earn.
The subjects of two of our posts from 2023 are suddenly big stories.
First, here’s how I summed up New Orleans’ recovery from hurricane Katrina then:
Large institutions (university medical centers, the VA, the airport, museums, major hotels) have been driving this phase of the recovery. The neighborhoods are also recovering, but more slowly, particularly small business. Population is still well below 2005 levels. I generally think inequality has been overrated in national discussions of the last 15 years relative to concerns about poverty and overall prosperity, but even to me New Orleans is a strikingly unequal city; there’s so much wealth alongside so many people seeming to get very little benefit from it. The most persistent problems are the ones that remain from before Katrina: the roads, the schools, and the crime; taken together, the dysfunctional public sector.
Today, New Orleans is smaller, poorer and more unequal than before the storm. It hasn’t rebuilt a durable middle class, and lacks basic services and a major economic engine outside of its storied tourism industry…. New Orleans now ranks as the most income-unequal major city in America…. In areas that attracted investment — the French Quarter, the Bywater and the shiny biomedical corridor — there are few outward signs of the hurricane’s impact. But travel to places like Pontchartrain Park, Milneburg and New Orleans East that were once home to a vibrant Black middle class, and there are abandoned homes and broken streets — entire communities that never regained their pre-Katrina luster…. Meanwhile, basic city functions remain unreliable.
I wrote in 2023 about a then-new Philadelphia Fed working paper claiming that mortgage fraud is widespread:
The fraud is that investors are buying properties to flip or rent out, but claim they are buying them to live there in order to get cheaper mortgages…. One third of all investors is a lot of fraud!… such widespread fraud is concerning, and I hope lenders (especially the subsidized GSEs) find a way to crack down on it…. This mortgage fraud paper seems like a bombshell to me and I’m surprised it seems to have received no media attention; journalists take note. For everyone else, I suppose you read obscure econ blogs precisely to find out about the things that haven’t yet made the papers.
Well, that paper has now got its fair share of attention from the media and the GSEs. Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has been going after Biden-appointed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over allegations that she mis-stated her primary residence on a mortgage application:
Pulte has written many dozens of tweets about this, at least one of which cited the Philly Fed paper:
Now President Trump is trying to fire Cook. Federal Reserve Governors can only be fired “for cause” and none ever have been, but Trump is using this alleged mortgage fraud to try to make Cook the first.
The Trump administration seems to have made the same realization as Xi Jinping did back in 2012– that when corruption is sufficiently widespread, some of your political opponents have likely engaged in it and so can be legally targeted in an anti-corruption crackdown (while corruption by your friends is overlooked).
I’m one of a few people hoping for the Fed to be run the most competent technocrats with a minimum of political interference:
I previously reviewed Vanguard founder John Bogle’s entry in this series, the Little Book of Common Sense Investing:
I can sum it up at much less than book length: the best investment advice for almost everyone is to buy and hold a diversified, low-fee fund that tracks an index like the S&P 500.
Greenblatt offers his own twist on value investing that emphasizes just two value metrics- earnings yield (basically P/E) and return on capital (return on assets). The idea is to blend them, finding the cheapest of the high-quality companies. The specific formula is to pick stocks with a return on assets of at least 25%, then select the ~30 stocks with the lowest P/E ratio among those (excluding utilities, financials, and foreign stocks), then hold them for a year before repeating the process. He shows that this idea performed very well from 1988 to 2010.
How has it done since? He still maintains the website, https://www.magicformulainvesting.com, that gives updated stock screens to implement his formula, which is nice. But the site doesn’t offer updated performance data, and his company (Gotham Capital) offers no ETF to implement the book’s strategy for you despite offering 3 other ETFs, which suggests that Greenblatt has lost confidence in the strategy. Here are the top current top stocks according to his site (using the default minimum market cap):
Perhaps this is worthwhile as an initial screen, but I wouldn’t simply buy these stocks even if you trust Greenblatt’s book. When I started looking them up, I found the very first two stocks I checked had negative GAAP earnings over the past year, meaning Greenblatt’s formula wouldn’t be picking them if it used correct data. The site does at least have a good disclaimer:
“Magic Formula” is a term used to describe the investment strategy explained in The Little Book That Beats the Market. There is nothing “magical” about the formula, and the use of the formula does not guarantee performance or investment success.
Greenblatt’s Little Book is a quick and easy way to learn a bit about value investing, but I think Bogle’s Little Book has the better advice.
Economist Writing Every Day 