In no particular order:
The “broken windows” theory of crime (i.e small crimes lead to bigger crimes) continues continues to find very little support.
Air quality remains an underrated public good.
It’s conditional cooperation all the way down.
Literature on Recent Advances in Applied Micro Methods
Your one-stop-shop for an updating list of the papers currently advancing causal identification in social science
What, you think I’m going to pretend anyone is paying attention to anything but the trainwreck on Wall Street? As of 10:15AM this morning, the market is down 8% in 5 days, almost 20% off it’s peak, and is still falling. It’s entirely attributable to a unfathomably stupid trade war that has been forecast for months, if not years. This is the kind of probabalistic event that is usually internalized within the market in advance, which suggests that either very few people thought Trump a) was telling the truth, b) would be able to execute, or c) other forces within government would be able to stop him.
The legislative branch has largely ceded power to the executive, with only the judicial hanging on as some check against power. The open question, then, is at what level of damage will the legislative branch find incentive to reassert itself against an executive that (probably) doesn’t have the constraint of a future electoral victory to pursue? Will the destruction of great swaths of the US and global economy warrant reclaiming of power or impeachment of an executive?
I’m not optimistic.
I’m finally watching the Ken and Sarah Burns documentary on Da Vinci. It is, predictably, excellent. If you are heavily read on Da Vinci then there probably isn’t much that will be new to you, but the visual composition really adds something to what is less a propulsive story and more an attempt to capture the raw capaciousness of this person’s mind. It’s breathtaking, humbling, and inspiring.
There is a temptation to marvel at his dedication, ability to learn, and breadth. To relegate his accomplishments to the realm of outlier genius. Fight that temptation. Instead, take a moment to consider how dedicated he was to being unencumbered. To finding projects and patrons that would service to subsidize his pursuits in totality.
More than anything, observe a brilliant person for whom both the prospect and opportunity of boredom led him to follow his curiousity into whatever intellectual avenues it wanted to pursue, and then turning his imagination into product manifest in text and on canvas.
Boredom is an opportunity we increasingly don’t afford ourselves nearly enough of. We are starved for boredom. Allow for its sustenance.
“In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man. Between them stands a sellsword. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. Who lives and who dies?”
…“Power is a curious thing, my lord. Perchance you have considered the riddle I posed you that day in the inn?”
“It has crossed my mind a time or two,” Tyrion admitted. “The king, the priest, the rich man—who lives and who dies? Who will the swordsman obey? It’s a riddle without an answer, or rather, too many answers. All depends on the man with the sword.”
“And yet he is no one,” Varys said. “He has neither crown nor gold nor favor of the gods, only a piece of pointed steel.”
“That piece of steel is the power of life and death.”
“Just so… yet if it is the swordsmen who rule us in truth, why do we pretend our kings hold the power? Why should a strong man with a sword ever obey a child king like Joffrey, or a wine-sodden oaf like his father?”
“Because these child kings and drunken oafs can call other strong men, with other swords.”
“Then these other swordsmen have the true power. Or do they?” Varys smiled. “Some say knowledge is power. Some tell us that all power comes from the gods. Others say it derives from law. Yet that day on the steps of Baelor’s Sept, our godly High Septon and the lawful Queen Regent and your ever-so-knowledgeable servant were as powerless as any cobbler or cooper in the crowd. Who truly killed Eddard Stark, do you think? Joffrey, who gave the command? Ser Ilyn Payne, who swung the sword? Or… another?”
Tyrion cocked his head sideways. “Did you mean to answer your damned riddle, or only to make my head ache worse?”
Varys smiled. “Here, then. Power resides where men believe it resides. No more and no less.”
“So power is a mummer’s trick?”
“A shadow on the wall,” Varys murmured, “yet shadows can kill. And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow.”
Tyrion smiled. “Lord Varys, I am growing strangely fond of you. I may kill you yet, but I think I’d feel sad about it.”
GRR Martin, Song of Ice and Fire, Vol 2
Will they be subpoenaed? If yes, will they comply? If they comply will they be arrested? If arrested will they be tried and convicted? If convicted will they be pardoned? If pardoned will he be impeached? If at any point your deductive reasoning concludes with a “no”, then you can reason backwards inductively to why this is happening.
Trade. Diplomacy. Aid. National Defense. Social Security. Medicaid. National Institute of Heatlh.
These are big things and they are under duress at best, out right attack at worst. It’s useful to when observers point out that bad policies are bad, that people are getting hurt, that there are consequences in play that have not been in play in since the early days of the Union. It’s useful, but what’s the next step? What is actionable?
I’m curious about the political incentives for damage control. Is there credit to be had for politicians who lay themselves on the tracks in front of an administration that seems to run on spite, to draw the kind of attention that will lead to retribution against their districts and states? Are we seeing so little action on the part of the opposition party because there is no political incentive to take action?
Put another way, how do you sell opposition to constituents as they begin the feel the pain of new policy regimes? Is it simply going on TV to lay the blame ex post or do you tell them the pain is coming in advance? Is it good politics to serve as the messenger of doom for someone else’s policies?
This isn’t building up to a big observation. I don’t know. These are just the questions I’m walking around with. There’s something about the current administration that makes political opposition feel like punching a cloud. No one is sure what the adminstration can and can’t get away with. What the courts will strike down or hold up. What the next hour’s executive order will be. How do you oppose chaos if chaos is the sole (governance) objective?
The simple answer may simply be to begin building institutions at the subnational level. That takes time, and tax dollars, to be sure, but sometimes you have to plant trees whose shade you will never sit in. It doesn’t just have to be single states, either. Why can’t New York, California, and Massachusetts have their own health consortium to prepare flu vaccines and fund research? Why can’t Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona set aside resources to grow solar power generation? I don’t know how you escape federal tariffs legally, but such considerations don’t seem to be slowing down the executive branch. Why can’t California or Michigan play the same game?
I don’t know where this is going, and the entire political landscape may shift the first time Social Security checks go out a week late, but at some point the opposition will have to pivot from anger and resistance to building for a new and different governance landscape, and that will include rebuilding newer, perhaps more resilient or even redundant institutions. It’s all pie in the sky until it isn’t.
The future is always uncertain, but the short term returns on Luka Doncic to the Los Angeles Lakers already look better than some would have forecast. While he isn’t up to his highest previous standard of play yet, the reduced burden and additional space being enjoyed by Lebron James is already evident in his play. You’ll find no predictions regarding the rest of the season here, but it is a healthy reminder that complementarities are harder to anticipate than substitutes. The possibility of substitution between inputs is more than anything else revealed by their sameness, an attribute that alllows revelation by comparions. Complementarity, on the other hand, is far more complex and often obfuscated by the near infinite ways two or more inputs can be different. Substitutes can be predicted with information and attention to detail, and is therefore more easily reduced to a repeatably applied formula. Predicting complementarities demands more bespoke creativity, an art that is far harder to differentiate from luck.
Institutional vandalism is neither privatization nor creative destruction. It’s just cruelty masquerading as genius that plans to simply plead the necessary risk of endeavor when exposed as gratuitous incompetence. We may, within 10 years, see a newer, better NIH (or, preferably, cluster of baby NIHs) rise from the ashes. We may see a revitalized NSF and a whole slew of new institutions funding educaton research domestically and supporting the broader world through American aid programs. Maybe, maybe not.
But make no mistake: this is not a controlled burn. There is no plan, other than perhaps the wholly articulated belief that destruction wrought from chaos is a plan. This is a series of forest fires set by gleefull children with matches, wholly unable to even comprehend the risks they are taking on behalf of everyone else. We’ll probably get through to the other side, but for those of us who have been thinking about tail risk for a decade of Trump, the number of standard deviations between us and the unthinkable keeps getting smaller.
How bad are things? You know, in terms of our democracy and economy crumbling under the great wheel of history as the current administration tries to waddle us into fascist kakistrocracy. Are they bad? Maybe! Or maybe things are mostly fine and all we have to cope with is fear-peddling journalists and neurotic academics hyperventilating through what promises to be a four-year panic attack.
Well, Tyler is looking for market indicators. Signs that the market is internalizing the possibility of deteriorating government and political institutions into prices. That’s a really tall order, even more so than what it might seem to those of us who tend to rely on prices to reveal collective wisdom and the best underlying forecast. Prices reflect the expected benefits and the opportunity cost of an asset or choice in question. Opportunity cost can be explained in a number of ways, but they all boil down to the best outside option. It’s always going to be trickier to expect convenient and obvious price indicators for risk that is inescapable, where there is little in the way of an outside option. If you want a good forecast for avian flu, poultry and egg prices work pretty well, reflecting culled supply, reduced demand from a fearful public that thinks carnitas is sufficiently tasty, and the moves made by speculators who think that things are (or are not) going to get worse. So what are the analogous prices for those speculating that the center will or will not continue to hold in the Great American Project?
If you believe that the Trump administration is, in fact, trying to backdoor in an authoritarian revolution while walling off the largest economy from the rest of the world into a protectionist backwater, all while undermining the global reserve currency, what exactly is the outside option? Where can the money go? The people? The ideas? There are no doubt answers to those questions, but while most of the developed world is struggling with protectionist and authoritarian fevers, all while many entertain the prospect of a Russian invader who is already actively attacking a democratic nation, a host of obvious answers don’t rush to mind.
But let’s not punt entirely. Let’s get a little more micro. Is the market internalizing a more protectionist future for the US market and the global economy? Here’s the S&P 500 index for the “Materials” sector vs the entire S&P 500 over the last year:
Correlation is not causation, but the rapid drop off in the value of “chemicals, construction materials, containers and packaging, metals and mining, and paper and forest products” since what was effectively a coin-flip election is certainly convenient to the hypothesis that the market thinks materials previously circulating the global economy are not as likely to find their most valued uses under the Trump administration. If the market thinks we should take the threats of protectionism seriously, why shouldn’t we treat the administration’s threats to default on the debt similarly? Of weaponizing the DOJ against political opponents or ignoring court decisions? There’s not going to be a silver bullet composite price, but for each individual threat we should be looking for a relevant price.
If we are going to accept the hypothesis that any one single price indicator is going to be hard to identify, how about a forecasting index? The folks beind the Policy Uncertainty Index have a measure that reflects the language used in a large variety of publications combined with professional forecasters to reveal not what the future of policy is likely to be, but how much disagreement there is about it. Again quite the increase in the aftermath of a coin-flip election, which is odd because you would expect their to be more uncertainty before a coin-flip election, not afterwards. Shouldn’t we know what we are getting to a greater degree now what we know who is holding the office? I mean, assuming we actually know who is wielding power and influence within the office…
So there are some metrics that point towards a more isolationist future characterized by less predictable government institutions. That’s not nothing. We should be careful not to expect the markets to hand us a forecast on a silver platter, however. In both 1962 and 1983, it’s entirely possibe that nuclear war was averted by Stanislav Petrov and Vasily Arkhipov, who respectively refused to launch missiles and report (erroneously indicated) US missile launches, as dictated by Soviet protocol. As chaos is injected into the US government, including those tasked with overseeing the nuclear arsenal, we should perhaps look to the past. What were the prices that revealed how close we were to history-forking events? Did any price reflect the ebbs and flows in that underlying risk, the changing cultures within the Soviet military and the growing and shrinking prospects of nuclear war? Or did prices instead remain largely untouched by such tides of history? Not to get melodramatically apocalyptic, but perhaps prices cannot accurately reflect the prospect of a world without connection to the markets of today. So it goes. There’s some risk you simply can’t diversify, insure, or reallocate against.
Which prices will reflect those risks?
On its merits, the dumbest trade in the history of the NBA, if not modern professional sports, occurred last week. There is no shortage of content explaining why the trading of Luka Doncic for Anthony Davis was a poorly exectuted trade in which the Dallas Mavericks got pennies on the dollar from the Los Angeles Lakers. Even if you subscribe to the theory that there is a signficant unobserved defect in Doncic motivating Dallas to avoid what would have been a new $350m contract, the fact remains they could have traded him for a host of draft assets far in excess of the value of Anthony Davis.
This has unsurprisingly spawned a cottage industry of conspiracy theories. The most popular is that the new Dallas owners are maneuvering for a casino license, but my favoirte is that the owners have inside information that a new Saudi Arabian, LIV Golf-style, rival league is in the works (I can’t find a post where such a thing was suggested. If you have a link, please put it in the comments). I have observed **ZERO** evidence for such a thing…but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t make for an excellent thought experiment, particularly since I think Saudi “sport washing” is largely motivated by a desire to diversify out of the oil business. A couple actual facts:
So, let’s put it this way. Why *wouldn’t* the Saudi Arabian PIF invest $5 billion in creating a rival basketball league? Remember, the Saudi soccer league successfully acquired some of the best players in the world from a sport that a) has nearly zero restrictions on salary (“financial fair play” rules not withstanding) and b) is, quite frankly, miserable to play with players that are below your level. What sort of havoc could they wreak on the NBA?
They could at least double the salaries of every single non-American player in a league that, in many cases, would be a shorter flight to their home countries. For comparative pennies they could fill out the rosters tripling the salaries of all of the best players in the Spanish and Italian leagues. As the PGA learned, there are no doubt a couple dozen top American players that would be happy to play abroad for 200% salary bumps. Would a single season of Lebron be worth a half billion dollars to a nascent league? Victor Wembanyama is currently the single most valuable player asset in the NBA and is getting paid $12.77million a year. A Saudi league could start him at $60m a year today and not bat an eye. What is the career arc of a sport-altering talent worth from beginning to end for a global entertainment product?
What exactly are the incentives for players, especially non-American players, and the PIF to honor existing contracts? Having a top 5 player under contract has exactly zero value if they don’t intend to honor the deal. Let’s go further – what exactly is the value of a draft pick if the cartel enforcing your “right” to be the sole employment option for player if that draft right isn’t honored by a rival league offering higher wages? The entire market value of NBA assets is predicated on the pre-existing property rights surrounding contracts and draft status. The calculus underlying those values is made astonishingly complex by the byzantine rules of the NBA salary cap. It’s all very confusing, but also taken entirely for granted in the ecosystem of analysts inside and pundits outside the system.
What happens if a rival shows up with no regard for the pre-existing institutions of the NBA cartel?
Every NBA institution would be up for grabs. The salary cap? It threatens the ability to retain the top talent. The draft? Why would rookies accept pennies on the dollar and a single possible employer? Why would someone who grew up in Sao Paulo want to take an 80% paycut for the privlege of playing in a town they’ve never heard of? I’m sure people who grew up in Los Angeles would prefer San Antonio to Riyadh, but *how much* would they prefer it? Is it a $100 million preference?
There is no shortage of irony in European sports existing in largely unbridled market competition while American sports leagues putter on as little socialist cartels. The thing about cartels is that all the antitrust exemptions in the world won’t protect you from competition if you’re too profitable. And the NBA is very profitable.
Again, I don’t think there is reason yet to believe that the Dallas Mavericks made anything other than a foolish, no good, very bad business decision. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t also the first sign that NBA owners aren’t 100% sure how to value their current assets going forward. This deal wasn’t just foolish, it was weird. When market prices get weird, big changes aren’t usually far off.
Economist Writing Every Day 