Books

The Little Book of Common Sense Investing

James Bailey2 Comments

John Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, wrote a short book in 2006 that explains his investment philosophy. 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.

Of course, a strategy that is simple to state may still take time to understand and effort to stick to. So the book helps to build intuition for why this strategy makes sense. I think Bogle makes his case well, though the book is getting a bit dated- the charts and examples end in 2006, and he sets up mutual funds as the big foil, when today it might be high-fee index funds or picking your own stocks.

The silver lining of any dated investing book is that we can check up on how its predictions have fared. In chapter 8, Bogle compared the performance of the 355 equity mutual funds that existed in 1970 to that of the S&P over the 1970-2006 period. He notes that 223 of the funds had gone out of business by 2006, and even most of the surviving funds underperformed the S&P. But he identifies 3 funds that outperformed the S&P significantly (over 2% per year) on a sustained basis (consistently good performance, not just high returns at the beginning when they were small): Davis New York Venture, Fidelity Contrafund, and Franklin Mutual Shares. But how have they done since the book came out?

It is a huge victory for the S&P (in blue). Franklin Mutual Shares is basically flat over the past 20 years, while Davis New York Fund actually lost money. Fidelity Contrafund returned a respectable 281% (about 7% per year), and matched the S&P as recently as 2020. But as of 2025 the S&P is the clear winner, up 411% in 20 years (over 8% per year). Score one for Bogle.

But I still have to wonder if there is a way to beat the S&P- and I think one of Bogle’s warnings is really an idea in disguise. He warns repeatedly about “performance chasing”:

But whatever returns each sector ETF may earn, the investors in those very ETFs will likely, if not certainly, earn returns that fall well behind them. There is abundant evidence that the most popular sector funds of the day are those that have recently enjoyed the most spectacular recent performance, and that such “after-the-fact” popularity is a recipe for unsuccessful investing.

The claim is that investors pile into funds that did well over the past 1-3 years, but these funds subsequently underperform. But if this is true, could you succeed by reversing the strategy, buying into the unpopular sectors that have recently underperformed? I’ve been wondering about this, though I have yet to try seriously backtesting the idea. I was surprised to see Mr. Index Fund himself support such attempts to beat the market toward the end of his book:

Building an investment portfolio can be exciting…. If you crave excitement, I would encourage you to do exactly that. Life is short. If you want to enjoy the fun, enjoy! But not with one penny more than 5 percent of your investment assets.

He goes on to say that even for the fun 5% of the portfolio he still doesn’t recommend hedge funds, commodity funds, or closet indexers. But go ahead and try buying individual stocks, or actively managed mutual funds “if they are run buy managers who own their own firms, who follow distinctive philosophies, and who invest for the long term, without benchmark hugging.”

A Wartime Natural Experiment About Copyright

Joy Buchanan2 Comments

One of the hardest questions in copyright policy is: “What would have happened otherwise?” When Disney lobbies for longer copyright terms or academic publishers defend high subscription fees, we struggle to evaluate their claims because we can’t observe the counterfactual. What would happen to creativity and innovation if we shortened copyright terms or lowered prices?

This is what makes Biasi and Moser’s 2021 study in the American Economic Journal: Microeconomics valuable. They examine a rare “natural experiment” from World War II – the Book Republication Program (BRP) – which provides insights into how copyright affects the spread and use of knowledge.

In 1942, the U.S. government allowed American publishers to reprint German scientific books without seeking permission from German copyright holders (though royalties were still paid to the U.S. government). This created a test case: German books suddenly became cheaper, while similar Swiss scientific books (Switzerland being neutral in the war) maintained their original copyright protection and prices.

This setup lets us answer the counterfactual question. What happens when you maintain basic royalty payments but prevent monopoly pricing? The researchers compared the same book before and after the policy change, German books versus Swiss books, areas near libraries with these books versus those without, and usage by English-speaking scientists versus others. Such comprehensive comparison groups are rarely available in copyright research.

The authors report that when book prices fell by 10%, new research citing these books increased by 40%. The benefits spread beyond elite institutions, with new research clusters emerging wherever scientists gained access to these books. This does not appear to just be shifting citations from one source to another – there was genuine new knowledge creation, evidenced by increased patents and PhD production.

Such clean natural experiments in copyright policy are rare (there are a few laboratory experiments). Most changes come from lobbying (like the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”) or technological disruption (like music streaming), making it hard to isolate the effects of copyright itself. The BRP provides uniquely clear evidence that moderate copyright protection – rather than maximum protection – might better serve innovation.

As we debate copyright terms and academic paywalls today, this historical accident of war gives us something valuable: empirical evidence about what happens when you find a middle ground between total copyright protection and unrestricted access.

Biasi, Barbara and Petra Moser. 2021. “Effects of Copyrights on Science: Evidence from the WWII Book Republication Program.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 13 (4): 218–60.

2024 in Books

James BaileyLeave a comment

Quick thoughts on what I read in 2024- though note that none of these were published in 2024, since almost all the best stuff is older. First some econ books I reviewed here this year:

Rockonomics– “Alan Kreuger’s 2019 book on the economics of popular music…. a well-written mix of economic theory, data, and interviews with well-known musicians, by an author who clearly loves music.”

We’ve Got You Covered– “Liran Einav and Amy Finkelstein are easily two of the best health economists of their generation.… while I don’t agree with all of their policy proposals, the book makes for an engaging, accurate, and easily readable introduction to the current US health care system.”

The Psychology of Money– “Morgan Housel’s Psychology of Money is not much like other personal finance books…. The book is not only pleasant to read, but at least for me exerts a calming effect I definitely do not normally associate with the finance genre, as if the subtext of ‘just be chill, be patient, follow the plan and everything will be alright’ is continually seeping into my brain.”

One Up on Wall Street– “Peter Lynch was one of the most successful investors of the 1970’s and 1980’s as the head of the Fidelity Magellan Fund. In 1989 he explained how he did it and why he thought retail investors could succeed with the same strategies”

Leave Me Alone and I’ll Make You Rich– “a 2020 book by Dierdre McCloskey and Art Carden…. attempts to sum up McCloskey’s trilogy of huge books on the ‘Bourgeois Virtues‘ in one short, relatively easy to read book”

Non-fiction I didn’t previously mention here:

The Simple Path to Wealth (JL Collins, 2016): the book is indeed simple, and its advice is indeed likely to leave you fairly wealthy in terms of money. One sentence summarizes it well: save a large portion of your income and invest it in VTSAX, and perhaps VBTLX. Easy to read, a bit like reading a series of blog posts, which is how much of the material originated. Good introduction to the lean-FIRE type mentality. But the book, like that mentality, is too frugal and debt-averse for my taste, and I say that as someone much more frugal and debt-averse than the average American.

The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up on Free Markets: Thomas Philippon argues that markets have been growing less competitive in America because of weakening antitrust enforcement, and that this has harmed consumers and productivity. He acknowledges that over-regulation can also harm competition, but clearly thinks antitrust is much more important; I think otherwise and didn’t find the book convincing. He sets European markets as an example for what America should aspire to, which means the book has aged poorly since its 2019 publication. It still of course has some value, and I may do a full review at some point.

The Storm Before the Storm: The Beginning of the End of the Roman Republic (Mike Duncan, 2017): Non-fiction but more exciting than most novels. A story of obvious importance to those who worry about modern republics teetering, but fresh compared to the much more famous events around Julius and Augustus Caesar and the ‘official’ fall of the Republic. Though arguably the Republic fell in the 80s BC, not the 40s- the book explains that Rome was taken over three times in this era by armies seeking political change.

Self-Help Is Like a Vaccine: Essays on Living Better: Nice collection of Brian Caplan blog posts on the subject.

Fiction:

Ivanhoe (Walter Scott, 1819): A particularly medieval telling of the Robin Hood tale, with a focus on the nobility and knights of England at that time. Chivalric romance, trial by combat, storming a castle. Highs are high but it needed an editor, could be cut by at least 1/3 without losing anything.

Kim (Rudyard Kipling, 1901): Three books in one, all excellent: a coming of age story, a spy thriller, and a portrait of the many different types of people and religions to be found in India around 1900. All wrapped together with beautiful English prose that makes heavy use of Indian loan words.

Final Thoughts:

Obviously I’m not Tyler Cowen reading a book a day, unless you count the kids books I read to my 1-year-old. But overall 2024 was a good year, better than I realized before I put this post together. Partly I credit the 1-year-old who wants to take my phone and computer but doesn’t mind when I have a book in my hands.

We’ve Got You Covered

James Bailey1 Comment

That’s the title of a recent book by Liran Einav and Amy Finkelstein, subtitled “Rebooting American Health Care”. I reviewed the book for Independent Review; the short version of my review is that while I don’t agree with all of their policy proposals, the book makes for an engaging, accurate, and easily readable introduction to the current US health care system. Here’s the start of the review:

Liran Einav and Amy Finkelstein are easily two of the best health economists of their generation. They have each spent twenty years churning out insightful papers published in the top economics journals. As a young health economist, I would read their papers and admire how well they addressed the technical issues at hand, but I was always left wondering what they thought about the big picture of health care in the United States….

The book’s prologue describes how Finkelstein’s father-in-law finally bullied her into writing on the topic, using almost the exact words I always wanted to: “I know these are hard issues. But come on … You’ve been studying them for twenty years. You must be one of the best placed people to help us understand the options. Do you really have nothing to say on this topic?”

The conclusion:

I learned a lot reading the book, despite having already studied U.S. health financing for over a decade—for instance, that the first compulsory health insurance program in the U.S. was a 1798 law pushed by Alexander Hamilton to cover foreign sailors. While the authors are more used to writing math-heavy academic papers, We’ve Got You Covered reads like the popular press book it is. Perhaps the highest endorsement comes from a non-academic family member of mine who picked up the book and noted, “These are not dry writers … this doesn’t sound like a book written by economists, no offense.”

The full review is free here, the book is for sale here.

Cato Globalization book out in paperback

Joy Buchanan1 Comment

A new book is out with chapters by me, Deirdre McCloskey, and others.

Book Title: Defending Globalization: Facts and Myths about the Global Economy and Its Fundamental Humanity

The COVID-19 pandemic, war in Ukraine, simmering US-China tensions, and rising global populism have led to globalization facing renewed attention-and criticism-from politicians and pundits across the political spectrum. Like any market phenomenon, the free movement of people, things, money, and ideas across natural or political borders is imperfect and often disruptive. But it has also produced undeniable benefits-for the United States and the world-that no other system can match. And it’s been going on since the dawn of recorded history.

The original essays compiled in this volume offer a diverse range of perspectives on globalization-what it is, what it has produced, what its alternatives are, and what people think about it-and offer a strong, proactive case for more global integration in the years ahead. Covering the basic economic and political ideas and historical facts underlying globalization, rebutting the most common arguments against globalization today, and educating readers on the intersection of globalization and our societies and cultures-from where we live to what clothes we wear and what foods we eat-Defending Globalization demonstrates the essential humanity of international trade and migration, and why the United States and the rest of the world need more of it.

You can read a summary, in a previous EWED blog post, of my chapter on fashion, previously posted on the Cato website as Fast Fashion, Global Trade, and Sustainable Abundance.

It takes all of us to be rich. We need “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language,” so to speak.

Two years ago, on Twitter, I summarized my contribution as follows, in the form of a dialogue:

Person from the Past: “So, how is it with 8 billion people?”

Me Today: “It’s bad. We have too many clothes.”

Person from the Past: “Right. With 8 billion you wouldn’t have enough clothes for everyone.”

Me Today: “Too many.”

I made it to the book launch event in D.C. near the Capitol.

Some people still have not heard of “fast fashion.” Maybe you heard it here first: New legislation is likely coming to regulate the clothing industry. It might start at the state level, in progressive places like California or Seattle. Demands include making information about supply chains more transparent and taxing the clothing companies in order to pay for trash disposal. For example, you can read about the New York Fashion Act. Similar to the way the food companies have to provide clear information about calories, clothing retailers might have to provide more information about chemicals, labor, and disposal issues.

Plastic fibers making new clothing cheap. I sometimes hate the flood of cheap products that American families are drowning in. Plastic products are so cheap to stamp out and give to kids. Some days you’ll find me grumpy about the latest bag of plastic swag and candy my kids came home with. There are some negative externalities to consuming tons of plastic items and tossing them out.

It’s a privilege to have this problem. Perhaps we are overindulging in clothing abundance and need some modern solutions to modern problems. We also need to figure out how to stop getting obese off of food abundance. (Hello, Ozempic.) But let’s still be grateful for the abundance, on this Thanksgiving week. My controversial take is that it’s good for the cost of clothing to be low. We don’t want to regress. We don’t want to make clothing scarce again.

If you were to want to cite my work on fashion and globalization, then you could use something like this:

Buchanan, Joy. “Fast Fashion, Global Trade, and Sustainable Abundance” (2024) In S. Lincicome, & C. Packard (Eds.), Defending Globalization: Facts and Myths about the Global Economy and Its Fundamental Humanity, Cato Institute, (pp. 367 – 380).

Physics Highlights from What is Real

Joy BuchananLeave a comment

Some highlights from reading the book What is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics* 

Page 9 “The godfather of quantum physics, Niels Bohr, talked about a division between the world of big objects, where classical Newtonian physics rules, and small objects, where quantum physics reigned.”

The book has some drama, much centered around Einstein’s rejection of the Copenhagen interpretation.

The title of Chapter 2 is so excellent: “Chap 2: Something Rotten in the Eigenstate of Denmark”

Pg 37 “But Max Born had discovered a piece of the puzzle that summer. He found that a particle’s wave function in a location yields the probability of measuring the particle in that location – and that the wave function collapses once measurement happens… The measurement problem had arrived.”

Pg 56 “Einstein rejected any violation of locality, calling it “spooky action at a distance” in a letter to Max Born.”

Pg 79 “By the end of the war, the Manhattan Project had cost the nation nearly $25 billion, employing 125,000 people at thirty-one different locations across the United States and Canada. Hundreds of physicists were called away from their everyday laboratory work … After the war ended, physics research in the United States never returned to what it was… Damned by their success … military research dollars poured into physics.”

Pg 82 “Research into the meaning of quantum physics was one of the casualties of the war. With all these new students crowding classrooms around the country, professors found it impossible to teach the philosophical questions at the foundation of quantum physics.”

Joy: The politics of physics in academia was interesting to me. I recommend this book to university economists on that merit alone.

Page 100 “the photons are deliberately messing with you”

Experimentalists take note, page 104 “The story that comes along with a scientific theory influences the experiments that scientists choose to perform”

Joy: Having no internet greatly slowed down the spread of the correct ideas. However, eventually, over the course of a few decades and with a few career casualties, the more correct information did seem to influence the consensus.

Joy: I’m used to economists having very basic and sometimes heated disagreements. One might say that issues in economics are a bit more subjective than a topic in the physical sciences. However, with quantum physics turning out to be so weird, there are also heated disagreements among the physicists.

An equivalent book for economics might be Grand Pursuit by Sylvia Nasar.

Pg 108: “Bohm’s theory had also appeared during the height of Zhdanovism, an ideological campaign by Stalin’s USSR to stamp out any work that had even the faintest whiff of a conflict with the ideals of Soviet communism.”

Pg 124: “This universal wave function, according to Everett, obeyed the Schrödinger equation at all times, never collapsing, but splitting instead. Each experiment, each quantum event… creating a multitude of universes…”

*Thanks to Josh Reeves and Samford University for buying me the book.

Related previous posts: Is the Universe Legible to Intelligence?

Oppenheimer Film Thoughts

Literature Review is a Difficult Intellectual Task

Literature Review is a Difficult Intellectual Task

Joy Buchanan4 Comments

As I was reading through What is Real?, it occurred to me that I’d like a review on an issue. I thought, “Experimental physics is like experimental economics. You can sometimes predict what groups or “markets” will do. However, it’s hard to predict exactly what an individual human will do.” I would like to know who has written a little article on this topic.

I decided to feed the following prompt into several LLMs: “What economist has written about the following issue: Economics is like physics in the sense that predictions about large groups are easier to make than predictions about the smallest, atomic if you will, components of the whole.”

First, ChatGPT (free version) (I think I’m at “GPT-4o mini (July 18, 2024)”):

I get the sense from my experience that ChatGPT often references Keynes. Based on my research, I think that’s because there are a lot of mentions of Keynes books in the model training data. (See “”ChatGPT Hallucinates Nonexistent Citations: Evidence from Economics“) 

Next, I asked ChatGPT, “What is the best article for me to read to learn more?” It gave me 5 items. Item 2 was “Foundations of Economic Analysis” by Paul Samuelson, which likely would be helpful but it’s from 1947. I’d like something more recent to address the rise of empirical and experimental economics.

Item 5 was: “”Physics Envy in Economics” (various authors): You can search for articles or papers on this topic, which often discuss the parallels between economic modeling and physics.” Interestingly, ChatGPT is telling me to Google my question. That’s not bad advice, but I find it funny given the new competition between LLMs and “classic” search engines.

When I pressed it further for a current article, ChatGPT gave me a link to an NBER paper that was not very relevant. I could have tried harder to refine my prompts, but I was not immediately impressed. It seems like ChatGPT had a heavy bias toward starting with famous books and papers as opposed to finding something for me to read that would answer my specific question.

I gave Claude (paid) a try. Claude recommended, “If you’re interested in exploring this idea further, you might want to look into Hayek’s works, particularly “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (1945) and “The Pretense of Knowledge” (1974), his Nobel Prize lecture.” Again, I might have been able to get a better response if I kept refining my prompt, but Claude also seemed to initially respond by tossing out famous old books.

Continue reading →

Rockonomics Highlights

James Bailey1 Comment

I missed Alan Kreuger’s 2019 book on the economics of popular music when it first came out, but picked it up recently when preparing for a talk on Taylor Swift. It turns out to be a well-written mix of economic theory, data, and interviews with well-known musicians, by an author who clearly loves music. Some highlights:

[Music] is a surprisingly small industry, one that would go nearly unnoticed if music were not special in other respects…. less than $1 of every $1,000 in the U.S. economy is spent on music…. musicians represented only 0.13 percent of all employees [in 2016]; musicians’ share of the workforce has hovered around that same level since 1970.

there has been essentially no change in the two-to-one ratio of male to female musicians since the 1970s

The gig economy started with music…. musicians are almost five times more likely to report that they are self-employed than non-musicians

30 percent of musicians currently work for a religious organization as their main gig. There are a lot of church choirs and organists. A great many singers got their start performing in church, including Aretha Franklin, Whitney Houston, John Legend, Katy Perry, Faith Hill, Justin Timberlake, Janelle Monae, Usher, and many others

Continue reading →

Leave Me Alone and I’ll Make You Rich

James Bailey2 Comments

That is the title of a 2020 book by Dierdre McCloskey and Art Carden. It attempts to sum up McCloskey’s trilogy of huge books on the “Bourgeois Virtues” in one short, relatively easy to read book. I haven’t read the full trilogy, so I can’t say how good the new book is as a distillation, but I found that it was easy to read and at least makes me think I understand McCloskey’s basic thesis for why the world got rich. I share some highlights here.

Part 1 of the book aims to establish that the world did in fact get richer over recent centuries, plus give a basic explanation of liberal political thought. If you already know this you could skip this part and cut down an easy 189 page read to a very easy 106 page read (part 1 is for some reason written in a way that assumes you disagree with the authors, which grates when you don’t, or perhaps also if you do).

Part 2 gets to what I at least came for- digging into the history to solve the puzzle of why the Industrial Revolution / Great Enrichment took off when and where it did. Which means first, explaining why many things people think made 18th century England special were actually common elsewhere, like markets:

Continue reading →

One Up on Wall Street in the Meme Stock Era

James Bailey2 Comments

Peter Lynch was one of the most successful investors of the 1970’s and 1980’s as the head of the Fidelity Magellan Fund. In 1989 he explained how he did it and why he thought retail investors could succeed with the same strategies in the bestselling book “One Up on Wall Street”. Given the meme stock exuberance of retail investors in the past few years, I thought the book might be due for a comeback.

Instead interest seems flat, and when I do hear Peter Lynch mentioned it is by institutional investors more than retail. But the book seems to me like it is still valuable, so I’ll share some highlights here. This one could easily have been written this year:

Where did the Dow close? I’m more interested in how many stocks went up versus how many went down. These so-called advance/decline numbers paint a more realistic picture. Never has this been truer than in the recent exclusive market, where a few stocks advance while the majority languish. Investors who buy “undervalued” small stocks or midsize stocks have been punished for their prudence. People are wondering: How can the S&P 500 be up 20 percent and my stocks are down? The answer is that a few big stocks in the S&P 500 are propping up the averages.

I see why the book hasn’t caught on with meme stock traders:

Nobody believes in long-term investing more passionately than I do… I think of day-trading as at-home casino care.

I’ve never bought a future nor an option in my entire investing career, and I can’t imagine buying one now. It’s hard enough to make money in regular stocks without getting distracted by these side bets, which I’m told are nearly impossible to win unless you’re a professional trader.

So where does he think retail investors have a chance to get “One Up on Wall Street”?

Continue reading →