The bombshell news in the tech world as of late Friday was that, in a sudden coup, the board of OpenAI fired CEO and tech entrepreneur Sam Altman, and demoted company cofounder and former president Greg Brockman. The exact grounds for their decision remain somewhat murky, but apparently Altman wanted to move faster with AI deployment and monetization than some board members were comfortable with.

The OpenAI organization burst on the scene in the past year with the release of advanced versions of ChatGPT. This “generative” AI technology can crank out computer code and human-like text articles and reports and images. Naturally, students have taken to employing ChatGPT to write their essays for them. And so, professors now use AI to detect whether their students’ essays were machine written or not.

Fellow blogger Joy Buchanan has addressed the rising problem of erroneous information (“hallucinations”) that can appear in AI generated material. There is a movement to slow down the development of AI, for fear it will lead to The End Of The World As We Know It (TEOTWAWKI).  (Interestingly, all of the business commentators I listened to today dismissed the alleged world-ending dangers of generative AI as largely deliberate hype on the part of AI developers, to create a buzz – which it has.)

Having hitched itself technically to OpenAI technology, and having poured something like $13 billion into funding OpenAI, giving it a 49% ownership stake in part of the business, Microsoft was obviously concerned about the effect of Altman’s dismissal on its own AI plans.  As it became clear that the board action would lead to substantial dysfunction at OpenAI, Microsoft carried out its own coup, by hiring Altman and Brockman to run a big in-house AI research initiative, and making it clear that anyone else who wanted to resign from open AI could have their old jobs back, under their old leaders, in Seattle.  And indeed, as of late Monday, nearly all of OpenAI’s employees had signed an open letter stating that unless the OpenAI board quits, they “may choose to resign from OpenAI and join the newly announced Microsoft subsidiary.”

Investors are still trying to figure out what all this means for Microsoft. A pessimistic take is that the corporation has to take a big write down on a $13 billion investment, if the OpenAI organization  (valued a month ago at $90 billion) loses its momentum. An optimistic take is that Microsoft may get the human capital crown jewels of this leading tech outfit for simply the cost of salaries (and signing bonuses), instead of shelling out to buy the enterprise as such. Also, having the technology all in-house would remove the vulnerability of Microsoft currently faces with having a key piece of its future in the hands of a separate organization. There is debate on how much the intellectual property held by OpenAI would inhibit Microsoft from forging ahead with its own version of ChatGPT.

According to Wikipedia:

Shares in Microsoft fell nearly three percent following the announcement.   According to CoinDesk, the value of Worldcoin, an iris biometric cryptocurrency co-founded by Altman, decreased twelve percent.   After hiring Altman, Microsoft’s stock price rose over two percent to an all-time high.  

According to The Information, Altman’s removal risks a share sale led by Thrive Capital valuing the company at US$86 billion.   A potential second tender offer for early-stage investors is also at risk.   Altman’s removal could benefit OpenAI’s competitors, such as Anthropic, Quora, Hugging Face, Meta Platforms, and Google.  The Economist wrote that the removal could slow down the artificial intelligence industry as a whole.  Google DeepMind received an increase in applicants, according to The Information. Several investors considered writing down their OpenAI investments to zero, impacting the company’s ability to raise capital. Over one hundred companies using OpenAI contacted competing startup Anthropic according to The Information; others reached out to Google Cloud, Cohere, and Microsoft Azure.

There is a slight possibility that the open AI board could take a big hit for the team, and bring back Altman and Brockman and then resign in order to keep the organization intact. If that happens, the deployment of generative AI would accelerate – – which might destroy the world.

THIS JUST IN: ALTMAN BACK IN CHARGE AT OPENAI

If there was a prize for “worst board decision of the year” it would have to go to the move late last week to fire Sam Altman. But just when you thought there was no more drama to be milked out of this scene, the news Wednesday is that the OpenAI board is out, and Altman is back in as CEO at OpenAI. Microsoft is presumably happy to have the organization intact, and it seems that those pesky timid souls who were trying to go slow on AI proliferation have been swept aside. TEOTWAWKI here we come…

Sometimes we think things have been incontrovertibly been proven, but we really only know them. Other times we think we know them but we really only think them. It’s always interesting when we something we think becomes something we know. We share those beliefs a little more often with a little more confidence. We start trying to tilt the balance of common knowledge one conversation at a time. I’d argue, however, that we would often be better served to wait until something is proven, as much as something can be proven. Or, at the very least, that our conversational was weight shifted far more when truly compelling evidence hits the scene.

I already believed that New York City’s infamous “Stop and Frisk” program was bad. That the bad outweighed the good. I was always careful to soften my language, to hedge my claims, however, because I always suspected there had to be some margins on which the program yielded some benefit to someone, somewhere, in some context. Criminal deterrence is real, after all.

I no longer feel any need to soften my language or claims one iota. There are research papers that change your priors. There are also ones that harden them into granite. Jonathan Tebes and Jeffrey Fagan have a new working paper they are presenting at conferences and quietly circulating that provides the single most compelling research effort into the effects of Stop and Frisk I have come across to date, one which makes the case that Stop and Frisk had now measurable effect at the margin to deter crime while, at the same came, causing significant harm to the young Black men walking the streets of New York City.

Please go through the slides, but let me summarize. Using a credible and clever event study design around the end of Stop and Frisk, Tebes and Fagan are able to identify the effect of stops on crime, finding an impressively precise null effect. They then look the effect of these stops of neighborhood schooling outcomes, specifically interruptions to instruction, persistent absences, suspensions, and graduation. The result, again, is very clear: Stop and Frisk was a disaster for high school age Black Men.

I’m just going to leave it there. Read the slides, read the paper when they release it, update your priors. And when someone tries to tell you at Thanksgiving dinner this year that New York City is going straight to hell because they ended Stop and Frisk, have the confidence to vigorously attempt to update their priors. Will it work? I’ve never met your family…but probably not.

But you gotta try, right? It’s your duty. And then make yourself a drink or take an extra slice of pie knowing that you earned it.

First, read this story from the NYT about the biggest producer of content on OnlyFans. TLDR; a couple have a compound in Florida and a full stable of employees (writers, editors, accountants, cooks, etc.) all being coordinated around the gigabytes of data generated by the supply and demand of their sexy content. If they were selling in a less stigmatized market, whis would be taught as a case study at business schools.

What I found interesting is how it simultaneously validated and assuaged all my fears about the opportunity to emotionally manipulate large numbers of people by using highly granular data. Don’t get me wrong, that’s arguably the story of every information-deficient marketing campaign ever, but I’m not talking about coarse, subliminal manipulation (“Look at this fully self-actualized person drive a car that signals their worth to strangers and their father”). I mean direct, interpersonal maninipulation through the fabrication of intimate parasocial bonds. The ability to allow customers to create their own, bespoke, false narrative in which they have a relationship with a beautiful stranger. At scale.

It’s that list bit that matters. What this couple have deconstructed is a formula for producing intimate parasocial relationships worth thousands of dollars to customer at scale.

The exploitation of fabricated relationships for income is the story behind the worlds oldest profession, not to mention most scams, for a very long time. The ability to produce them at any real scale, however, has been far more elusive. When someone pulls it off they’ve usually created a cult, whether it’s a new religion or a political cult of personality, and it’s worth taking note of. So have these Onlyfans creators laid out the blue print for future politicians, social entrepreneurs, and general power seekers? Are we at the beginning of an industrial revolution for social movements?

Actually, I kind of think they do have a blue print, but it’s going to be a minute before it crosses the chasm to other sectors because most fields that rely on parasocial relationships to grow don’t have the luxury of immediate profitability that sex work does. You might start your social movement with the ambition of analyzing every bit of data so your stable of employees in your Smithian pin factory of communications and content can rapidly grow your follower base, but you’re not going to have any money to pay them. What people tend to forget about sex work industries is that they generate revenue from minute one (that’s exactly what lures people into making what have historically been less than optimal long term personal decisions). By comparison, religious and political aspirants are a bunch of broke boys.

Religion and politics look like they have a lot of money until you consider size of the customer base (most people) and the sectors they influence (nearly all of them).  $14 billion was spent on federal election campaigns in the United States in 2020, the most ever. That sounds like a lot until you realize that a) it’s 2 and 4 year cycles and b) the federal government spends $6 trillion per year. By comparison, $5.5 billion poured through just OnlyFans, just last year. (Do I even need to convince you that new religious and social movements are notoriously short on cash?)

The story of each stage of the internet is the same thing over and over: a group of people couldn’t benefit from scale before but now they can. Social minorities looking to date couldn’t find each other before, now they can. People buying and selling pez dispensors can’t find each other, now they can. People with extreme beliefs were socially ostracized now they can find and reaffirm each other. People selling content to niche audiences used to have to find their customers through large media companies now they can do it directly. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both had disproportionate impact on American politics in part because they leverage the internet to disintermediate their ostenisble political parties. That’s the internet bringing scale to parts of the American electorate previously too distant from the median voter.

Power and ambition be damned, however, aspirant leaders are still not going to be able to build what two people selling naughty pictures in Florida were able to do because most people don’t want to pay for politics. Just ask every newspaper in the country struggling to stay afloat. We’re entering a new age of scale in the fake relationships being sold to us, but it will only be for the kinds of relationships we actually want. That doesn’t mean those will be emotionally nutritious relationships, but choice will remain intact. Portfolios of relationships for a lot of people are going to change, but I suspect its going to look less like Evita Peron and Jim Jones, and a lot more like Taylor Swift and Frito Lay.

Marketing will become more granular, more personal, more intrusive, and more effective. If this fills you with anxiety, I hope you can take some solace knowing its mostly going to happen for the stuff you are willing to pay for, like love, family, and your sense of self-worth. Data-enabled relationship fabrication will grow in market share as artificial intelligence crowds out the classically information driven side of marketing. The uncanny of valley of cringe is a customer relations disaster, a trap whose lines are invisible and always moving. For AI to learn where the boundaries lie is to move them. Which means this decidedly human labor market will grow all the faster. And a blue print for selling naughty content from a Florida couple will find its way to selling you damn near everything else.

Housing remains the most expensive monthly outlay for most Americans. There are signs of things getting better, but the fact remains that for those living within the first or second ring of suburbs surrounding a given city, space is at a premium. For this holiday season, give the gift of not taking up any more of that precious, precious space.

Don’t give them instant pots or juicers for their already full kitchen counter. Don’t give them clothes to go in their overflowing closets. Don’t give them knick knacks, tschotckes, or decorative thingamajigs that will rapidly migrate from shelves to bins to (shudder) storage units. Don’t get them stuff.

I’m not going to say get them “an experience” because we’ve all become a little weary of that cliche. What I suggest is getting them a luxury that might fall at the margins of their budget. Get them a massage. A facial. A stretching session (that’s a real thing). If they line wine or whiskey, get them a bottle they’ve never tried. The stuff they already like is easy, but my expectation is that is probably already in their budget. Gift them the risk of trying something they might not like.

Books are acceptable because there is an entire ecosystem that exists that take books from one home to the next once it has been read. Get them a subscription to Amazon Music or a download code for a new game on their PlayStation. Get them tickets to a concert or play. Get them a two hour cleaning service.

Babysit their kids for a Saturday. Tell them their hair looks nice and really sell it that you mean it. Leave them alone for a couple days so they can recooperate from a long week. Just no more stuff please.

I had the opportunity to present a new paper about theft to the faculty and students at two law schools last week. The questions and comments were interesting throughout, but I noticed a pattern in several of the questions from students: were we attributing too much rationality and sophistication to criminals?

Citing Becker (1968) as a useful exercise in applying economic parsimony to understanding how punishment and enforcement deter crime is one thing, but I think it’s simplicity sometimes undercuts a really important intuition that I hold to strongly: crime is boring. More specifically, a lot of crime (not all, of course) is a product of a banal calculus that arrives at the conclusion that my expected life (probabilistically) is better if I take this illegal action. These crimes seem irrational is because of two behavioral errors, not on the part of criminal, but on the part of the observer.

The first mistake is failing to realize you are observing the conclusion ex post, after the outcome has been revealed, and your ability to observe it is almost exclusively because the action failed i.e. they got caught. You know they got arrested for shoplifting an item that won’t significantly change the quality of their life. This feels like a mistake, but what you can’t observe is how many times they or someone else has taken the same action without negative consequences. If 1 in 10,000 thefts worth $500 are caught, then that’s probably an optimal choice for a lot of people.

The second mistake is implicitly assuming the same level of constraints that apply to your life apply to the criminal actor. We all know the question asking whether it is a sin to steal bread to feed a starving family, but that same logic applies in broader and less severe circumstances when considering the ex ante rationality of a choice. The cost-benefit analysis facing a potential thief is far different if they already carry the stigma of a criminal record. If their labor market opportunities are limited. If rent they have insufficient funds to cover is due is three days.

I find it interesting that people who disavow the salience of IQ and the people that place IQ at the center of their core model of humanity both seem to consistently underappreciate the sophistication of most human problem solvers. I’m not saying we all get the math right. Quite to the contrary, not only do we make constant errors in judgement, but the duress of operating under difficult constraints likely makes optimal decision-making all the more difficult. But those errors are relatively modest relative to the humans who are, at a baseline, tremendously sophisticated. They want and need resources and they can conceive of myriad manners in which to acquire them. Applying a lesser sophistication to people who steal from a CVS and sell to a middle-man who turns it over at a street corner or on Amazon puts any policy design at a disadvantage from the start.

If you want to divert people out of illegal markets and into legal labor, you’re better served treating them as people who made the optimal decision. Your ambition should not be to change their decision-making, but to change what the optimal decision is.

President Biden winning the Democratic nomination is currently priced at 72 cents on PredictIt, implying a roughly 72% chance of winning the nomination. Not the general 2024 election- where he is priced at a mere 43 cents- but the Democratic nomination.

To me it seems crazily underpriced to put the odds of an incumbent president being renominated by his own party at only 72%. Yes, his approval ratings are underwater, and yes he’s old, but the base rates here very much work the other way. No incumbent president has lost a vote to be renominated since Chester Arthur in 1884. It think its extremely unlikely Biden would run for nomination and lose; it makes more sense that he would choose not to run, like LBJ in 1968, but I see no indications of that.

I think Biden will only fail to be renominated if he dies or experiences a major decline in his health by the convention next August. This is certainly possible for an 80 year old but the odds of it are well below the 28% implied by PredictIt. A recent WSJ article lays out the details:

a nonsmoking male with Biden’s birthday, in good health, would be expected to live nine more years after next year’s Election Day, while for one with Trump’s birthday, it would be 11 years.

WSJ focuses on his chance of finishing a second term and doesn’t give an estimate for just making it to renomination, but my own look at actuarial tables shows that the average 80 year old has only a 6.5% probability of dying within a year. The chance of dying or getting a disabling health condition in a year is of course higher than that, but the convention is actually less than a year away in August, and the primaries will be done by June. Plus the WSJ article gives several reasons to think Biden is in better health than the average 80 year old:

First, the median includes people who drink alcohol. Regular drinking of two or more drinks, three or more times a week, shortens life expectancy by about seven years. Both Trump and Biden are teetotalers, in addition to being nonsmokers.

“Those are two of the biggest killers right there,” said Bradley Willcox, a professor and research director at the Department of Geriatric Medicine at the University of Hawaii. “When you eliminate excessive alcohol intake and smoking, one thing you’re left with is genetics.”

Here, Trump and Biden picked their parents well. Trump’s mother lived to 88 and his father to 93, though late in life he developed Alzheimer’s disease. Biden’s mother died at 92—living long enough to see her son become the sixth-oldest vice president. Joe Biden Sr. died at 86. That is even more impressive than it sounds: When those four individuals were born, life expectancy was around 50. 

Biden and Trump are each highly educated at a time when the life-expectancy gap between the educated and uneducated has been growing. They are wealthy, also a strong predictor of longer life. They receive excellent healthcare.

Add it all up and I think Biden has over a 90% chance of being renominated, so being able to bet on him at 72 cents seems like a great deal (even if it means tying up money that could now earn 5% interest elsewhere). PredictIt has betting limits and high withdrawal fees, but other prediction markets are in the same ballpark; Polymarket currently has Biden at 75c.

For similar reasons Trump is may also be underpriced to win the nomination, currently at 68 cents on PredictIt. He’s not an incumbent the same way, but he’s enough of one that I don’t think any of his electoral opponents can beat him for the nomination; he’d have to beat himself by dying or withdrawing (very unlikely), or be beaten by the legal system (he’ll continue to have trouble but I don’t think it will be enough to get him disqualified or in prison by the June convention).

It’s boring and its not my preference, but I think we are headed for a rematch of 2020. On the bright side, 80 isn’t what it used to be:

Disclaimer: Not investment advice. I did put my money where my mouth is here, and so am now talking my book

The Republicans can’t seem to elect a speaker of the house. This seems like a classic collective action problem, where the prisoner’s dilemma is a holding everyone back as they all try to individually free ride, hold out, defect, etc. But I think there is something deeper happening here that is actually quite simple.

Republicans are struggling to take a collective action because too many of them have no interest in producing any public good at all. As Mitt Romney observed, Jim Jordan has never authored legislation nor even sponsored a bill that passed. Humans have spent thousands of years devising clever mechanisms for solving collective action problems in pursuit of public goods, but the crux has always been a public good that could be pointed towards as a point of coordination and motivation for pushing through uncertainty and personal risk. If you are congressperson who has no interest in changing or defending the body of law, then the goal of electing a speaker within your party has no interest to you. In fact, failure to elect a speaker is actually preferred if that failure is generating attention that builds awareness of you and your personal brand.

Democrats should heed the warning of what they are observing as well. A small minority of pure attention seekers can shut down an entire party at the choke points both purposefully and accidentally placed within our constitutional republic. Collective action is everywhere and always fragile, not least of all when some participants have no interest in the public goods that might be produced.

Roger Forsgren recorded “Professional Skills To Rewire the Engineer’s Mindset” on the ContraMinds podcast (Released July 29, 2023)

Roger Forsgren is a retired Chief Knowledge Officer of NASA. He was a director of Academy of Program, Project and Engineering Leadership at NASA. Roger is also an undergraduate with a liberal arts degree, a mechanical engineering degree… the author of … “When Graduation is Over, Learning Begins – Lessons for STEM Students and Professionals”.

In this episode, Swami & Roger discuss the importance of having a liberal arts background for an engineer, foundational skills needed for successful engineers, how communication skills, decision-making skills, and working with people are as important as number crunching, and where empathy can help achieve efficiency in an imperfect world filled with vulnerable people.

• Forsgren does not see education as primarily a signaling exercise. Engineers need to know math and they learn much of it in school. Forsgren thinks of communication as a skill that can be learned, although I don’t think he would say that a traditional classroom is the only place to do that learning. Extra curricular activities probably play a role in developing social skills, and traditional school can be a good place to get that practice.
• Forsgren: “I’d be wasting my time if I tried to train NASA engineers in calculus… they know it already… In the past it’s always been called soft skills [and that turns people off]… what we do is we change that to ‘professional skills’ and this is something I think is ideal for an engineer because an engineer has a choice in their career… [you can just do the analytics and math] but if you want to move ahead in your career, if you want to become a manager… you really have to develop the post-professional skills of leadership and communication…”
• He has a section on former president Herbert Hoover. Forsgren said Herbert Hoover was the Elon Musk of his day. Hoover was extremely successful as an engineer, and even in some government positions relating to war and logistics. Then Hoover was a bad American president because of his poor communication skills. “He couldn’t lie… he had a hard time talking to people…”
• I have looked into the skills gap and computer engineering. Resources include my blog on Andrew Weaver who has a great survey on soft skills and IT, my CGO policy paper on The Slow Adjustment in Tech Labor: Why Do High-Paying Tech Jobs Go Unfilled?, and my experiment Willingness to be paid: Who trains for tech jobs?
• Forsgren has a lot of patience and compassion for people who don’t have naturally good social skills. If you don’t think you are great with people, then I recommend this short blog on Lucidity (HT: Tyler) by Leber. Leber’s portrait of a husband and wife misunderstanding each other could apply to people on either side of the Israel-Palestinian conflict right now.

For those earnestly interested in addressing issues surrounding firearms in the United States (and not just aligning with a political coalition), this working paper from Moshary, Shapiro, and Drango (MSD from here on) is an absolute must read. The technical moves are an interesting overlap of industrial organization economics and marketing analytics, but the punchlines all hit on the same topic: how do current and possible future firearms owners respond to prices for different products? When MSD estimate the price elasticities for different firearms, they are in effect asking one of those deep questions in economics that is always lying below the surface: are these goods substitutes?

It’s uncanny how much of the disputes within economic policy and regulation come down to how one defines substitutes. Is Coca-Cola a monopoly? Well, that depends on whether or not you think Pepsi or water is a close enough substitute. Should vapes be banned? That depends on how much demand you think will shift over to traditional cigarrettes. No matter your thoughts on marijuana legalization, I promise you the marketing and lobbying wings of the largest alcohol distributors have invested a lot in determining if cannabis is a substitute for their products (spoiler: it is).

Should assault weapons be banned? I am on the record as saying they should be, but the results in MSD give me pause. The bulk of firearms deaths are from handguns, and the bulk of people in the market for an assault rifle point to a handgun as their next-best alternative if an assault rifle is not an option. Would an assault rifle ban have the unintended consequence of pulling more handguns into the market and, in turn, create more firearms deaths?

This is not an easy question to answer because we haven’t actually taken the time to define the good. And by define the good, I mean define the bundle of attributes actually being purchased. The most obvious attribute of a firearm is the ability to point it at a living creature and take away its entire future. That it is such a chilling capacity that we sometimes fail to fill in the rest of the ledger. Firearms are a source of personal security, no small detail for isolated individuals. They are a means of pest control, an absolute necessity for anyone farming or raising smaller livestock. They are a way of signaling your group identity to others. Of affirming your idependence and strength. They are collectable, both as historical vintages and customizable baubles. They are highly effective at hunting game. They are fun to shoot at targets.

All of that means that when we consider banning, regulating, or taxing a specific class of firearm, we have to think really hard about the bundle of attributes being purchased and consumed, and what the next best alternative is for each customer shifted to a different product on the margin. The outcomes are perhaps more unpredictable than is often considered. Who is the marginal customer and what exactly is it that they want?

Consider a ban on assault rifles. Some will shift their demand to the black market. Despite the obvious danger in a group of individuals who illegally purchase high power firearms, we can actually ignore them at this stage because there’s no option where they don’t acquire assault weapons. What about the rest? Some are desperate to protect their homes. Hopefully they will be easier to persuade now that a shotgun is their best option (pro tip: it always was). Some want to maximize their capacity to do harm: absent maximal power, they may now opt for concealability and mobility i.e. a handgun. This seems like a particularly viable story in states that allow for the carrying of concealed weapons in public with or without a license.

Some, however, might view their $1200-$3000 might be better spent putting a snorkel on their jeep engine ($700), a bowie knife on their hip ($250), and bottle of Michters Single Barrel Whiskey on their shelf ($500*). Maybe they’ll blow it all at once on a lift kit for their truck. We can rest assured that the marketplace will offer no shortage of goods that offer little value save for people to impress their friends with what they just bought, which is a blessing. Substitution to tactical sunglasses and raunchy mudflaps is unequivicably preferable to more Glock 19s.

What about a ban on handguns? Here MSD identifiy an important asymmtry: customers in the market for a handgun don’t consider long guns, while would be purchasers of long guns frequently explicitly consider a handgun on their 2nd choice. From the point of view of minimizing firearms deaths, a ban on handguns may be optimal, but it is hard to predict what the substitutes will be. Based on their measured elasticities of demand for different types of guns, MSD estimate that a 10% tax on all firearms would have the same net effect on total firearms in the market. Perhaps most importantly, it is highly unlikely to backfire into a shift in market composition towards assault weapons, something that can’t be ruled out by a handgun ban. Combined with current political realities, a tax on firearm would appear more feasible than any broad class bans.

For a large, but not unanimous, share of social scientists studying firearms, the outcome desired is 1) a smaller fraction Americans with access to firearms, and 2) reduced capacity to commit large scale acts of violence with high powered firearms. Putting aside any disagreement on the desired outcomes, the policy steps forward still allow for meaningful uncertainty. Yes, I know that heavily restricting firearms in Australia has been wildly successful. It’s hard to argue with a total homicide rate roughly a tenth of the US rate. But we can only consider the policy options that are actually on the table and the voter status quo. Current options are likely limited to either a narrow ban on a subset firearms or a modest tax on them all. The status quo is one where a third of all Americans own a gun, 81% of whom feel safer because they have one.

Given these unavoidable constraints, good firearms policy (not optimal, merely good) requires knowing what it is that people are buying so we can tilt the playing field in the right way. We live in a world where politicians are sending AR-15 toting Christmas cards and pantomime tough guys are ordering their Subway Chicken Teriyakis while armed to the gills. There’s no policy prescription that’s going to magically create earnest politicians and emotionally secure men, but everyone responds to prices.

*I apologize to fans of Michters, I just don’t like their bourbon very much relative to the price. If you want to impress your friends, track down a bottle of William Larue Weller. It’s expensive, but it might be the best bourbon in the world, and that includes all of the Pappys.**

**Okay, its not as good as the Stitzel-Weller Pappy 20 I first tried in 2011. That’s still the greatest thing I’ve ever consumed. But that doesn’t exist anymore as far as I know or could hope to afford. My advice is to let it all go and just buy a bottle of Four Roses Single Barrel. Always less than $50, always fantastic.