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.

I agree, but it's also pretty trivially true that basically anyone could massively increase the value of a large plot of land in the United States if he were exempted from land use rules. https://t.co/dPITL6xSIV

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) October 12, 2023

Hardly the most important thing going on this week, but Matt Yglesias said something I have some evidence against. Yglesias claimed that, “basically anyone could massively increase the value of a large plot of land in the United States if he were exempted from land use rules.”

What percent of people do you think could massively increase the value of a barren plot of land, even with no land use rules?

When I ran an experiment about intellectual property protection with Bart Wilson, we created a space for people to mine valuable “creative” goods, analogous to writing a hit song. The goods could be distributed to the rest of the subjects in the experiment to create a surplus for everyone.

This screenshot shows time spent in the “studio” for groups that did have intellectual property protection. Group 1 (IP1) spent less time in the studio even than any of the groups who were not offered intellectual property protection. We concluded that Group 1 did not have any people with entrepreneurial tendencies. We had not expected this to happen, so we highlighted the role of entrepreneurs in our conclusion from this experiment. Institutions interact with entrepreneurship. We found that more “entrepreneurship” emerged under the IP institution.

Francesca Gino has been acused of academic fraud. She claims she is innocent. I am not going to adjudicate here whether she committed fraud. What I am going to argue is that she and many other high volume researchers aren’t actually engaged in research. They are grant procurers, managers, high volume writers, globetrotting presenters. But they are not researchers because they are too far removed from the actual production of research. Now, to be clear, that doesn’t necessarily mean the world is worse off. Their comparative advantage may lie in everything from management to carnival barking, but there is a threshold, a degrees-too-far removed from the problem solving at which point you are you no longer a scholar. What that threshold is, I can’t say, but I would argue that if you can’t defend your work, investigate it’s own integrity, if you don’t know who your research assistants are or what they did, then you have likely crossed that thresold. From Gino’s (since updated) website:

We’ve all see the presentations or heard the stories of the leading scholar called on the carpet about something in their project or analysis, only to respond “I’m not sure. My RA did that.” Which is fine. But at some point that started to become assumed as characterizing whole researchers, whole agendas, whole fields. There are always going to be the prodigiously productive, but those people used to be one or two in a generation. Glorious anomalies. Universities are now littered with faculty with hundreds of publications, sometimes dozens in a single year, and we all know that it is physically impossible for them to conduct that work themselves. Gino received her PhD in 2004 and in the 19 years since has 460 (!!!) publications listed on google scholar. Some of those are probably duplicate listings, but it’s probably safe to say she has more than 20 publications per year for 20 years. It’s hard enough to imagine having energy enough to write and present that many papers even if they are produced entirely by others. This is not unique to Gino and there is no doubting the prodigious work ethic in evidence within her and others. What is in question is whether the ever raising bar on output is lowering the quality of work done by the field as a whole. It’s a tax on us all if research concentrated within the labor of the most qualified, competent, and creative no longer produces an acceptable return to scale. Some people really are better managers of other people’s work, at some point the work has to be attributable to one or more people. Who is doing the work? Who is responsible for the work?

Maybe this isn’t really useful and I don’t feel like yelling at clouds for 5000 words. As I was saying…

But I’ll tell you this- truly great researchers work with other greater researchers, employ smart people, mentor promising RAs. And they know who they are and what they did. Because when you’re in the weeds trying to answer questions, its almost impossible not to know. That doesn’t mean mistakes won’t be made and errors overlooked. But when it comes time to audit your work, you’ll know where to start and what might have gone wrong. If you don’t know, well, maybe you’re lying, but maybe more likely you just weren’t around when the work was getting done. You were promoting your last project and getting your next grant. Because you’re not a researcher. At least not anymore.

You’re a manager, promoter, figurehead, pitchman, traveling roadshow. You’re likely useful and valuable. Publication and Grant, LLC.

But you’re not a scholar. And the institutions employing you aren’t producing scholarship. These faculty are following their incentives, and those incentives are at the moment treating research as a game to be played. Not science. Not the answering of questions. An expensive hustle to grind and empty race to win. They’re getting what they’re paying (and tenuring) for.

The NFL has filed a grievance against the players union, alleging a conspiracy to fake injuries on the part of running backs to gain greater leverage in salary negotiations. To grant necessary context as succinctly as possible: running backs carry the ball while giant humans attempt to harm them. They do this 15 to 30 times per game. They are important to team success, but not as important as they once were. At the same time, they incur significant traumatic and cumulative damage, resulting in the shortest expected career length of any position in professional football. The NFL has a cap on total team salaries negotiated between the players union and the owners group/cartel/partnership. Running backs have seen their salaries decline even as the damage incurred as become more apparent and measurable. This raises an interesting question: where are the compensating wage differentials for risk? Everyone gets paid more if their job is dangerous. Do running back wages reflect their physical risk?

Supply and demand always come first, and any explanation for the (relative to other positions) decline in running backs salaries has to start with declining demand. Running backs are viewed as less valuable, more interchangable than they once were. At the margin, the returns to employing the best running back relative to the 30th best running back are viewed as thinner than in earlier eras. And that could be 95% of the answer, but it’s worth investigating the supply side as well.

The understood risk of injury facing running backs has increased. With greater risk typically comes less labor supply, the shifting equilibrium pushing wages up. Is this what we are seeing in football? Are fewer athletes interested in being a running back? Are running backs retiring earlier? Maybe, but that can cut both ways, reducing supply and demand.

But the supply side has multiple dimensions: both players entering the market (the “extensive” margin) and the amount they are willing to play (the “intensive” margin). Has the injury “threshold” shifted for running backs who are now less willing to play while already carrying significant damage? Because that’s exactly what I think we are seeing. I think running backs are beginning to reduce the amount of their bodies’ usable careers they are willing to sell at the current market price. They have reduced supply on the intensive margin. Running backs are demanding greater compensating wage differentials for risk and the owners don’t like it. They thought the supply of running back labor would remain almost perfectly inelastic under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, but they were wrong.

Now, is trying to organize a collective reduction in labor supply in order to better negotiate compensating wage differentials fair play on the part of the players? Absolutely. Why do I say absolutely? Because they are not only bargaining against a cartel of owners, they are implicitly bargaining against the rest of the players association, who have failed to deliver compensation for their risk, at least in part, because the rest of the players, the non-running backs, benefit from every dollar under the cap not spent on running back salaries.

I’ll put it bluntly. Everyone has the right not to supply their labor. Everyone has the right not to incur physical risk and damage if they aren’t being sufficiently compensated. Organizing to collectively restrict that supply is fair game, triply so if there are explicit (the owners) and implicit (the other players) groups that are collectively organizing against you.

I’ve seen NFL games. I know how much you’d have to pay me to carry the ball once on an NFL field, let alone dozens of times every week. If I wasn’t getting paid my reservation wage, there is no collective bargaining agreement you could wave in my face, no public shaming, no pressure from fans that could get me on that field.

All the collective bargaining in the world can’t make the laws of supply and demand go away. Professional sports are a labor-intensive industry, and football is a high risk endeavor for labor. 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. Oh, but you can’t pay them that much, they’re a depreciating asset since the damage incurred shortens their career? Good point, the price just went up. You don’t want to commit to long term contracts because injury can end a career on any play? Good point, the price just went up. We have a big game this week, we need …you…to…ohhhhh

Now you’re getting it.