Moments of inspiration can and do lead to innovation, almost by definition. Sometimes we forget that innovation is itself inspirational. I first read about “inverse vaccines” two days ago and it hasn’t left my mind since.

“Inverse vaccine” shows potential to treat multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases

These are lab results, not clinical trials. This is not a new treatment coming any time soon. The logic though, the idea, is absolutely brilliant. Traditional vaccines teach the immune something the blueprint for attacking a new enemy. These researchers realized that the liver has a method for marking molecules with N-acetylgalactosamine so that the immune system knows not to attack them. Autoimmune disorders, from common allergies to multiple schlerosis, are a product of the immune system attacking what it shouldn’t.

Why can’t we mark the cells of the body being tormented by an overzealous immune system with N-acetylgalactosamine?

It’s such a simple idea. Simple and completely brilliant. I am convinced we are living in a new golden age of vaccines. But this? This is inspired and inspiring, promising to take what is already a time of miracles and push it in an entirely new direction. There are new ideas sitting out there, waiting to be conceived. But sometimes what we need is for an act of innovation to inspire us to think in a new way. Or an old way. Or a reciprocal way.

I just learned that the de-aging process used to produce scenes with a “younger” Harrison Ford in the most recent Indiana Jones movie was produced using an AI process that matched the Ford’s face in each newly filmed moment with a perfectly matching facial expression from archival stock of the actor.

The movie was fine, even if the third act was a little undercooked. I just want to point out two things. First, this is a natural extension of the LLM model of artificial intelligence: pulling from library of information provided (i.e. the internet or footage of Indiana Jones punching Nazis) and then reassembling that information to produce a new product. When we debate whether or not these pieces of software constitute actual “intelligence” what we are really arguing about is whether or not the substrate is sufficiently simple, sufficiently inert for the act of assembly to constitute an act of intelligence.

Case in point, nobody is arguing that de-aging Harrison Ford betrays true intelligence on the part of the software. The material being acted upon is already coherent, it’s just being reordered to convey a new message ( i.e. scenes in a different movie). Similar things could be said about ChatGPT. It’s just searching through pre-existing text and ideas, sifting for relevance, and reordering to optimally assemble into an updated product.

Operating within this metaphor, what would constitute intelligence is the that can sift through a primordial substrate of inorganic, individually incoherent components, and assemble them into original pieces of coherent information; sparks of cognition. An example of this would be to take the ambient, ineffable sentiments implied by the collective set of questions being asked by ChatGPT users (hopes, fears, feelings, etc) and produce not just answers to questions not yet answered by humans, but to answer questions not yet asked. To sift through information, break it into into its smallest possible molecules of cognition, and contribute to the broader collective body of knowledge by assembling new thoughts.

This sort of process has been occasionally posited in the form of a “matter compiler” in science-fiction, which is essentially just a 3-D printer at the molecular level. That remains pretty far off, as best I know. I suspect the same will be true of true artificial generalized intelligence. We know an awful lot about how molecules are assembled, the problem with producing a matter compiler is largely one of cost. We know comparably less about how neurons firing are assembled into acts of generative intelligence, of creativity. We will know no doubt get there, but getting there usually happens well before we cross the chasm of cost, of material feasibility.

But yeah, the new Indiana Jones movie was okay.

On this, the Day of our Labor in the year 2023, I leave you with a simple observation/plea into the void: don’t confusion condescending overconfidence with competence. I give to you Hans-Heman Hoppe stating, in public and on camera, his exasperated and deeply aggrieved belief that Paul Krugman doesn’t know what money is or how it works:

It is hilarious to use the hypothetical of "ask Paul Krugman to explain how adding more pieces of paper could make the economy richer."

Krugman answered this question in 1998:https://t.co/grd4tQhdmS https://t.co/iyIx2UQ4Ts

— Matt Darling 🌐🏗️ (@besttrousers) August 30, 2023

Never forget that “con man” is short for “confidence man“, and part of the trick when trying to get other people to believe in you is to first project unerring belief in yourself. Confidence communication is effective in the sharing of ideas, but the real trick to all con men is what they’re selling. Or, more specifically, what the customers are buying. Yes, he’s selling the idea what monetary policy and fiat currencies are all part of a giant scam, a fugazi, because lol money isn’t real. But that’s not what his customers are buying.

What they’re buying is the idea that “I, person who holds this belief, am smarter than Paul Krugman.” I imagine that is probably a pretty enjoyable belief to hold. I would certainly enjoy believing that I am smarter than Paul Krugman, but wanting something doesn’t make it true…which, now that I say it outloud, is a nearly sufficient encapsulation of the entire human condition.

To be clear, this isn’t about Krugman’s accomplishments or status in society inviting censure or criticism from all corners. That’s just the eminence tax. It’s actually, in a weird way, about everything he had to do to acquire that eminence, in the form of arduous education, training, and research production over decades. Because what I think the Hoppe’s of the world are often really selling to their audience is a shortcut. An opportunity to believe that you, the listener, don’t have to go through such trials of human capital acquisition. You just have to hang out with me, parrot a few trivializations of economic thought, cope with a little light reading, and boom, you’re smarter than a Nobel laureate with 275k citations. All available to you for the low low price of believing Paul Krugman doesn’t know how money works.

Don’t wait, supplies are limited.

I agree with Tyler’s assessment that the top performers in pretty much any field of endeavor tend to be incredibly intelligent, regardless of whether that field is broadly associated with intelligence per se. He closes with an open question: in what fields can success belie intelligence?

The older I get, the more complex and messier I find intelligence to be as a construct. If we broaden the concept from intelligence to “competence” or “capability”, however, I think it becomes an even more interesting question. In what fields can we expect to observe top performers who are, in actuality, objectively bad at their jobs?

This is not to say I that I believe there are any fields or jobs where success doesn’t positively correlate with capability. Rather, it is to ask in what fields, if any, is the variance on outcomes is so great as to be able to fully obscure average or expected outcomes within individuals? Framed this way, the fields we should be looking for are those that emphasize high leverage, high risk wagers made with low frequencies. If you’re trying to identify ostensibly high-performers who are, in reality, grossly incompetent in the fields that made them wealthy, look for a series of ex ante negative expected value wagers combined with large initial endowments and foolish leverage ratios. Probalistically most such individuals will be punished accordingly, but given enough players, a highly visible few will hit big with an initial sequence of winners. Their subsequent anointment as virtuosos combined with the sheer weight of their capital will permit them to coast for decades before, if ever, their underlying incompetence catches up with them.

As for specific fields, it’s pretty easy for me to see such dynamics at play in real estate and angel investing. Not to be confused with construction or venture capital, in which “wagers” are made with much higher frequency, lower risk, and, in turn, lower returns on investment. Success in such fields reveal competence for the same reason it reveals them in professional poker: the law of large numbers eventually comes for everyone. Real estate speculation, on the other hand, whether its developed or undeveloped properties is exactly the kind of field where otherwise incompetent boobs, if given a large enough initial endowment and the opportunity to leverage to the hilt, can become giants on the heels of a relatively small number of bets. If they were in the right zip codes for the last few decades, it’s entirely possible to turn a half million into a few billion, without any insight in the slightest. Angel investing, on the other hand, tends to be less about leverage than simply buying lottery tickets: negative ROI, but in a landscape of thousands of angel investors, most of whom will experience losses approaching 100% on their portfolio, someone will fall into a 5000x return on something originally coded in a dorm. To be clear, more capable and competent investors will on average perform better speculating in real estate and early stage start-ups, but the absolutely biggest winners will be chosen more by chance than talent.

A similar question we might ask is what are the fields where the quality of outcomes is orthogonal to the capability being ostensibly being selected for? Allow me to explain through a standard scam story. A stock broker cold calls 100 people, tells each his pick for the week, half he says Stock A will go up, half he tells Stock A will go down. He then calls back the 50 people he correctly prognosticated to. He repeat this several times, until there are 3 people who believe that this previously unknown stranger has correctly predicted future stock prices 5 times in a row, a feat that seems unlikely by chance. Customers think the quality they are observing is forecasting expertise, when in actuality it is the ability to spend 60 hours a week being energetic and charismatic on the phone with strangers. This is, unto itself, a rare ability, just not the one that the customers in question think they are observing evidence of. Related to our earlier story, a strong argument can be made the most important skill in real estate speculation isn’t forecasting, but gaining access to leverage i.e. convincing people to loan you enough money that you can particpate in a casino with a such a high minimum stake.

The moral of the story is we should take care when attributing success to narrow capability or competence. Sometimes it’s because of selection on observability, obscuring the role that luck has played in success. Sometimes its because success demands obscuring the criteria on which it is selected, whether because of legality or simple social disapprobation. We should be doubly careful when considering fields/sectors where success remains somewhat mysterious or even magical. When observers are consistently attributing success to intangible factors, whether its charisma in politicians, inspiration in coaches, instinct in investors, or genius in futurists, your antennae should raise. If we don’t really know why and how someone succeeds, then there is a decent chance they don’t know either.

It’s the 3-year anniversary of EWED. Thanks for reading and sharing. Our blog has been cited by The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, Reason Magazine, Marginal Revolution, and many others.

The following posts are in order, starting with the entry that got the most page views so far in 2023.

“Why Tenure” Mike Makowsky on academic tenure and the unintended consequences of taking it away.

“Steal My Paper Ideas!” James offered the internet research ideas that he does not have time to pursue.

“ChatGPT Cites Economics Papers That Do Not Exist” I wrote about a problem with ChatGPT hallucinations. This idea has now been more formally explored in my working paper available on SSRN (which has been trending in top-10 download lists on SSRN throughout the summer). The point is not just that GPT will create fake citations. The important take-away is that GPT can fabricate falsehoods of all kinds that sound serious. Citations are easy to count and verify. Once we have a quantitative measure, we can also demonstrate that accuracy declines when a topic is less general.

“On EJMR, status competitions, and tapeworms” Mike on ill will in the profession.

“On the paucity of new ideas and the paradox of choice in modern research” It’s Mike. He is a whole pattern in the data this year. (Maybe we can get new ideas from James!)

“Bank for International Settlements: $70 Trillion Dollars Is Missing from Official Global Financial Accounting” A December, 2022 report from the Bank for International Settlements stated that $70 trillion was missing missing from normally reported global financial statistics. That is nearly three times the size of the U.S. GDP. Scott’s January post delineated what was going on and why this might turn into a problem.  

“The Value of Student Organizations and On-Campus Education: Anecdotal Evidence from Tim Keller” Me on what happens at The University besides delivering information in lectures.

“Is College Enrollment Falling?” Jeremy on a big question for academics. Here’s a recent tweet from him on demographics.

“Spending on Housing: It Hasn’t Really Increased in the Past 40 Years” Jeremy. Incidentally, some of his posts from last year are still so popular that they have more traffic than the top 2023 posts. That includes: Who is the Wealthiest Generation? and The Wealth of Generations: Latest Update

If you ever want to know what people were saying about my generation when we were fresh out of college, watch an SNL sketch called “The Millennials”. Now we are just the parents at the parent-teacher conferences. Our jams play at the grocery store at 8am (Wonderwall, anyone?). And Jeremy is documenting the state of our finances.

“Mortgage Fraud Is Surprisingly Common Among Real Estate Investors” from James. Who knew?

“House Rich – House Poor” Zachary created create an affordability index. And also note that he provides tips for getting better teaching evaluations in “5 Easy Steps to Improve Your Course Evals”

Lastly, congrats to our friends and mentors at Marginal Revolution who are celebrating 20 years of blogging.

The Writer’s Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild of America are currently on strike. They are on strike because the highest paid actors are and, as best I can tell, all of the writers were getting entirely screwed by previous deal. A deal, I would note, they negotiated after realizing that they were getting screwed by the previous deal. Screenwriters do not appear to be a position to negotiate particularly good deals.

There’s no shame in that, by the way. This isn’t necessarily about shrewdness. The NFL players union has never been able to negotiate the deals on the level of major league baseball. Sometimes the structure of an industry and a labor market simply favor one side of the bargain. In the case of Hollywood, actors have always struggled with the reservation wages of non-guild members i.e. people will to act in movies for free in the hopes of hitting the jackpot and becoming a big star. I think the writers have a different problem.

The problem for writers is that the studios don’t know anything. They don’t know what they want, who’s good, who’s not. More importantly they don’t know what anybody or anything is worth. As best I can tell, the only thing they know is that paying less is better than paying more.

“Nobody knows anything…… Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work. Every time out it’s a guess and, if you’re lucky, an educated one.” ― William Goldman, Adventures in the Screen Trade

This is a problem for writers because you can’t collectively bargain on behalf of thousands of writers against an idiot. The writers guild will tell you that they have no choice to bargain with said idiot because that idiot controls the studios and without the studios there is no business.

Ok, I get that. I’m not going to play the “Just make all your movies on an iPhone and distribute them on YouTube card…<whispers> even though a lot of you would be better off making your movies on an iPhone and distributing them independently. What I am saying that you don’t have to negotiate with studios. Plural. You can negotiate with a studio. Singular. Get it?

I’m telling you to break the cartel. DC is getting killed by Marvel. Negotiate a deal with DC. A24 is making the best movies in the world. They are small and they need their output in theaters selling tickets. Negotiate a deal with just them. Will it pay more than Marvel? Of course not. But it will employ 0.3% of your members for 6 weeks and set a precedent for small individual studio deals. Pretty soon that turns into 4.1%. Set the precedent that your guild is here to play hardball and will play the studios off against each other on behalf of your members. Each new deal is a valve that lowers the pressure on your members while simultanesouly ratcheting it up for the hold out studios that aren’t producing anything. If the larger studios attempt to punish those who negotiate deals with the guild, sue them for antitrust. Sue them for $200 billion. When it comes to “cartel-like” behavior, unions have vastly more legal latitude than industry players. It’s your job to take advantage of it.

And while you’re at it, negotiating all these bespoke deals, maybe add in a little flexibility. Maybe be a little more humble about your ability to prognosticate the future and don’t tie your selves to outragenously bad arrangements that leave writers of hit shows walking away with $3000 and a negative account balance. And if and when you realize your deal is this bad, strike sooner. Years sooner. The whole point of a union is gain bargaining power through collective action. If you can’t take action until something has passed the point of complete disaster, that doesn’t speak well of the union.

I am in the somewhat unusual position of generally liking private unions* that can survive on their own merits specifically because they represent another power player that balances the playing field, which leads to more competition, and more competition is better for everyone. But just because a union is a collective entity does not mean that they have to treat the opposition as a de facto collective entity. Play them off against each other. Break them down. Play dirty.

This isn’t show friends. Or even show cartels. This is show business. Bloody start acting like it.

---

*Public unions are a vastly different story and, full disclosure, I tend to be far more skeptical of them.

West Virginia University is proposing a radical restructuring of their university. Did I say restructuring? I meant slashing and buring whole departments:

Is this fiscally driven? Politically motivated? An attack on education? Some sorta boondoggle? Hard to say with any degree of confidence from all the way down here in Clemson, but that won’t stop me from speculating to my heart’s content. With these sorts of proposals on the table, there has arrived no shortage of proposed explanations and blame. All that said, I am quite confident that the final outcome will result in a different university that more than a few other universities will eventually resemble as well (NB: not mine, to be clear. For all of it’s standard pecadilloes, Clemson appears to be pretty good shape. That said, if the fates hand us a couple losing football seasons alongside a QAnon woke-truther voting block winning a set of seats in the state legislature, well, anything becomes possible).

So why is this happening?

A handful of reasonable explanations, in semi-random order

1. The University president is a corrupt and incompetent boob

Feasibility: 4/5 Explanatory power: 2/5

Whoo-buddy. This guy appears to be the kind of known commodity that only a completely checked-out board of trustees would ever put in charge of a university. To wit, while plowing through millions he got caught spending $64k (not a typo) on his “signature” bow ties at his job prior to WVU. He has since burned millions at WVU on all the stuff that corrupt managers spend money on when they can’t put the money directly in their own pockets. Click on the whole thread below, it’s pretty jarring. That said, while this is likely all true, I’m not sure he’s burned enough money to wholly explain cuts this deep and a $45m budget shortfall.

Gordon Gee has a verifiable history of wasteful spending and exorbitantly high compensation compared to his peers.

Not only has Gee's antics wasted tens of millions of dollars in spending … he's also responsible for the deaths of 29 West Virginian coal miners.

🧵A THREAD w/🧾

— Austin 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@AustinDizzy) August 11, 2023

2. West Virginia has turned its back on higher education broadly, the humanities specifically.

Feasibility: 2/5 Explanatory power: 1/5

West Virginia University is no longer interested in educating young people to meaningfully participate in a global community. As usual, students will pay for the parochialism and greed of a bloated administration that feeds itself while starving them. https://t.co/MokyosmuY0

— Uju Anya (@UjuAnya) August 11, 2023

Now, before you get ahead of me, I am not saying that the current political climate, obsessions with “woke” professors, and the broad anti-science/scholarship platform of a chunk of the US conservative movement isn’t making this an easier sell to the state legislature. What I am saying is that the $45m budget shortfall is real and graduate programs are often sneaky expensive. Masters programs are generally expected to be revenue positive for a department, and for many schools were often quite lucrative (at least, they were before the demand from foreign students was cut off). If a MA/MS/MFA program is getting cut during a budget crisis, you can be extra sure that program is losing money. Put another way, the university can’t afford to cut any profitable program right now, no matter how much its political gestalt might annoy certain power players. Placed in this context, I am surprised to see the Public Administration department on the chopping block. Those are often fairly popular and profitable masters programs. To be fair, I was originially the most surprised to see the MFA in Creative Writing program was being eliminated. It has a good reputation, such programs are usually relatively low cost to operate, and often can bring in a lot tuition money from students looking for a “consumption” degree. Then I saw that 100% of their MFA students received a full tuition waiver and $16,500 stipend. For that to work when your university is underwater you need those MFA students to teach a lot of undergraduate composition courses, and even then that leaves you with an English Department faculty hardpressed to justify their own numbers.

3. A $45 million shortfall meant WVU couldn’t put off the future another year

Feasibility: 5/5 Explanatory power: 3/5

This is the converstion we’re all actually having, regardless of the various competing framings. There are departments struggling on every campus. Humanities majors in decline, STEM majors in ascendance. For every Arts & Sciences faculty meeting that turned into a “why are their salaries higher than ours/because there is greater demand for our services outside of academia” food fight, there is now an actual existential question on the table, which means this just got real.

Real-er than you might think. Covid exposed the Return-On-Investment fragility of a lot of high priced private colleges, but <raised-eyebrows sotto voce> made your in-state public university look pret-ty good by comparison. Inflation? Inflation is often a boon to universities looking to cut costs because it offers the prospect of a meaningful haircut to the salaries of every member of your tenured faculty, but only if the state legislature plays along and lets you raise tuition in accordance with inflation. The fact that the flagship public university of a state is staring this down at exactly the moment when things are set up for state schools to succeed is perhaps the darkest harbinger of them all.

4. Maybe this is just a West Virginia problem

Feasibility: 5/5 Explanatory power: 4/5

West Virginia’s population shrank 3.2% from 2010 to 2020. The university’s enrollment has shrunk 10% since 2005. It’s hard enough to shrink any public institution’s workforce, let alone one with a tenure system for a sizable portion of it’s employees. Maybe none of this is that complicated. Shrinking populations are hard for government institutions to manage. Politically costly decisions get put off until the lights might actually go out. Choices do eventually get made, however, and when they do, they tend to be drastic.

5. All of the above

Feasibility: 5/5 Explanatory power: 5/5

That’s the best part of this gimmick. It implies I’ve explained the entire West Virginia University dilemma without ever actually committing my reputation to a single excerptable sentence. Come to think of it, I should use this format more often.

There are things that you can, on some level, know are true but not fully internalize until you re-experience that truth multiple times. We all know that there is a seemingly unending supply of free and paid educational instruction available on the internet, from the broadest mathematical pedagogy to instructions for replacing a single grommet on a specific appliance make and model. We are awash in content, much of it explicitly designed to aid in our self-guided educational journeys. You and I already know this, but every few years I feel like I re-live a moment of awe at what is costlessly or near-costlessly made available to anyone with an internet connection.

As you probably know, I am an economist and a sports junkie. In both my professional and sports endeavors, I tend to dabble in scattered interests until I get narrowly obsessed with something. Sometimes this takes the form of a 5 year research project, other times it means I become a hockey goalie for 15 years. For both hockey and most of the technical aspects of my economic research, I am almost exclusively “self-taught”, though I’m not sure that is all that unusual anymore. Woe be unto the applied economist who thinks an afternoon’s cap-and-gown affair means they are done struggling to learn new econometrics.

The corridor of athletic activity available to me has narrowed with injury and age, so like many before me I have turned to golf. At first reluctantly, I’ll admit, but now I am fully on board. I’ve constrained my financial investment, using (until very recently) entirely used equipment, found balls, and opting for less expensive courses. As I’ve progressed, what has once again shocked me is not just how easy it is to acquire instruction, but the incredible nuance and narrowness of that instruction. If something isn’t working for me, I can simply describe the problem I am experiencing into google and a dozen videos diagnosing and remedying the problem will instantly appear. If I want to understand the biomechanics or even physics behind my swing to build intuition, I can watch 100s of hours of videos. If I want advice geared towards players with similar personal characteristics, habits, or preferences, it all appears before me. It is not without exaggeration to suggest that I am receiving better instruction as a 46-year old amateur with one good knee than all but the absolutely most privleged in the world would have received 30 years ago.

This is all the more important when placed in the context of the rising cost of personal instruction. The price of passive instruction may be rapidly approaching zero, but that doesn’t insulate active instruction from Baumol’s cost disease. The cost of having someone’s time all to your self has never been higher, which means if you want your instruction curated, the regulatory device of interpersonal obligation and sunk costs, or simply an upscale babysitter that lets you feel like a good parent while you scroll your phone for an hour, you’re going to pay more than ever.

The only downside to being able to costlessly access our near-infinite Library of Alexandria, if there must be one, is the guilt I feel as I steadily improve. Every increment of improvement is evidence that I chose to get better at golf instead every other dimension of my professional and private self. The double-edged sword of opportunity cost haunts me, reminding me that everything I learn comes at the expense of what I chose not to learn. I could have learned about the China Trade Shock, the latest reason why every identification strategy ever employed in an economics paper is wrong, Mandarin, or how to cook rissotto for my wife.

But I chose golf. There’s probably insight into myself to be be had there, but some lessons are best left unlearned.