Two weeks in and it’s safe to say the United States federal government has been shocked out of it’s previous equilibrium (whether that shock is “exogenous” is honestly besides the point). Some thoughts, in no particular order

The federal talent drain is going to get even worse

At some point in the last 100 years the equilibrium strategy for the government has been to pay employees in the non-pecuniary benefits of a) job security, b) status, c) retirement d) pro-social civic pride, and e) still more job security. Almost none of that remains wholly intact. The previous bundle of non-pecuniaries resulted in a federal labor force where, glibly estimated, 20% of the employees did 80% of the work. The federal government functioned off the talent and committment of employees whose non-pecuniary preferences led them to forego considerable amounts of income in the private sector. Not sure who’s going to stick around or start a career in the federal government at this point, but I expect the selection effects to be sometimes darkly tragicomic, but mostly just tragic. People have already been hurt. More people will continue to be hurt.

The shrill cranks were right

It’s time for a lot of people to start publicly accepting the fact that the new administration is actually running an authoritarian playbook. Words like “fascism” are neither shrill nor overwrought. Is it unfortunate that people have being making accusations of fascist intent everyday for the last 30 years? Yes, but just because they were wrong then doesn’t mean it’s inappropriate now. The stopped clock is in fact right twice a day. Guess what time it is?

On raptors and resistance

If you’re looking for metaphor instead of adjectives, the new administration are raptors testing their cages for weakpoints, seeing what they can get away with. The bad news is that they are finding no shortage of potential weaknesses to advance their agenda. The good news is that finding and exploiting weaknesses takes time. If we are willing to accept that tariffs are going to impose a lot of price-related pain on consumers and, as the previous round of elections around the world has evidenced, voters do in fact punish incumbents for consumer pain, then the optimal strategy is to merely survive the next 206 weeks with as little damage as possible. So how do we do that?

Put simply, waste time. The entire opposition strategy should be to force the administration to use as much time as possible at every step. Procedural, judicial, and legislative moves are all available. Aspiring fascists they may be, but they are not particularly competent fascists. These people are not grinding out 16 hour work days to write air tight executive orders. They are not career bureacrats who know exactly what buttons to push. They are carnival barkers, reality tv producers, third-rate social media influencers, and niche celebrities. Every time they make a misstep, design something poorly, and have to rescind it 44 hours later? That’s a win. It’s wasted time on a ticking clock that they will never get back. It doesn’t feel like a win because it imposed a lot of pain on a lot of people, but that pain fell well short of the administration’s ambitions.

This works for the tariffs as well. This is not the 18th century where you would simply put someone with a coin purse on the docks to inspect and collect tariffs from every ship that came to port. Modern supply chains are outrageously complex. Collecting tariffs effectively requires institutional infrastructure closer to a VAT tax. Do you really they think these people are going to design it in a manner impervious to bureaucratic and market resistance on the first or second try? Resistance means tying things up in courts on one side while publicly broadcasting the loopholes for the marketplace on the other. Resistance means not just smiling when Canada designs retaliatory tariffs that target “red state” produced goods, but actively broadcasting and supporting that targeting (he wrote while living in a red state and knows he should probably stock up on maple syrup).

Complaining in Stereo

Incumbents lost around the world because nothing pierces rational voter ignorance quite like inflation. Unemployment is salient, but until you hit ~8% or more it might not be sufficiently pervasive to move enough votes. The converse is even more true – it’s almost impossible to get credit for high employment because all you really know is that you have a job which you would have had anyway because you are good and smart and deserve to have a job. Higher prices though, those are always someone else’s fault. The current adminstration blamed Democrats and foreigners. Now it’s the new opposition’s turn to blame Republicans and incompetent public figures in the bureacracy. When consumers take it on the chin, the opposition needs to amplify, amplify, amplify. If there is one thing that seems to be universally true in the modern social media age, it’s that few things are as welcomed by the audience as anxiety and anger. People love to complain. I see no reason not to feed that complaining.

I’m in Houston to give a talk on “Ability to Pay” reforms for how fines and fees are assigned in the criminal justice system, so I’m taking the opportunity to economize on my scarce time i.e. be lazy.

This post received renewed interest in the last week thanks to a vastly superior stating of the hypothesis by Zach Weinersmith. I think it holds up pretty well, title aside, whose connection to the actual material is, at best, unnecessarily oblique and high-handed.

One acceptable truth or a million fantasies (12/28/20)

Humans are soft, slow, and (to the best of my knowledge) make for fairly nutritious meals. Brains for tool-making, and the opposable thumbs for using them, are significant evolutionary adaptations, but it is our capacity to act collectively that placed us at the top of the food chain.

By the end of a standard undergraduate economics curriculum, one couldn’t be blamed for coming to the conclusion that the failures of collective action are the greatest obstacle to mankind – Oh what we could have accomplished if only we had ever found a way to just cooperate. Alas, all those externalities, Prisoners’ Dilemmas, free riders, easy riders, market failures, government failures, they just stopped us at every turn…

I’m not doubting the pedagogical value of teaching any of these obstacles, I teach them myself, but I believe we spend insufficient time reminding students that humans have been solving collective action problems with great success for thousands of years. Every national government, book club, homeowners association, and sorority has managed to produce public goods. So has every military coup and angry mob (if only sometimes for fleeting moments), but collective action is collective action, regardless of how we may feel about the outcome.

More often than not the most interesting question to me isn’t can a collective action problem be solved, but rather i) how has it already been solved and ii) how is that solution going to be threatened or hijacked? When I look to the current political landscape and the only mildly-exaggerated state of political and social polarization, I see not just rival ideologies, but alternative strategies for engendering and ensuring cooperation. On the left, I observe greater recent emphasis on purity – there is a narrow band of acceptable truth and any deviation from that, be it however accidental or benign in intent, can lead to significant punishments, including purges colloquially referred to as cancellations. On the right, I see required public professing of incorrect, often seemingly absurd, beliefs. I might talk about purity tests and purges on the left another times. What I’m interested in at the moment are the public untruths of current right wing identities (broadly conceived) and how they fit into the sacrifice and stigma theory, or club theory, of religion.**

I’ve written a lot about sacrifice and stigma theory. It has become the hammer than has left me forever searching for nails. Originally put forth by Laurence Iannaccone in 1992, it is nothing short of brilliant to my mind. A tool for solving collective problems so profound that when it shows up we barely notice it, and where it shows up tends to be the most powerful clubs shaping our societies: the religious, martial, and extremist political groups that bend the arc of history.

Groups produce what we call “club goods” i.e. public goods only accessible to members of the group. What Iannaccone demonstrated was that a group could actually increase their production of club goods by burdening its members with completely unproductive costs. Why do religious groups require clothing, behavior, or language that could stigmatize their members in broader society? Why are members required to sacrifice their resources at the literal or figurative altar of the group? Because if you impair members’ private productivity, or if the fruits of that private production are skimmed away, they will invest more of their resources into the group. If all group members face these same altered incentives, guess what, you’ve solved the collective action problem!

When I see educated women and men declaring the earth is 5,000 years old, that evolution isn’t real, that climate change is a hoax, or that Donald Trump is a brilliant human being, what I see is public profession of beliefs that might limit social or even occupational opportunities and, in turn, further commit them to a specific subset of affiliations. In the constellation of beliefs that might end up as political shibboleths, of course, there stand to be some more costly than others. In fact, there might even be beliefs that impose negative externalities on others, such antipathy towards vaccines or mask-wearing during a pandemic. Excessive burden might hurt the group, of course – remember, club membership must to be a net gain to persist. In a polarized society, however, vitriol created in rival factions by the externality-generating belief could actually intensify the commitment of group members. The liberals hate real-Americans like me so much now, they’d never accept me as anything but a dumb redneck, so the rational thing to do is double down on my commitment to the only group that will have me. Beliefs that reduce private productivity, increase group productivity, and create long-run antipathy in rival groups can serve to create something incredibly valuable to the group: a captured membership. If there is one thing that is evolutionarily hard-wired into human beings it is the knowledge that isolation is death. A member so stigmatized by past public behavior that rival groups would never accept them stands to be very committed to the group going forward.

The vulnerability of sacrifice and stigma born of public adherence to false beliefs, however, is the capacity of leaders to incept preferred false beliefs into the dogma. This is one way that minority groups can become scapegoated, the carbon costs of fossil fuels denied, quack remedies pedaled, or the reliability of electoral institutions undermined. Religious texts exist (mostly) unedited for long periods of time for a very important reason: core rules of behavior, methods of tithing, and sets of beliefs must be inoculated against opportunistic actors who would hijack the club goods they produce.

Sacrifice and stigma through club-specific false beliefs is a dangerous strategy for political parties for the simple reason that without the constraints of fact or scripture, leaders will feel the pull of their own preferences. Far more dangerous however, is the megalomaniacal conman that any political party institutionally designed to demand cognitive dissonance of its members will eventually attract. Political parties need to solve collective action problems, yes, but they also need immune systems. One might point to social norms, both within and outside the group, as key means of protection. Recent years, however, would seem to suggest that norms are not sufficiently robust in the long run. The US court system has held up well, and has in many ways served as the nations constitutional immune system. Perhaps the major political parties should consider updating and reinforcing their own constitutions, and put in place mechanisms to protect themselves from the next inevitable invasion.

American political parties need to update and upgrade their immune systems.

Inspiring research:

Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Sacrifice and stigma: Reducing free-riding in cults, communes, and other collectives.” Journal of political economy 100.2 (1992): 271-291.

Aimone, Jason A., Laurence R. Iannaccone, Michael D. Makowsky, and Jared Rubin. “Endogenous group formation via unproductive costs.” Review of Economic Studies 80, no. 4 (2013): 1215-1236.

**Note: this is not to suggest that left-wing identity affiliations don’t utilize sacrifice and stigma mechanisms. There is no shortage of what I suspect are completely ineffective, but highly visible, ostensibly pro-environment behaviors that are demanded. But the “headline” mechanisms of herding left-of-center identities under the progressive banner look more like threats of exile than sacrifice and stigma.

A recent scout campout got me thinking about who gets an audience. A small group was sitting around a campfire silently. Eventually the person who piped up and sapped our attention was 9 years old, with all the maturity expected thereof. Who is to blame for the low quality of discourse that night? I didn’t expend any energy to make good use of that time. I could have taught those kids something, if I had told an engaging story or introduced a clever joke. It would have taken energy to communicate something important in a way that they would want to listen to it.

We have a limited number of minutes to pay attention to the world and we use few of them productively. There is a metaphorical campfire every night, after the work of subsistence is over. Who speaks up? Who gets an audience? When a journalist is doing their best to cover an important issue or sound an alarm, how many people bother to click or get a paid subscription?

I regularly see people complain that journalists or the media are doing it wrong. “Why didn’t the NYT cover X?” Jeremy regularly points out that the NYT did cover X, but not many people clicked.

Ship hijackings on the other side of the world aren’t very fun to read about. What really got clicks this past week was Melania’s hat.

Most of the handwringing over what the media should do is deflecting blame from what we should be doing, which is paying for good journalism and engaging in the boring/important news.

Even before LLMs, for decades, there has been no shortage of great serious writers and text could be shared at very low cost online. The bottleneck is the audience. Good readers are more scarce than writers.

Failure to elucidate (or the intended obscuring) of unseen policy costs and benefits is the kind of stuff that sends economists to an early retirement. The most common example is the unrealized gains from potential trade that haunt any and all forms of protectionism, but I often find more “micro” examples easier to convince an audience of because it allows them to delve into their own lived experience for supporting evidence.

I’m a big fan of this conversation with co-founder Reed Hastings about severance package generosity at Netflix. The interviewer is absolutely baffled that they offer a minimum of 4 months severance for all employees, with 100% pay and benefits, immediately after hiring, and it grows with length of tenure after that. How could a company afford such a costly line item, particularly one that yields no benefits at all? It’s exactly the kind of policy a central casting stereotype of an MBA would never consider or, perhaps more telling, would be the first on the chopping block when cutting costs to pump up quarterly earning numbers.

What Hastings lays out, besides just the warm-glow benefits of a more “compassionate” severance policy, is the subtle efficiency at the margin. The people making the decision to lay off an employee are sympathetic, pro-social, perfectly normal human beings. They don’t want to hurt someone else which means, perhaps even selfishly, they will take a series of costly intermediate steps to delay the prospective firing of a poorly matched or unproductive employee. The manager will incur costs that perhaps signal to the employee that they are inherently valued, that they, the manager and the company, want the employee to succeed, that any eventually possible firing is only an action of last resort. These actions, as anyone who’s ever had a job will know, rarely if ever succeed in reorienting the employee to a new and fruitful line of productivity. Rather, they simply delay their eventual firing, leaving them in the lurch to find new employment. The costs incurred to soften the impact of the inevitable firing are internalized as benefits by neither the employee nor the firm.

The more efficient policy, to the benefit of everyone involved, is to make the employment separation as early as possible, rolling over as much of those saved costs into a (nearly) pure cash severance that will soften their landing and subsidize their search for their next job. In anything less than the weakest job market four months is enough time to not just find a job, but to be selective in that search. Extended severance strengthens the bargaining power of the former employee in their job search because they don’t have to say yes to the first offer.

From the employer side, they can rest easy knowing that because their managers will not have to incur the emotional cost of wrecking their employees lives with cold calculating decisions to leave in employees in the lurch with 2 weeks pay and a “good luck” out the door, managers will, in turn, make employment decisions faster and more decisively. Generous severance pay is a perfect example of an excellent policy that only looks inefficient to those naive to the actual decisions being made on the ground. Conversely, a more draconian policy carries the pretense of a colder efficiency, when the reality is a flailing hodgepodge of spinning wheels and sundry transaction costs.

What other policies, micro or macro, might see their efficiency aspirations and denunciations wholly inverted if we were to consider not just their line item magnitudes on a spreadsheet, but the whole of their of interconnected costs and benefits?

All the big companies are suddenly finding themselves compelled to donate to Trump’s inauguration. That a bunch of large businesses with significant regulatory exposure would want to lobby the President isn’t terribly surprising. Such things are endemic, if not inherent, to any democracy. Perhaps heightened by the media, but I can’t help but think that the prospect of targeted tariffs, elimination of key visa programs, and the general animus projected towards seemingly anyone and everyone by the administration have changed the tone of this particular round of contributions. In short, it feels less like traditional lobbying and more like extortion.

“Nice business you have there. It’d be a shame if something undermined its market integrity. You know, for a few million dollars we could help you out. Pennies, really, when you think about the billions of dollars at stake.”

Which brings me to my absolutely genuine, I actually don’t the answer, question. Does a company have a fiduciary obligation to its shareholders to be a rent seeker? Is there a fiduciary obligation to give in to political extortion?

There is legal precedent that a company does not have an obligation to give in to ransom or criminal extortion. Common law duty of care (Meinhard v. Salmon, 164 N.E. 545 [N.Y. 1928]) does not extend to unlawful acts. 18 U.S.C. § 873 prohibits the receipt of funds in response to extortion. 18 U.S.C. § 1201 imposes criminal penalties for aiding or abetting kidnappers. 18 U.S.C. § 2339B may indirectly criminalize paying ransoms to terrorists. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) dictates that paying bribes or ransoms may violate anti-corruption statutes.

But what if the extortion isn’t explicitly illegal? As some have suggested, certain activities are not in fact illegal if the President does it, a sentiment that has only gained legal standing. Which brings up the next point: could shareholders sue Amazon, Google, or Meta if they in fact chose not to donate to the inauguration? What if they released a joint statement that they had been approached by the administration but refused to donate? Could a civil case be launched against them on behalf of shareholders? I don’t think so, but we’re in a wild enough world where such a action could be profitable if only as a threat.

Maybe this is just another case where politicians are increasingly willing to “say the quiet part out loud”. Yes, it’s extortion, but it’s also always been extortion; the new administration is simply more willing to make political extortion more explicit. It’s just rent seeking as usual, only louder. Which, fine, it’s business as usual, but the volume does matter. Explicitness is a signal of voraciousness and intensity, that they are unlikely to be constrained by shame or the costs of overplaying a hand in the repeated game of lobbying and favorable policy outcomes that is replayed between industries and political parties across decades.

These things can and do come to a head eventually. These businesses are smart, they know how to discount repeated costs and figure out when it’s time to say no. A million here and milllion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money. Everyone’s always asking when someone is going to stand up to a bully. The answer is straightforward, if easier said than done: when the benefits outweigh the costs. Eventually the administration is going to make promises that yield big donations. Either those donations will serve to stabilize policy, at least in the interest of the donors (which will hopefully extend to vast swaths of the US marketplace), or they will renege on those promises and then things get…interesting. The word will get out and then it will all cascade down in a hilarious carnival of vicious public statements and political threats. The collateral damage could be minimized as an administration finds its impact limited and hands tied. Or the collateral damage is maximized as influence is sought to be reestablished through chaotic political writhings of a cornered animal.

I guess we have to root for stability? I’m not excited about it, but maybe the best thing for the US is for politicla extortion to be significantly remunerative that the administrative decides the most profitable choice is to in fact release the hostage that is the US economy.

I guess I’m just hoping the lessons of Speed have been rightly lost to time.

Please accept this as an admission of overcommittment, rather than laziness, but I posted something on bluesky and realized immediately afterwards that this can probably be easily tested.

If someone wants to take it upon themselves to regress wins over player-games lost to injury, I’d be most gracious. If they further wanted to interact that variable with total payroll expenditures (player payroll only, please), that would go further towards really testing the hypothesis. While I don’t tend to think there is much to be intuited from correlation coefficients, I would be curious to know how much the R-squared increases when you run a regression strictly over payroll and the lagged wins and then subsequently add player-games lost to injury to the independently variables. The delta on R-squared could be charted over time. There are other metrics that could be applied to try to control for overall talent, but real question is how accurately could you predict the final standings in a sports league if all you knew was player expenditures and injury luck, and if this has changed over time.

I’ll happily sit on a masters or undergraduate thesis committee for anyone who pursues this!

(Not sure there is enough meat on the bones for a PhD thesis, but happy to be proven wrong)

For those who missed the big story last week, it turns out that Blake Lively’s director and co-star, Justin Baldoni, feared that he was going to be publicly outed as an abuser and subsequently instructed his publicity team to start a preemptive disinformation campaign against her. The story is hot because the cache of subpoenaed text messages are the seeming definitition of “overwhelming evidence” and “receipts”, the victim is a prominent woman, and the activities in question are heinous. Which is all true, but I’m interested because 1) it seems to have really, honestly worked and 2) is was relatively cheap and easy, all to an extent that even surpised the alleged perpetrators.

We all know about Russian disinformation efforts at this point, but those are are the products of a government agency. They have enormous resources at their disposal. This internet campaign to pre-emptively attack and discredit a woman who is the (alleged) victim of gratuitous harassment was carried out by a small band of publicists, agents, and their team of assistants. This isn’t a billion dollar operation. This isn’t even a million dollar operation. This is a project carried out over cronuts and text messages by middle brow entertainment business aspirants looking to climb the ladder in between improving their scores at Orange Fitness.

What I’m saying is that disinformation scales faster and easier than I would have ever guessed and I don’t think I’m alone. A couple reddit threads, instagram and tik-tok posts, and tweets, all posted by accounts run and backpocketed by the publicity agency for precisely these purposes, and within hours the world has turned on a single human in a wave of disapprobation. A woman, you’ll recall, who had done absolutely nothing that would seemingly be able to give traction to public shaming.

This is a massive technology shift. If there is a final lesson to 2024, it’s we don’t know what’s real and what’s manufactured news. Worse still, those who would proclaim to be the least trusting are generally those that are the easiest to mislead, falling down endless rabbit holes of conspiracy theory and fabrication. Those conspiracy theories are fun to laugh at (and I suspect even more fun to believe with your whole heart), but I don’t think conspiracy theory falsehoods are the only plague going forward. It’s going to be joined by a growing trend of informational nihilism, an inabiilty to trust any news or information source.

It’s not that hard for me to imagine a swirling, vicious online discourse between left and right wingers, each fully enveloped in their cozy echo chambers of conspiracy and confirmation bias, while their more moderate (and numerous) peers simply drop out of the conversation entirely, unable to see the bits and bytes flying back and forth as anything more than unverifiable noise.

What happens to a democracy when the median voter believes in nothing?

Nothing says “Christmas cheer” like David Hume and empiricism. I am at EconLog this week with

Rediscovering David Hume’s Wisdom in the Age of AI

In our era of increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence, what can an 18th-century Scottish philosopher teach us about its fundamental limitations? David Hume‘s analysis of how we acquire knowledge through experience, rather than through pure reason, offers an interesting parallel to how modern AI systems learn from data rather than explicit rules.

In his groundbreaking work A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume asserted that “All knowledge degenerates into probability.” …

Furthermore, I explain why this could have implications for the limits of AGI, if LLMs learn from experience and are limited in the number of datapoints they can observe. It is also a follow-up to my summer post: Is the Universe Legible to Intelligence?