identity

For EconLog, I wrote a reflective piece on Season 2 of Severance and how it relates to the book Wild Problems by Russ Roberts.

You Cannot Outsource Life: Severance and Wild Problems (EconLog link)

The essay is about pain and a meaningful life.

Rather than accepting that work, grief, and love may transform us, Lumon divides experience from identity. An adult who is primarily asking, “Who do I want to become?” likely would reject the Lumon…

Read more at the link above. Remember that the first words spoken in Season 1 were “Who are you?” Maybe Russ Roberts should do a whole podcast on this show.

During a rare slower week in the summer (thanks to my sister) I was able to binge Season 2. The genre could be described as Science Fiction. S2 does answer some of the questions raised in S1 but ends with a new cliffhanger to bring you back for Season 3. If you want to enjoy the show, the trick for me was not to take it too seriously. Ben Stiller is a producer and you can see traces of what feels like Zoolander humor to me.

I think the dialog is great. The sibling relationship and marital disputes and office inside jokes feel realistic.

As I said about Season 1, this show could be, among other things, a meditation on AI alignment. When you think enough about AI alignment, I guess you start seeing it in your TV shows. I wrote about that previously in: Artificial Intelligence in the Basement of Lumon Industries

Other previous posts on Severance, based on Season 1:

Lumon Industries and Drudgery (Joy)

Perks in Severance (Joy)

Severance and the Disutility of Work (Mike)

A periodically recurring conversation on social media is whether imports are bad for GDP. Everyone thinks they are clearly right, and then they lazily defer to brief dismissal of the opposing view. Some of this might be due to media format. Something just a tiny bit more thorough could help to resolve the painfully unproductive online interactions… And just maybe improve understanding.

It starts with the GDP expenditure identity:

The initial assertion is that imports reduce GDP. After all, M enters the equation negatively. So, all else constant, an increase in M reduces Y. It’s plain and simple.

Many economists reply that the equation is an accounting identity and not a theory about how the world works and that the above logic is simply confusing these two things. This reply 1) allows its employers to feel smart, 2) doesn’t address the assertion, & 3) doesn’t resolve anything. In fact, this reply erects a wall of academic distinction that prevents a resolution. What a missed opportunity to perform the literal job of “public intellectual”.

How are Imports Bad/Good/Irrelevant for GDP?

Let’s add a small but important detail to the above equation to distinguish between consumption of goods produced domestically and those produced elsewhere.

Continue reading →