Disqus - Latest Comments for DWAnderson

Re: How to Accelerate Science

DWAnderson — Tue, 26 Nov 2024 12:15:41 -0000

The Experimental History Substack ( https://www.experimental-history.com/ ) discusses a lot of these issues in the context of experimental psychology. It is excellent.

The author first came to my attention for his article attacking the absurdity of the peer review process, but he also has excellent thoughts on how you actually produce real knowledge as opposed to just writing articles to advance your career.

Re: Phil Spencer continues to dance around Hi Fi Rush developer Tango Gameworks' closure, says he has 'to make hard decisions that frankly are not decisions I love'

DWAnderson — Mon, 10 Jun 2024 16:57:44 -0000

That is almost certainly true! But, the non-answer answer comes with a cost as well: people are less likely to cut you a break as a "straight shooter," which Phil got the benefit of previously.

I am a MSFT shareholder since 1993, so given my now large holdings, I have no problem with their making good business decisions. But I would prefer they were more candid in their messaging for the sake of their credibility in the long run.

Re: The Truth About Inflation: Why Milton Friedman Was Wrong, Again

DWAnderson — Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:34:52 -0000

I agree that it is important to look at how aggregate measures are composed as it can often be illuminating. For example, just as it is for inflation that is also true for things like "inequality". Likewise the growth in the US manufacturing output over the past decades is due almost entirely to quality adjustments in the value of semiconductors, i.e. its not that the US is doing much more manufacturing it is that semiconductors have gotten so much better that the "real" value of US manfuctured goods is adjusted higher in statistics about manufacturing.

That being said, even identities can be a helpful aid to understanding phenomena. In the case of inflation, if each dollar were replaced overnight with two dollars almost certainly the spot price level for goods would approximately double albeit with variations due to fixed price contracts for inputs and the like). On the other hand, there are certainly many other shocks that raise certain prices that are not monetary phenomena (e.g. 1973 oil embargo), but those tend to produce substitution among goods and not a generalized price increase. Because inflation per se is defined as generalized price increase the Friedman identity remains true.

Of course in the real world both monetary and non-monetary changes are happening simultaneously. We try with aggregate price measures to determine to what extent price increases are generalized, that works better than tracking single prices, but as the author points out it has its limits.

Ultimately, for any given price increases we would like statistical tools that help us identify the source. But despite some pretty sophisticated efforts such tools are less granular than we would like in most circumstances, which leads to differing opinions about the cause of any given price increase (or lack thereof).

Re: Why Is Richard Thaler Such a ****ing Optimist?

DWAnderson — Fri, 07 Jan 2022 10:37:29 -0000

There is a good critique of a meta-study about the size of nudge effects here https://statmodeling.stat.c... It is not a general takedown, but some of the observations should make one question how good the empirical work on the value of nudges really is. (Maybe it's mostly great-- but it makes me wonder.)

Re: A New Capitalism: The Case for Universal Property

DWAnderson — Sun, 24 Oct 2021 13:21:12 -0000

This is a elaborate artifice to argue for an age limited UBI based on an estate tax.

It is not in any meaningful sense an argument that property rights should be applied to more things. To accrue the benefits of property that people like Easterly have observed, the rghts need to be alienable (tradeable and giftable) not held in common in perpetuity. Only that way do they wind up going to their highest valued users and attracting investment to improve them which are the mechanism by which they enhance human flourishing.

Strangely the piece also starts with the claim "Capitalism as we know it has two egregious flaws: it relentlessly widens inequality and destroys nature." First, even limited capitalism and freer trade are rightly credited with lifting billions out of poverty over the past 200 years with the trends accelerating. Second, it is that wealth that has made people more eager to preserve the environment; societies are far more likely to invest in environmental preservation as they become wealthier.

Lastly the piece misunderstands the nature of the most inherited wealth enjoyed by people today. It is not tangible assets or ownership interests, but rather the patrimony of accumulated knowledge, which everyone shares in today: running water, electricity, mathematics, science, technology and market capitalism itself. That its why allows even the poor in the US today to live better in most ways, than Rockefeller did 12o years ago.

Re: EA Play will now be included in Xbox Game Pass for no extra charge

DWAnderson — Wed, 09 Sep 2020 12:53:13 -0000

I assume that means they will be available via X Cloud.

Re: The Wright Show - Apr 11, 2020 - Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus

DWAnderson — Mon, 13 Apr 2020 02:16:50 -0000

I had the same reaction to the discussion about the IMHE model predicting only 60K dead in the US. I would bet the total is between 100,000 and 300,000 before mid-2021.

FWIW, I don't think you get exponential growth after lockdowns end, but rather enough scared people settle into a new normal of social distancing to keep deaths below the current daily rate but not enough to wipe out the disease. I have no confidence in the ability of test and trace in the US to have any meaningful effect. I would also bet we end up with an IFR of something like 0.3%, but that is still enough to kill a lot of people with a disease as infectious as this seems to be. So even if we currently have 15M infected in the US, there's a long way to the 250M+ we need for herd immunity.

On the plus side, as more people get infected R should drop the closer we get to herd immunity-- meaning daily deaths should slow somewhat as time goes on. It is also possible that we could develop good therapies that bring down deaths.

FWIW, my preferred course of action would be to eliminate the state lockdowns and let people and businesses decide on their own how best to protect themselves, their employees and their customers. It's pretty clear that public health departments have no special wisdom here. And I would rather let private groups figure out on their own through innovation and communication how best to protect their people. You would at least be able to ameliorate some of the ecnomic destructions being wrought by government bans on activities.

But absent breakthroughs we are still looking at 100,000+ dead and significant economic damage that we can't appropriate our way out of. Not great but not the end of the world either.

Re: The Glenn Show - Apr 6, 2020 - Glenn Loury & Danielle Allen

DWAnderson — Tue, 07 Apr 2020 16:46:11 -0000

Likewise I would love to believe that this pandemic has made us more sensitive to fat tail event, but I doubt it. For example, I would love to see the US harden the electrical grid to prevent heavy solar flares or a high altitude nuclear detonation from destroying the electrical grid (and therefore modern civilization) which would make this pandemic look like nothing. But I would bet against it, even though such preparation would be relatively cheap if it wasn't bungled.

Re: The Glenn Show - Apr 6, 2020 - Glenn Loury & Danielle Allen

DWAnderson — Tue, 07 Apr 2020 16:33:16 -0000

Agree. Also, even if such preparedness was somewhat helpful in the next pandemic, to maintain the preparedness would entail high ongoing costs and would not be politically feasible.

Re: Know When To Fold ‘Em

DWAnderson — Sat, 28 Mar 2020 23:12:49 -0000

I think those are more likely recurrence than reinfection.

Re: The Wright Show - Dec 30, 2019 - Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus

DWAnderson — Fri, 03 Jan 2020 12:43:55 -0000

The sweatshirt was iconic and the two-day growth artisanal!

Re: Hearthstone Pro calls for Hong Kong liberation, developers suspend and pull prize money

DWAnderson — Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:59:21 -0000

You are correct that any political messages could be found to violate the current Blizzard policy. The problem is that if someone wears an LGBT pin, that could also be deemed to violate the current Blizzard policy. It is unlikely that Blizzard would take the same steps against such a player and that too is within their rights.

The problem for Blizzard is that because they have so much discretion, they can (fairly) be seen to be disapproving of messages that they sanction and approving of messages that they don't. Blizzard could avoid that problem by making less broad and less discretionary rules.

Re: Hearthstone Pro calls for Hong Kong liberation, developers suspend and pull prize money

DWAnderson — Tue, 08 Oct 2019 11:27:31 -0000

The problem here is that the restrictions are so broad ("Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image") that almost anything could be deemed to violate them. This amounts to Blizzard saying that we can punish you for anything we don't like. That is certainly their right.

The problem is that when Blizzard punishes players for the content of their speech they can't say they are just enforcing neutral rules-- because everything is discretionary. That means that this punishment is fairly seen as a condemnation of the speech in question.

In this case, this is fairly seen as Blizzard buckling under to Chinese pressure to stifle dissent. Not a good look as they say.

If Blizzard wants to avoid this, it should have narrower rules with less discretion, e.g. players should not be making political statements of any type at Blizzard sponsored events.

Re: Deal Alert: Get 3 years of Xbox Game Pass Ultimate for only $180, saving $360 (before Microsoft catches on!)

DWAnderson — Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:09:24 -0000

As long as you don't go out beyond three years, you should be able to.

Re: How Bronze Age Rulers Simply Cancelled Debts

DWAnderson — Mon, 10 Dec 2018 09:01:14 -0000

I am not sure why the practice of an ancient and less prosperous civilization is being touted as something we should follow. We have learned a few things in the past several thousand years. That being said, the modern equivalent of cancelling debts is the system of bankruptcy, which works fairly well.

That system is really inapplicable to student loans, however. Student loans were made non-dischargeable in bankruptcy to lessen the cost to the government, which guaranteed such loans. Presumably without this element, there would not have been sufficient political support to enact student loan programs. Now I believe the government is the actual lender for new student loans.

FWIW, I think it would be a worthwhile experiment to start making student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy and see what happens. I suspect you will see more scholarships, less lending, more security and more underwriting of the value of the education being given. Those are probably beneficial effects.

Re: Don’t have a Kinect? You can still buy a cheap microphone on Amazon to use Cortana on Xbox One

DWAnderson — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:24:30 -0000

Can the Xbox One use a USB microphone?

Re: Capital’s Share of Income Is Way Higher than You Think

DWAnderson — Thu, 31 May 2018 10:46:21 -0000

Re entitlement spending, I would prefer to spend less starting by making it more progressive (i.e. decrease SS for rich people) and decreasing the amount spent on care that produces few benefits for significant costs (e.g. something like the unfairly maligned "death panels).

Re investment being tax advantaged, I'm referring to the fact that the ratio of consumption to investment is higher under the current income tax system than it would be absent any taxes. The math is hard to describe in a comment, however.

No easy answers on taxes. Ideally, I would personally move to a consumption tax (which could be progressive). I realize that is not without its own significant complications, however. And because of those, I certainly don't reject your idea out of hand. For example, it might actually be a good idea to eliminate the corporate tax entirely and tax all distributions at the same rate as ordinary income (of course then you have to deal with corporate payments that are really consumption by the employees/owners...).

Re: Capital’s Share of Income Is Way Higher than You Think

DWAnderson — Thu, 31 May 2018 08:22:23 -0000

An IRS definition is a thin basis for moral claim.

I actually think an artificial disincentive to invest is a fault of the tax system (the admittedly poor phrasing was a result of the point it was in response to).

I think the rest of the points speak for themselves.

Re: Capital’s Share of Income Is Way Higher than You Think

DWAnderson — Tue, 29 May 2018 10:32:06 -0000

Ok,.so when you say "If the wealth is inherited, the income from it is doubly unearned.", you saying that *all* income from wealth in unearned? Or at least any amounts above an "inflation adjusted" return on "low-six-figure" sums?
You would certainly have less capital in such a world!

The tax system is not without its faults, but it actually discourages investment relative to consumption.

I think you read too much into "entitled", but the remaining points still illustrate why it does not make sense to talk about income from investment as "unearned." in a moral or practical sense.

Re: Capital’s Share of Income Is Way Higher than You Think

DWAnderson — Mon, 28 May 2018 16:49:49 -0000

The notion of "the widely held view of prosperous, hard-working makers vs indolent, do-nothing takers" is arguably is mostly a straw man. It is certainly true that some are compensated better than others for producing things more valued.

But that doesn't seem to be the thrust of this article, the article seems to imply that we should view returns on capital as unearned and returns from labor as earned given that "60% of that wealth itself...is inherited". That seems like a strange claim (and if that's not the claim I fail to seem the significance of the article) as illustrated by the following:

1. Production is a function of both labor and capital. Why shouldn't those who provide capital be entitled to a return?

2. The capital invested was produced by labor and not consumed. Why do its returns take on a different moral status?

3. In producing goods, you can substitute labor for capital and vice versa in the long run. More returns to capital may simply means that there is more capital being deployed that labor (even with diminishing returns thereto). This isn't shocking.

4. Inherited wealth is no different that other wealth, it has just been conveyed through inheritance to a different person.

Re: Zuckerberg Testimony: Why Facebook Is Winning So Far - Bloomberg

DWAnderson — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:48:35 -0000

I agree that "the value of education extends far beyond the simple calculations of tuition and salary that tend to dominate discussions of the issue." But one should be skeptical of the study results cited without much more information.

For example, how many other effects di the authors look at and find no statically significant significant effects or significant negative effects. Citing only two odd statistics make me suspicious of p hacking. See https://freakonometrics.hyp...

Re: Zuckerberg Testimony: Why Facebook Is Winning So Far - Bloomberg

DWAnderson — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:39:52 -0000

Hypothesis: productive non-criminals are the sort of people that value more education. In other words, you may have the causation flipped.

Re: Restoring Civility in a Hostile World

DWAnderson — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:31:19 -0000

Maybe start by agreeing on the neutral value of civil discourse. I know easier said than done. I suspect that there are useful lessons to be learned in how the West moved from deadly religious conflicts to a broad tolerance for different religious views.

Re: Smaller Government Does Not Mean Less Rent-Seeking

DWAnderson — Wed, 31 Jan 2018 12:34:45 -0000

The reliance on Glaeser and Goldin's "Corruption and Reform" paper for the claim that smaller government does not mean less corruption seems weak given their conclusion that "If there was a rise in corruption across the nineteenth century, the rise can be easily explained by the increasing scale of both government and the economy. Vast increases in the budgets of local governments greatly increased the potential benefits of corruption. It would be surprising if corruption did not increase between 1800 and 1870." Accepting the fact that by their measures corruption has declined since 1900, still begs the question of whether "corruption" has been replaced with rent-seeking.

Further, that paper suggests that it is not an increase in the size of government that led to less corruption, but rather changes in the political costs of corruption, the rise of a more independent press and different levels of government checking one another. These do not seem directly related to the size of government,

At a higher level of abstraction, that does suggest that you might have some success in curbing rent seeking without reducing the size of government if the same forces were at play, thus attempts to reduce rent seeking through reform might well meet with some success (why not try?) but reducing the scope of government also would probably be effective (why not try that too?).

Re: Saving Democratic Institutions from Corrupting Markets

DWAnderson — Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:48:47 -0000

That seems absolutely right.

He lost me with the following, offered without argument or evidence: "If anything, self-reinforcing inequality would be worse if we moved to the kind of weak state world that Somin would prefer. Indirect feedback loops would be replaced by direct predation."

Given Brink Lindsay's Twitter description of this piece as "insightful" I was primed to be persuaded, but alas there was no attempt to do so.

The rest of the piece overflows with a failure to understand the nirvana fallacy.