As you know, one of my soft spots is counter-conventional wisdom. Here are a few recent ones in the health and nutrition and food spaces.
From Vox, the science is in: exercise won’t help you lose much weight. Count this (that exercise helps weight loss) among the many things I adamantly believed up until few years ago.
In this James Altucher podcast Dr. Aaron Carroll explores some of his book The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully. Quit looking for magic food. Quit worrying about toxic food. Eat what works for you. Stay away from processed foods and too much (i.e., added) sugar.
Slate explores the implications of the junk science used to ban smoking on grounds of secondhand dangers. I believe we are in an age of rising puritanism. Tobacco is the drug in the cross hairs. It is low brow. Interestingly alcohol and marijuana are higher and rising status. Once again, mood affiliation and out-group shaming guides public policy. (HT: Robin Hanson)
On a more upbeat note, here is a great guide to finding a restaurant. Lots here about correctly interpreting the signals being given--both intentional and unintentional. (HT: Tyler Cowen)
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Forgiving and/or Forgetting
We live in interesting times. The scandals du jour are amplified in scope unlike in times past. This time is different not because we have scandals, but because the cycle is shorter, more intense, and much more wide spread. In many ways this is healthy--for instance in bringing about greater awareness and fuller cleansing. But in other ways it is unhealthy--for instance in progressing too rapidly for a deeper, more nuanced understanding and reconciliation.
Swift justice can be satisfying for victims, but it can also be incomplete ("Ah, good, we found the evil and dealt with it. All is now right with the world. No need to worry about 'that' again.") or it can be too widely applied ("Upon further inspection, all of the out group is guilty and we don't have time or need to gauge sinfulness; therefore, destroy them all." or "Upon further inspection, we are all guilty; therefore, let's just forget the whole thing and move along.")
Our social norms are evolving, which effectively means society is moving the goalposts on what we define as misconduct, injustice, harm, etc. This evolution is for the overwhelming most part rightful. But now because of our technology our memories are longer and voices are stronger. I don't think we have yet fully appreciated this power or its ability to inflict damage.
Consider the coordination of forgive and forget. This old adage was never more than an aspirational hope. I am very appreciative for how many of my past transgressions have been forgotten. I am even more thankful for all those that have been forgiven. The unfortunate truth is that forgiveness is less durable and more expensive than forgetfulness.
Here is my view on how we fit into forgive and forget.
And it is important to understand the implications . . .
Monday, January 15, 2018
Trump - One Year In
About a year ago, I posted on Trump looking at what I saw as the reasons to be optimistic and pessimistic. Let's revisit that now that we have a year under our belt.
Overall, I think my predictions were good with some notable variance in a couple areas. Of course, I was vague enough to prevent too much inaccuracy (or accuracy) by design. Here are the areas that standout to me with a look back at my prior comments.
The Good
Overall, I think my predictions were good with some notable variance in a couple areas. Of course, I was vague enough to prevent too much inaccuracy (or accuracy) by design. Here are the areas that standout to me with a look back at my prior comments.
The Good
- Taxes - this one was somewhat surprisingly good, blemishes and all. [remember with all of these we are grading on a curve] Much like Chance, Trump only gets credit for being there to sign the bill.
- Regulation - 1.25 steps forward with 1 step back is still progress. Congress and Trump completely failed to reform much less repeal the ACA (Obamacare). I have low and ebbing faith Dodd-Frank, et al. will be meaningfully changed. Still, there are success stories, and slowing the rate of growth is itself improvement.
- Judicial Appointments - I somehow missed mentioning this previously, and it would have been in the optimism bucket. This one has lived up to realistic (not full libertarian) hope.
- Lost Respect for the Sanctity of the Office - yes this is a feature--let the scales fall from your eyes, the emperors have never been well dressed. But . . .
The Bad
- Presidential Power & Authority - we may be chipping away at the Cult of the Presidency, but I don't yet see the groundswell from the left or the center that I might hope for. They are much to tied up in the emotion of this particular president's actions and words.
- Immigration - unlike in trade (below), Trump's actions have matched his rhetoric in this area. Here it looks to be an on-going real fight and will perhaps be the most lasting and impactful negative consequence of Trump.
- Trade - as I mentioned, his administration is a lot of (bad) talk on this, but so far little action. Still, he has many opportunities to make good on his very bad desires.
- War - I was not pessimistic enough on this. Drone attacks have increased under Trump as the list of places we are at war have grown. The U.S. government with the help of a complicit even if blissfully ignorant populace continues to be wrongfully aggressive. Include in this the surveillance state, but I am fairly certain this one is sadly nonpartisan.
- Drug Policy - yep, unfortunately I nailed this one.
The Ugly
- Hatred, Nationalism, Bullying, etc. - I was not as pessimistic as I should have been in this general area. The downside of losing the always undue respect for the U.S. presidency is that it took this buffoon to get us there. He is at best sloppy and inconsiderate, at worst hateful and demagogic. If you need links on this topic to prove the point, you have been in a coma for 12+ months.
On balance there are reasons to claim "silver linings" and reasons to claim "not so fast".
PS. For a better analysis of the economic policy results of Trump's first year, read Scott Sumner's take.
PS. For a better analysis of the economic policy results of Trump's first year, read Scott Sumner's take.
Sunday, January 14, 2018
The 2017 Tax Reform
There may not be another area of public policy where the distinction is greater between how non-economists (the general public, politicians, journalists, and practitioners in the area (in this case tax lawyers and accountants)) and economists evaluate policy than exists in tax policy. Who should you pay attention to? I will let the rest of this post hint at my answer.
Here is a sampling for how economists look at taxes centering on the most recently enacted changes to the U.S. Federal Tax Code. I've indicated the major takeaways for each and tried to keep this as low wonk as possible. Trust me; it could have been a lot deeper in the weeds.
Scott Sumner notes that there is more good reform in the recent changes than what probably was expected, by no means is it all progress, and that three natural experiments come out of the package. He also has a post discussing misconceptions in tax policy where most people don't understand that to tax someone you must reduce that person's consumption. If you don't reduce it, you haven't taxed that person--period. He also points out that distortions are always an important part of evaluating tax policy.
Steve Landsburg echos Scott's take and adds his own points including how the recent reform is genuine improvement and still far, far from the ideal.
John Cochrane is always worth quoting on tax policy. I'll limit myself to a few. First, here is how he sees the public role for economists discussing tax policy. Here is a long, but very rewarding, analysis of how to craft a good tax regime and what makes it "good". He calls out a fellow economist, former colleague and friend Austan Goolsbee, for not thinking like an economist. And he reminds us that the distributional effects of tax changes are never what the public and media expect.
Rawls' Veil of Ignorance is a useful philosophical approach in many cases and a good tool for guiding tax policy. How tax changes happen to affect you should not guide what changes you support. Humility is another quality tax reform should respect. The risks of unintended consequences are orders of magnitude higher in tax policy than in other aspects of political economy.
Here is a sampling for how economists look at taxes centering on the most recently enacted changes to the U.S. Federal Tax Code. I've indicated the major takeaways for each and tried to keep this as low wonk as possible. Trust me; it could have been a lot deeper in the weeds.
Scott Sumner notes that there is more good reform in the recent changes than what probably was expected, by no means is it all progress, and that three natural experiments come out of the package. He also has a post discussing misconceptions in tax policy where most people don't understand that to tax someone you must reduce that person's consumption. If you don't reduce it, you haven't taxed that person--period. He also points out that distortions are always an important part of evaluating tax policy.
Steve Landsburg echos Scott's take and adds his own points including how the recent reform is genuine improvement and still far, far from the ideal.
John Cochrane is always worth quoting on tax policy. I'll limit myself to a few. First, here is how he sees the public role for economists discussing tax policy. Here is a long, but very rewarding, analysis of how to craft a good tax regime and what makes it "good". He calls out a fellow economist, former colleague and friend Austan Goolsbee, for not thinking like an economist. And he reminds us that the distributional effects of tax changes are never what the public and media expect.
Rawls' Veil of Ignorance is a useful philosophical approach in many cases and a good tool for guiding tax policy. How tax changes happen to affect you should not guide what changes you support. Humility is another quality tax reform should respect. The risks of unintended consequences are orders of magnitude higher in tax policy than in other aspects of political economy.
Sunday, January 7, 2018
Saving Enough for Retirement? - New Year's Resolution fulfillment post
It is time again to report on my perpetual New Year's Resolution - to change my mind about a belief I hold strongly. Happy to report that I was again successful achieving it some time last spring. As I read and reflected upon this argument against increasing Social Security expansion and this counter-conventional wisdom post (HT: Don Boudreaux), I realized I needed to challenge myself against assuming I know what "you" or "we" need to save for retirement.
Formally presented: I have overturned my long-held and thoughtlessly repeated mantra that "typical Americans are not saving 'enough' for retirement". I should have had strong reservations about this mantra as it is a bold affront to my principles to presume that I know the correct amount people should be saving (or consuming).
The heart-breaking stories of the poor not having adequate if any savings for retirement is as misleading as looking at the Forbes 400 as a barometer of retirement preparedness. We do not and should not expect a household that finds itself in the rare but tragic condition of always being in the lowest income deciles to have retirement savings. Those are the households for which Social Security, private charity, et al. are supposed to be the safety net. To analyze the potential problem, one must look at much deeper data and analysis concerning aggregates and focusing on where households actually stand. Andrew Biggs at AEI does that exceedingly well as indicated by this post (HT: again Don Boudreaux).
Make no mistake: there is government-induced crowding out and misleading, many examples of individuals with unrealistic expectations, and bad financial decisions aided largely by government-protected culprits. But the basic belief I formerly held is not substantiated.
Formally presented: I have overturned my long-held and thoughtlessly repeated mantra that "typical Americans are not saving 'enough' for retirement". I should have had strong reservations about this mantra as it is a bold affront to my principles to presume that I know the correct amount people should be saving (or consuming).
The heart-breaking stories of the poor not having adequate if any savings for retirement is as misleading as looking at the Forbes 400 as a barometer of retirement preparedness. We do not and should not expect a household that finds itself in the rare but tragic condition of always being in the lowest income deciles to have retirement savings. Those are the households for which Social Security, private charity, et al. are supposed to be the safety net. To analyze the potential problem, one must look at much deeper data and analysis concerning aggregates and focusing on where households actually stand. Andrew Biggs at AEI does that exceedingly well as indicated by this post (HT: again Don Boudreaux).
Make no mistake: there is government-induced crowding out and misleading, many examples of individuals with unrealistic expectations, and bad financial decisions aided largely by government-protected culprits. But the basic belief I formerly held is not substantiated.
Epilogue: The State of Sooner Football
Seven months ago to the day a new era in the storied history of Sooner football began. I posted about it here. This first season has ended. Here are my impressions.
By all measure and accounts it was truly magical. But it came up just short of being Sooner Magic; although, this was as close an example as there can be.
Obviously, the ultimate outcome is unfortunate. But time will heal the still fresh wounds (wounds that we receive a bit of salt tomorrow evening as I watch Georgia in OU's stead battle Alabama for the national title).This game ... pic.twitter.com/5julOmJFY3— ESPN (@espn) January 2, 2018
I would rate the season as a short-term failure (we had every right to believe we would win it all but we did not) but a long-term strong success (we won a conference championship, competed very well for a national championship, won a Heisman trophy among others, and made numerous, forever-memorable moments to add to the Sooner legacy).
My prior post made mention of a needed ingredient to achieve the level of success Sooner football demands: luck. The Sooners this year did not have much luck. Balls did not bounce their way either proverbially or literally. I wouldn't say they were unlucky, but they didn't get the breaks going their way either. Yet, they still achieved all that they did. Quite impressive.
Maybe it was Sooner Magic, but it a more subtle way. Baker Mayfield is the embodiment of Sooner Magic. He overcame repeated doubt; he had the style, swagger, and toughness of The Boz; and in the end he has the resume few will ever dream of. No one will ever again label him a pretender.
My prior post made mention of a needed ingredient to achieve the level of success Sooner football demands: luck. The Sooners this year did not have much luck. Balls did not bounce their way either proverbially or literally. I wouldn't say they were unlucky, but they didn't get the breaks going their way either. Yet, they still achieved all that they did. Quite impressive.
Maybe it was Sooner Magic, but it a more subtle way. Baker Mayfield is the embodiment of Sooner Magic. He overcame repeated doubt; he had the style, swagger, and toughness of The Boz; and in the end he has the resume few will ever dream of. No one will ever again label him a pretender.
A fabulous season, it was all done too soon.
— ESPN CollegeFootball (@ESPNCFB) January 2, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)