Being Relieved and Reassured When I am Wrong

Considering the realm of points of view where thoughtful minds can disagree, we simply cannot have very much confidence that all of our views are correct and justifiable. In fact unfortunately it is likely that we are right only half of the time, an epistemic coin flip. Therefore, it should be reassuring when we discover areas within this realm where we are incorrect because then we can have more confidence in our other points of view being true. 

Similarly I take comfort when I find error or at least disagreement with the intellectuals I follow and admire. This lets me know I am thinking critically, which holds even if they are right and I am wrong. 

To make sure I am not just stubborn and cherry-picking my points of agreement, I always seek to change my mind (2020 edition coming soon). And by the same token, we must be careful not to use this as a cognitive bias giving confirmation and validation to views we should now doubt. 

If there are correlations and other entanglements between points of view, doubt cast upon one of these casts doubt upon all of them. Being wrong about one part of a system probably means one must be less confident in one's views about the other parts of the same system and perhaps wrong about the system itself. The Bayesian updating is a sticky wicket. 

P.S. One recent example for me was listening to an episode of The Libertarian Angle podcast.  The host Jacob Hornberger is someone for who I very much align in my view of the world. He ran in 2020 to be the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate. If he would have won, I would have gladly voted for him. In fact I would have ideologically preferred him as the actual candidate over Jo Jorgensen (Jorgensen was probably the better candidate for general electoral appeal). Yet he has strong beliefs with high confidence that the JFK assassination was a regime change conspiracy done through the CIA and the rest of the national security state. The case he makes causes me to adjust my views slightly but only slightly. I can believe there was unacted-upon desire to thwart Kennedy's foreign policy changes (Kennedy was making concrete movement away from war and hostility). I just don't believe this materially came together in a conspiracy of action. 

Listening to Hornberger gave me a bit of a challenge to my priors about the Kennedy assassination as he is very much more informed about it than am I. At the same time I didn't change my mind and adopt his view. If we do finally someday get a release of the classified records from the assassination (Trump surprisingly agreed to extend the classified status in 2018 until 2021), I might discover I was completely wrong. Either way I'm relieved and reassured because it shows I am not simply outsourcing all of my views to my intellectual heros, and if I am wrong about this, I can have more confidence in the areas where Hornberger and I are in agreement. 

Three Characters From Bewitched Have Taken Over America

I know this is a hopelessly-dated allusion, but it is important that we remember the great works of fiction and see how they are commentary on real life. 

Although Bewitched first aired a bit before my time, it was in afternoon reruns when I was in my formative grade school years. In addition to the pure entertainment value of this sitcom, it was good for a young kid to learn from some of the characters in this show. Notably, the caricatures of the Larry Tate, Gladys Kravitz, and Endora.

For those who don't know exactly what I'm talking about, let me explain. 

Larry Tate is the boss of the show's main male character, Darrin Stephens. Larry is a rudderless client yes-man obviously willing to do anything and everything a client asks no matter the cost. He will turn on a dime to agree with a client even if it awkwardly and obviously makes him contradicts himself. It is not that the customer is always right. It is that he doesn't really care about the customer's needs. He only wants the customer's business. This means he would gladly let a client make a mistake as long as it meant Larry gets the business. 

Larry Tate is seen today in all those who so willingly and easily succumb to the demands and desires of those in power and authority. Read this how you like, but I see it in those who would wear a mask in the shower if Dr. Fauci so commanded along with those who would believe aliens (space or illegals) voted repeatedly, fraudulently for Joe Biden. 

Gladys Kravitz is the nosey neighbor who thinks everyone else's business is her business. She freaks out about other people and the goings on around her on a regular basis. 

Mrs. Kravitz is seen today in every so-called Karen and other busybody who so much wants to patrol, police, and protect other people's lives. Less someone point out the gaslighting that poor Kravitz endured, I will admit that She Was Right! in her observations at least. But she was not right to be minding other people's concerns. Adults should be allowed to make their own mistakes, and we should defer to others with respect to their own choices. We likely do not know best for other people. Whether she is on the local zoning board or guiding health policy (be it for cocaine and vaccines or for social distancing and ruling business essentialness), Gladys Kravitz doesn't see it this way. 

Endora is the mother of the main character, Samantha Stephens. Endora believes herself to be quite superior to mortals. She would be quite happy to control and command all of her daughter's life as well as any others who got in her way. She wasn't always harsh about it instead using charm and seduction more often than brute force.

Endora is seen today as always in government at so many levels. She will steamroll over the lives and desires of Samantha and Darrin (people everywhere) if it serves her. She seduces the Larry Tates of the world and uses the Gladys Kravitzes of the world preying upon their respective weaknesses. The effect of government is Endora, but the composition of government is individuals. Those individuals are not fully Endora by themselves, but when good intentions are combined with poor incentives and weak principles, the outcome is Endora.

Partial List of Current Practices Future Humans Will Detest as Immoral and Indefensible

I've speculated on this before, as have others. As we sit anxiously awaiting a new year so as to put the current one behind us, this thinking is on my mind. None of these are specific to this year, but I could write and probably will write soon on my hope that many things about this year will someday (hopefully soon but unfortunately not soon enough) be thought of as abhorrent or at least a very, very poor use of cost/benefit analysis.

Here is the short but important list:

• Abortion
• Immigration restrictions (especially for those seeking to escape poverty or tyranny)
• Trade restrictions (to a lesser degree)
• Tolerance for people living (anywhere) involuntarily in a condition of (meaning without a reasonable ability to escape) extreme poverty (coupled with no acceptance for ignorance as to the solution for extreme poverty--we know how to fix this--free markets and free minds)
• Living conditions of the institutionalized elderly
• The death penalty

Short note on abortion (perhaps the most controversial item on the list): Nearly all of the arguments in favor of abortion today sound to me very similar to those arguments made contemporarily to and in apologetic memory of slavery.

Does Active Investing Work in Theory?

We know active investing almost always doesn't work in practice. The vast majority of professional money managers underperform their respective index over meaningful periods of time. Let that sink in. Compared to what we could easily do on our own through indexing, most of the people we pay very large sums to invest our money give us back less after they do their job and take their fee. For those few that do, we say they earn alpha--return in excess of the market for the same level of risk taken. 

As a side note realize something. Your Uncle Fred with all the great stock picks or your friend who just quit his job to start day trading and who has actually has been making money trading stocks, bonds, options, or whatever HAS NOT been taking the same level of risk as any index. Those two happen to be winners in a likely random pool of many people taking on tremendously more risk than they realize. If 10,000 people all flip coins ten times in a row, some of them almost certainly will get ten heads in a row (singularly by itself a 1 in 1,024 chance). 

However, I am focused on professionals here. Guys and gals who dress sharp, use all the right jargon, are actually highly intelligent and reasonable, and who most of the time lose money for their clients. Perhaps their clients are buying something else than returns [paging Robin Hanson--investing professionally isn't about making money]. Highly likely in many cases. It feels good to deal with these pros. Plus they can in fact help investors stay disciplined--better to make 5% versus the benchmark's 6% over 10 years than to bail out when the market declines and earn only 1% over that same 10 years. Fortunately for EMH and unfortunately for this theory, this affect has been shrinking to recently be nearly nothing.

So, while active management doesn't work in practice, does it work in theory? Start with the assumption of a manager that can consistently and reliably earn 1% alpha. When her benchmark is up 6%, she is up 7% on average. Why does she need your money? 

I can think of two likely reasons:

1. She could want to use it to reduce her own risk. 
2. She could have more opportunity than she can herself realize.

Notice that these are not altruistic motivations. The first is fairly unfavorable for the client--you are giving her money not for your benefit but for hers. She uses the additional funds to smooth out the volatility in her own income. When you pay a management fee to her, you are directly subsidizing her income. And just the use of the funds themselves is an indirect subsidy allowing her to invest more broadly. All of this might be justified if the second reason holds.

In the second she only would invest your money once she has invested all of her own money including all the money she can borrow at less than the total return of the investment, which is the market return plus alpha (6% plus the 1% in this case). Theoretically and in practice she will charge you a small fee to cover transaction cost plus a little profit to her to let you participate in her investing endeavors. Yet as we saw in the first reason she should probably be paying you as you are giving her a benefit of lower risk in the form of a smoother income stream.

Essentially this is an arbitrage which we know is going to have a limited capacity. Even if she is in that elite company of professionals who can outperform the market, her last idea (say the last stock her analysis says to buy) will be her worst idea and only be at best just as good as the market itself. It seems very likely by the time she gets to your money, we are firmly in reason-one (personal risk reduction) territory. 

This is quite damning for professional money management--in theory. What might save it and asset managers like myself who do in fact invest client money with money managers? 

First, we must admit just how challenging it is to find professionals who can outperform the market. Second, we must consider that the first reason above, income-smoothing risk reduction, might actually have a win-win aspect to it. Yes, she does enjoy less risk by using your money, but she doesn't get this for free. In fact she is probably risk averse enough that the second reason doesn't hold firmly.

Rather than fully lever all of her available resources--put her risk at ludicrous speed--she would likely prefer giving you most all of the risk of her performance and collect a steady fee for doing so. She is giving up the potential for return upside so that she has only very little downside risk. This flips the concern from being a pure doesn't-work-in-theory problem to being a pure principal-agent problem. sigh We can't catch a break. Now we have to worry that she isn't incentivized properly to continue to do what we hope she can do--outperform the market at the same level of risk. But at least we partially rescued active management in theory.

As bad as this is (in theory), this is in public market active management. The same forces are at play plaguing private markets like private equity and private debt. At least public markets are not opaque, very hard to benchmark, illiquid, et al.

I Was Desperate. Honestly Afraid. And Completely Helpless.

At first it was gradual, and then all of a sudden it was acute. I could be blamed for putting myself in such a position--at least it was somewhat my fault. But live long enough and you'll inevitably find yourself at the mercy of those around you, willing and desperate to take their help, and completely without options. 

It was late. Very late. And I was on a rain-drenched highway. Tired. Unable to go farther. And very hungry. 

I hadn't called ahead because I hadn't planned to be there. But there I was on a highway in the middle of nowhere Texas. To say I was between large cities was both true and meaningless. The middle of the Pacific Ocean is between large civilizations. 

I am a strong believer in the power of the consumer--that if you shop around and negotiate, you can drive a great bargain. But I was at the mercy of the supplier--a mere price taker that night. 

A warm meal, a dry bed, a safe place. My needs were a short list. Yet not fulfilling each would be critically bad. Drive on and the risks grew exponentially. Try to negotiate a better deal, and my only options might evaporate before my desperate eyes. 

Any slightly observant person could see my position of weakness. Any slightly opportunistic person could sense my vulnerability. So how bad did it get?

Not too bad at all under the circumstances. The motel owner had stayed up late, as it turns out, just for me on the off chance I would be there in need of his accommodations. His accent made clear he and I were not born and raised in the same place. I was a stranger on his doorstep, but he welcomed me as one would a good, long-time acquaintance. I paid him $159 for a room with a hot shower and comfortable bed I would use for the next 8 hours. After, he (or his staff) would have to clean it up restocking and doing laundry. I would leave without saying goodbye. 

Before that shower, I needed food. Two in the morning is not when many meals are served as evidenced by the many closed restaurants. No one ever starves missing one meal, but it can be quite unpleasant to do so. And good decisions are not made on an empty stomach and a poor night's sleep from the same. The 24-hour restaurant made sure that wasn't my fate. I was their only customer in the 45 minutes I spent. At least three people (couldn't tell if there were more in the back) gave me nourishment and quiet companionship all for the price of $23.

The morning sun brought a new day and a fresh outlook. My car was safely waiting untouched for my departure. I grabbed coffee and a Danish set out for me at the motel before dashing out the door. A quick fill up at a gas station meant I could be on my way not needing to stop for hours. 

I felt slightly uneasy leaving so abruptly that morning. Guilty would be too strong a word, but I was dashing off having taken so much from so many who were so generous to have provided it for so little in return. I can't imagine I'll ever be back on that same highway, and even if I am, it is unlikely I'll ever stop in that little spot again. I hope someone else can do a little more someday to take care of the people who took such good care of me.

P.S. This post's story is truish. It is a amalgamation of true prior experiences in my travels for the purposes of making a point. Life is tough--use markets.

Highly Linkable - the homepage edition

 I have set up a new page to house all of my highly linkable links. Check it out here!

It Takes a Cynic

I have long been accused of being cynical, and while I will cop to it, I have always maintained that to the degree I am it is a good thing. 

Think of it as the combination of Hanlon’s Razor and Occam’s Razor: the most obvious, self-centered explanation should be considered the most likely until reasonably ruled out. 

This point of view has its dangerous downside. Namely, one can fall into an ugly attitude or a jaded viewpoint that never sees things with an open mind. I strive to avoid this helped a lot by my natural optimism. 

When done appropriately, cynicism has great benefits. Frankly, it cuts through the crap. And it starts one out from a position of epistemic strength as it protects against the fraud of social desirability bias.

In fact I would go so far as to say any analyst worth his salt takes a cynical approach. Let your mind's eye have a cocked eyebrow--it will help keep you from being duped. 

What first got me thinking about this recently was listening to Steve Levitt's story in a recent episode of Freakanomics about advising a firm years ago regarding their advertising budget. The key part was this: 

LEVITT: They said, “Are you crazy?” It was almost if they found out they didn’t work, it was far worse for these people than it was not finding out it didn’t work. Because then they had to explain why for the last 15 years they had been wasting $200 million a year. So, they were happy to just live in a world in which as long as there were ads in every market, every Sunday, life was good.

Or when he says it more plainly in episode 2: 

LEVITT: If you think about it, no chief marketing officer is ever going to say, “Hey, I don’t know, maybe ads don’t work. Let’s just not do them and see what happens.” So, don’t get me wrong. I’m not implying that advertising doesn’t work. I’m implying that we don’t have a very good idea about how well it works.

Add to that this interesting monologue from Dave Chappelle in which he is arguing, unsuccessfully in my opinion, that we should not watch his former show on any streaming network. The part related to this post is his description of the Three-Card Monty scam and that as a analogy for how the [media] industry works. And also, this point: "Never come between a man and his meal." 

If you want to know what underlying motivation is driving a given set of actions, ask yourself first who is standing to gain (or avoid loss).

My cynical demeanor is probably why The Elephant in The Brain resonates so strongly with me. Seeing that X is not about X is a red-pill superpower. 

It is also why I see recent examples from sports like the gyrations in college football's season cancelled/starting/stopping in 2020 and Duke choosing not to play its remaining non-conference games in 2020-21 basketball season for what they are--selfish ploys by powerful vested interests.

To understand what is going on in college football right now you have to view it all through the lens of a labor dispute, cartel behavior, and game theory. COVID is pretense.

— Steve Winkler (@swinkler78) August 10, 2020

Being cynical has its challenges, but it also has its benefits that are underrated. 

Walter Williams, R.I.P.

 

Walter Williams, one of the greatest communicators and expositors of freedom and economics, passed away this week. While I never had the pleasure of being in his classroom, he was quite certainly a teacher to me. My first encounters with his work were reading his articles in The Freeman and his republished op-eds in the Conservative Chronicle as well as attentively listening when he would fill in for Rush Limbaugh. Over time as I became enlightened, with no small part guided by Dr. Williams, it was only his moments filling in for Rush that I would find that show meaningful.

He was a teacher directly to many teachers I have had including ones who entered his classroom avid Marxists and exited passionate free-market capitalists. 

I strongly encourage you to read Don Boudreaux's tribute to him in the WSJ as well as watch the short documentary, Suffer No Fools.

For more tributes, see this list.

May he rest in peace, and may his great work, wonderful spirit, and inspirational message live on.

There Should Be A Law!

Partial list of areas where there might be a market failure and I might support government intervention:

• Masks and social/physical distancing rules in a pandemic - I much prefer persuasion in the marketplace of ideas backed by good and plentiful information. That said, in a very serious health crisis a government-enforced policy might keep the peace and prevent very costly experimentation from defectors like a business not complying. Bringing this to the news of the moment--I generally do not think SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 qualifies. A failure on the part of government (and others) to even properly try the persuasion avenue does not then necessitate the force avenue. Further, compliance with practices consistent with most all of the nonpharmaceutical interventions has been remarkably high and widespread as well as ahead of the mandated institution of the NPIs. This is a point the advocates of force ignore until they wish to defend against the accusation that the economic and other costs have come as a result of forced NPIs. Then they are quick to point out that "it is the virus, not the lockdown". Careful thinkers realize it is both and the latter makes matters on net much worse.
• Zoning - but not in the way most people think. This one really is more of a government failure that perhaps needs collective agreement. Zoning way too typically becomes NIMBYism protecting vested current interests at the expense of potential and less powerful interests. Basically we may need higher-order (federal) laws preventing localities from encroaching in private property rights.
• Certain, limited cases of patents - Here is my prior thinking on this subject.

There are at least two problems with most cases of the discovery of market failure:

1. That you're overlooking some critical factor that negates the market failure condition. There is something else going on here; there are needs being satisfied along an unexplored dimension.
2. The market failure does exist but will be short-lived and thus insignificant. Short-lived might be in the eye of the beholder, true enough, but this is definitely an area where a longer than average point of view is needed (near-far mode if you will). 

[Updated 12/1/2020 adding to the partial list]

• Garbage collection
• Subsidies for under-produced goods (e.g., vaccines, General healthcare, education)
• General city planning such as road layout and utilities, etc.

It is best to think of these as coordination problems where a central actor can potentially lower transaction costs. The word potential here is doing a lot of work. Just because government theoretically can solve a problem doesn’t mean government in any way, shape, or form will solve that problem in a desirable manner. And note also that just because government might be desired to be a participant in the solution it doesn’t mean they have to provide the solution. Funding it can be a much better role for government to play with private actors actually doing the operational work. School vouchers are perhaps the best example of this, but garbage collection among many others fits as well.

Clutch Your Pearls

 

Partial list of false extreme problems government should not be attempting to “solve”:

• Gender pay gaps
• Income inequality (rather than consumption inequality which can be a real problem that government might play a helpful role in reducing)
• Regional discord, violence, and tensions abroad (this is false in that it is never so straightforward as right vs. wrong, good vs. evil)
• OPP - other people’s patriotism or lack thereof
• Overpopulation
• Student debt and higher-education financing
• Business lending in general and in crises like the COVID pandemic (SBA, Fed backstops of direct lending, et al.)
• Illegal immigration (crime risk) (economic affects)
• Tobacco use, alcohol consumption, sugar composition of food, gun ownership, use of currently illicit drugs, et al. as public health issues
• Food deserts
• Jobs lost to automation

P.S. This clip (and the entire movie) is an allegory for my view on this subject.

My Futile Desire For People To See The Truth

I strive for epistemic humility, and my practice is to consider the confidence with which I hold various beliefs. As such I truly don't hold strongly many views and am quite willing to change my mind. Once I have done the work, though, I am willing to hold a view strongly. And I love to hate conventional wisdom.

Hence, this partial list of things about which conventional wisdom is wrong and about which I very much want people to understand the actual truth. 

The formula for when conventional wisdom is held in error is a seductive, persuasive narrative coupled with readily accessible, salient anecdotes that are not indicative of the broader evidence because that broader evidence is largely obscured.

The following are all beliefs that I hold quite confidently after years of study, analysis, and thought (listed in no particular order). Note that I am still learning about these, questioning my priors, and remain willing to change my mind. It is just that the probability I assign to being wrong for these is now quite low.

• The general causes of and problems in the Great Recession as well as the housing crisis before, during, and after the Great Recession.
• The labeling asset prices as being "bubbles" (e.g., tulip mania, dotcom tech, housing markets--see above, et al.) is neither useful nor helpful. The term is loose, vague, and indeterminate. A classic case of seeming to say something, but being so obscure as to be unfalsifiable. It is the modern financial economics equivalent of blaming disease on the imbalance of humors.
• The current and historical lack of parity in college football and other sports—my first great example of things not being what is so commonly believed in the conventional wisdom. Big firms like regulation and so do big sports programs. The NCAA benefits the blue bloods at the expense of the lesser schools.
• The cause and nature of the Great Depression and the subsequent recovery (it wasn’t WWII).
• The cause and nature of long-term economic progress as told by McCloskey, et al.; the true nature of economic inequality (consumption versus income); how good things actually are and how much they have actually improved.
• The shallow and near emptiness of news journalism and that watching and reading the main-stream media is a form of entertainment done at the expense of one’s intellect.
• The immorality of conducting and impossibility of 'winning' the drug war. One can extend this to all prohibitions on victimless crimes, activities and trades done by consenting adults that are labeled crimes not because of a violation of anyone's property or personal rights but because society has deemed it taboo, immoral, or otherwise contemptible (e.g., organ sales, prostitution, price gouging, etc.). 
• The harm and unintended consequences of price controls in all there guises: minimum wages, rent controls, anti-price gouging laws, restrictions on compensating college athletes, et al.
• The injustices that exist and persist in the world, how good it could be in terms of justice and wealth for all of us, and the multiplicative benefits of free markets and free minds.
• The economics especially and general state of the science concerning environmental policy.
• The policy responses to the COVID pandemic.

I should probably take a cue from Bryan Caplan and call “Impasse” more often. It would give my head a chance to recover from its battle with the wall. 

Breaking Professions Down Into Three Essential Roles

I think one can categorize most professions into a small number of distinct roles--let's explore this idea and arbitrarily limit the number of roles to three in each case. It is my contention that few of the people practicing these professions are good at more than one role, and many are not very good at any of the roles. Consider:

• Lawyers: navigator, firefighter, bodyguard
• Financial advisors: tour guide, travel agent, psychologist
• Medical doctors: band-aids, antibiotics, placebo
• College professors: inspirational speaker, revealer of truth (model explainer), advancer of truth (researcher)
• Elementary school teachers: babysitter, basic skills tutor, etiquette shaper
• Catholic priests: moral consigliere, charity executive director, art museum curator

No One I Know Committed Voter Fraud

This is not a post about recounts and pursuit of truth. It is not a post about probability. It is a post about imagination.

I don't know 1 million people, much less 70+ million. I cannot even imagine what 1m people looks like. I've been to football games with 100,000 people. One million is like (checks notes) ten times that. 

I can imagine 1 million pieces of paper--dollar bills, pages in books, ballots, etc. 

I know some people who voted for Biden, some for Trump, and some of us (bless our hearts) who still believe in freedom who voted for Jorgensen. But remember, I don't know and cannot even imagine 1m people in any form much less 1m people who all wanted to vote for Biden (or Trump, but that isn't important right now). 

Okay, so I actually can imagine it, but it is a bit hard if I want to concretely think about 1m people showing up and filling out a ballot for Biden. It is much harder still to imagine them all showing up together at one time and doing so. 

But that is what the ballot counting looks like especially after the fact. Boom, X-thousand for Biden, Y-thousand for Trump, etc. 

I've seen enough TV to be able to imagine what a fraud looks like. I can imagine easily a vague picture of what a million or so ballot fraud looks like. Truck pulls up to the back of the warehouse, doors open and a sinister fella peeks out, coast is clear, truck gate is lifted revealing fat stacks of freshly-minted fraudulent ballots, dollies unload the loot...

Add to this that perhaps I have motivated reasoning--I would love (hypothetically) to discover that Biden "won" because of fraud. Combine that with my natural and defensible lack of imagination that millions of people see the world differently than I do and in a way that I think is very significant (it was, after all, the most important election of our lifetime). 

Do you see how it seems more likely, perhaps much more likely, that fraud is at play in the 2020 election? What is more likely, that something I can barely imagine happened or something that I can easily conceive of happened? I'm just asking questions here.

Unfortunately, "seems more likely" is equivalent to "is more likely" for many, many people. The Monte Hall problem contains an amazing paradox. The probability is dependent on the perspective of the chooser; however, the perspective that matters is not the chooser's imagined framing of the problem. It is the fact that from the perspective of the chooser and the new information he now has, the probability assignment has changed in a way for him that it has not changed for an uninformed observer--for the chooser it is 2/3 vs 1/3 (i.e., 67%/33%); for the uninformed observer it is still 50%/50%. 

Probability is in the eye of the beholder. But the beholder doesn't get to invent out of whole cloth the critical elements governing the probability (subjective though they may be).

I lied, this is a post about probability.

Libertarian Party 2020 Presidential Run - A Postmortem

As the 2020 election comes to a close, it is hard not to be disappointed as a Libertarian. As a libertarian, there is much room for optimism as many libertarian/classical liberal issues carried the day. Namely, movement toward ending the war on drugs, criminal justice reform, data privacy, etc. advanced nicely across the U.S. 

Here are the recent historic totals of Libertarian candidate votes for president:

1996    485,759        Harry Browne/Jo Jorgensen

2000    384,431        Harry Browne/Art Olivier

2004    397,265        Michael Badnarik/Richard Campagna

2008    523,713        Bob Barr/Wayne Allyn Root

2012    1,275,923     Gary Johnson/Jim Gray

2016    4,489,233     Gary Johnson/William Weld

2020    1,705,638+   Jo Jorgensen/Spike Cohen

My first thought was frustration at the Jorgensen campaign performance. But a friend pointed out that the mainstream media largely shut her out (even by Libertarian standards) giving her virtually no interview time or press otherwise. The latest "most important election of our lifetime" along with its highly divisive nature (largely Trump's doing but not entirely) gave little reason for alternatives to the duopoly. This combined with the COVID world was a very unfortunate combination for an outsider looking to gain recognition. 

So this setback might just be a fluke. Still, we need ideas on how to generate brand awareness and garner votes. A partial list of ideas (definitely a work in process):

• Get rid of purity tests - The infighting of no-true-Scotsman has to be limited to early primary candidate selection. Once we have a candidate, rally behind them. This doesn't mean we cannot criticize, but know what stage of the game you are in. This also helps broaden the tent. Be a directional libertarian rather than a destination libertarian.
• Focus on uncompetitive states - perhaps never leave California or perhaps more appropriately Texas or just both of those two important states. Imagine building a strong base in demographically and electorally important areas. The Free State Movement envisioned flocking to a small state to dominate politics there, New Hampshire emerging as the destination. Rather than focusing on winning a small state's electoral votes, this would be a strategy of focusing on winning hearts and minds to reshape the policy debate.
• Articulate stances in better sound bites - Help the voters know in the simplest terms why they are taking the leap to support, advocate, and vote Libertarian. A platform of less government is not enough. Specifics are crucial here, but more importantly we need to highlight solutions rather than what sounds to many like retreat into the darkness. A great example is Corey DeAngelis' straightforward and impactful message on school choice/education reform: "fund students (families) instead of institutions" and "let the money follow the child".
• Stop sounding like extremists - This dovetails with the prior idea. “End the Fed”, “Taxation is Theft”, et al. are not salient. Find a way to be against war without sounding like a 60s hippie—pacifism is right but it doesn’t sell. You can’t win support by telling people they are awful. You have to sell the message of hope and progress.
• Look the part - Quit going for shock value. You need to look like a candidate out of central casting. No nicknames on the ballot (e.g., Spike). No taxation is theft hats. The target new voter does not want to elect someone from Comic-Con. 
• Focus on a few key, pivotal issues that resonate in the current election - Might I suggest The Big Five?
• Get more exposure in mainstream channels - We have to bring the message to a much broader audience. We are certainly still in the brand awareness stage of marketing. Where is the Free To Choose of the modern era? Perot built a voter base from primetime segments he paid for and starred in. How about a libertarian town hall? How about starting this now and developing some multi-year momentum? 

These are just some ideas. We need lots more. 

Of course I'm not the only one thinking about this (this short video summarizes the current debate).

Justifiable Points of View

One thing I find quite frustrating and disappointing is how often people hold and cling to views that they can hardly justify. Consider:

I find that most people hold views in the bottom half of the grid with a disturbing fraction in the lower left (unwilling/strong). While they typically don't dispute the characterization of a view being strongly held, they adamantly defy the accusation they are unwilling to think hard about it. 

There are several biases at work here I'm sure. First, I think people are averse to saying their beliefs are weakly held. To many this is tantamount to admitting that they shouldn't be taken seriously. Second, admitting that one is unwilling to think hard sounds like admitting dumbness--rarely, though occasionally, a winning attribute.

Although I characterize the upper right position (willing/weak) as "completely justified", this does not imply that this is the optimal position. Rather I think people should strive for the upper left (willing/strong) but this striving should always be working to push them back towards the right as new information and arguments are revealed. 

Further, we simply don't have the opportunity to actually think hard about most things. Many are out of reach for our limited comprehension as well as our limited resources--namely time. Interestingly, this is one of the first places a lower left person will look for a defense. To wit: "While it would be great to sit around and reconsider what I have come to understand as true, who has time for that?" The second refuge is to dispute that thinking hard is necessary. To wit: "Those theoretical points are interesting, but here is what everyone knows to be true...". Both of these are simply argument from dismissiveness. "Pay no attention to the great arguments and evidence behind the curtain!"

Thinking like this is one reason I cannot take you seriously.

Consider also how this plays into the religion of voting. The moral duty to vote is a weakly justified concept. 

List of Ambivalence

 Partial list of things I am ambivalent about:

• Chick-fil-e’s Sunday Policy -- I am disappointed from the point of view as a customer; I am very much in support of their ability to choose to do this and I am impressed by the choice.
• The Trump Presidency -- not Trump himself, who I find quite objectionable. There are just some things to like and some things to very much dislike. I had the same appraisal of Obama, Bush, Clinton, . . . 
• Deplatforming by social media, other tech companies, and financial processing firms/networks -- It is certainly within their rights in almost all cases, but I am fairly sure it is not good ethically or pragmatically in all but the most isolated cases.
• Hunting -- I am not sure it is always morally objectionable, but it is often enough. 
• The National Anthem before sporting events -- Notice how we don’t see this practiced at high brow events like the philharmonic, etc.
• Separating activities, clubs, etc. by boys and girls and by men and women (e.g., Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Men’s Grill, Lady’s Auxillary, etc.) -- Is this socially healthy? Is it logical? I think in some cases it certainly is, but there is a slippery slope. 
• Roundabouts (aka, circle, traffic circle, road circle, rotary, rotunda, and island) -- These are unfairly criticized in many cases, but they are also irresponsibly used and often inappropriately built.

The Electoral College by Private Land Mass

One of the ways voting used to be limited was property ownership. Specifically, there were property qualifications where only property owners with sufficient holdings (along with other qualifiers like race and sex--i.e., white males) could vote. 

This got me thinking: what if the U.S. Constitution's provisions for the composition of the House of Representatives and thus that portion of the Electoral College had been designed around private land ownership rather than population?

Sooo.... I created a model for how that might look today given the amount of private land ownership by state. Now, this would have created the strong incentive to maximize private land ownership resulting in a much different picture than that below. But working with the lay of the land today, the crazy result would obviously be a huge boon to large western states and residents in them. Notice how Alaska doesn’t get a big lift and Nevada actually shrinks as a result of how much of each state is owned by the government. 

To further the thought experiment, I applied Eli Dourado's election model to see how the current Presidential election might be affected. Spoiler alert: This looks very good for Republicans.

This is a rough model—so I very well may have made mistakes. (Sources are in the linked spreadsheet.)

Tax Policy as Explained by DuckTales

 

It should be no surprise that in this presidential election we yet again hear nothing but nonsense regarding tax policy from those seeking office. Among the many principles being ignored are:

• You cannot tax wealth more than once--if you can even tax it the one time given tax avoidance and evasion opportunities and incentives.
• You cannot lower taxes and increase government spending--government spending is taxation (today through taxes or tomorrow through debt).
• You cannot tax without discouraging that which you tax--there is no tax free lunch.
• You cannot tax income--it may look like you are taxing income, but you are actually taxing consumption. On this point we have DuckTales and the hero Scrooge McDuck as the perfect illustration.

If you try to tax Scrooge McDuck, you will be unsuccessful. He is tax proof. You are ultimately taxing Huey, Dewey, and Louie, and they are not being taxed correctly in this scheme. You are taxing the wealth creator dissuading him from creating more wealth and at the same time not discouraging the wealth/resource destroyers.

Uncle Scrooge McDuck is the "wealthiest duck in the world". Hence, he is an obvious foil for those who despair at the thought of billionaires. But Scrooge McDuck should be considered a saint to those who truly wish the best for all the other ducks of the world. For he is the ultimate giver. 

He creates vast wealth through his many businesses, but he uses very little of it. In fact his number one entertainment is simply swimming through his money and treasure which he keeps in a giant money bin. So in exchange for creating wealth he takes basically only money (claims on resources) rather than resources himself. Outside of funding his adventures for more wealth, he lives a quite miserly life. Say what you will about that choice, it is consequentially a very good one for the rest of the ducks in his world. 

Who really pays taxes? 

Taxes are a method of the financing of government uses of resources. In order for a tax to be paid, it must be the case that someone, somewhere, sometime not use a resource so that government can use that resource. Therefore, the payer of a tax is ultimately the entity that must forego the use of a resource. It is decidedly not the creator of the resource, per se. 

Who should we want to pay taxes? What should we tax and why should we tax it? 

I always argue we should tax resource use rather than resource creation and do so as efficiently as possible. We should tax if the use of the taxed resource is better and necessarily done through government rather than private entities. If that seems like a high hurdle, it's because it is.

Attempts to tax Scrooge McDuck are bad faith and poor logic.

What Explains Country Variation in COVID Deaths?

I see a lot of vague or implied speculation on why there are such large differences in COVID-19 death rates (et al.) among various countries and regions. But many of these have internal tensions once we think a little deeply about the arguments being hinted at. Biases are leading to a lot of lies of omission if not just outright bad reasoning.

Why is Sweden different than Finland? What explains Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea versus France, Italy, and Spain? Germany versus Belgium? USA NE versus Texas versus Florida versus USA Midwest?

Here is a partial list of the usual and some unusual suspects:

• General health in the population
• Partial immunity including from prior coronavirus exposures
• Climate including ability to comfortably be outdoors and in open-air environments (definitely relative to when the virus struck)
• Prior and continued use of various drugs and treatments
• Proportion of at-risk people especially elderly
• Quality of procedures for protecting the vulnerable
• Quality of testing
• Quality of tracing
• Population density (within cities and otherwise relative to where people actually live; e.g., excluding most of Canada when measuring for Canada)
• Government NPIs including lockdowns and other policies but not test and/or trace
• Degree of movement within and among various communities (city to city, within a city, cross sociodemographic, in and out of country, et al.)
• Strain(s) of C-19 virus affecting country and timing of the infection

I suspect that the error term in any formal analysis might prove to contain all the variation. Remember, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist."

The Forrest Gump Diet: A few simple rules for a better diet

Most dieting plans are nonsense. And most dieting is not about losing weight--it is about signaling that one would like to lose weight, is involved in a struggle, and would like sympathy. If people really wanted to lose weight, they would. 

Diets come in a thousand varieties, but it is clear that while each might work for a while for some people, they fail (or people fail them) as often as they work. That we know so very little about this highly desired realm of knowledge, it is a big economic paradox. My guess is that it is highly dependent on individual circumstances (extreme heterogeneity) and these are both governed by external environmental factors including cultural influences as well as genetic factors. As such, one size fits more than one might not be true. And yet I do think some guiding principles can be derived that can greatly help us on our journey:

1. Eat when you are hungry. (Note that this pushes back against intermittent fasting.) 
2. Eat slower. You are not in a speed contest. 
3. Eat less. You are not in a volume contest. This can most easily be achieved by simply not ever completely finishing what you have been served.
4. Eat less of the things that you want to eat. It is very likely that your desire is to eat more of the things that are not as good for you.
5. Eat more of the things that are not as desirable to you. This is the converse of the prior point.
6. Eat a greater variety. This likely helps with the gut microbiome, and it makes life more interesting. That said, some things may just not be right for your body, and that is fine.
7. Eat less processed foods and prepackaged foods. This one helps with #s 2, 3, and 4 by making food less convenient especially food that is generally nutritionally poorer for you.
8. Look to make good choices at the margin, but diet over weeks and months not hours and days. No one ever starved to death by missing a single meal, and no one ever became obese by indulging oneself one time. 
• The first key is to avoid temptation by avoiding bad situations. 
• The second key is to routinely seek to make a slightly better choice at each opportunity. 
• The final key is to be able to look back over weeks and months to see if you have generally been making good choices and improving choices. While this might entail the need to keep a journal, which is contrary to the spirit of this list of keeping things simple, evaluations over longer periods of time are essential to understanding if you’re making progress.

P.S. This is the diet that worked for me. I lost 20 pounds and it definitely improved some aspects of my health. Had I wanted to lose another 20 pounds, I would more devoutly follow it, but I want other things in life more. At least I'm honest with myself.

Oh, you left out a bunch of stuff.

The quick versus the dead. And a more complete review.

Imagine various conversations at a board of directors meeting of a major corporation. For example: Trying to save money by paying women less, trying to please customers by not hiring blacks, contemplating intellectual-property theft, discussing a new found way they can literally defraud customers, etc. These would all obviously be wrong and would not be within the scope of fiduciary duty or any reasonable ethical framework. I put cronyism in the same category. Contemplating how to get special favor and rent seeking from the government is unethical.

I've been thinking about this post for some time. It started five years ago reading this article.

Recently there have been several things that have me thinking on this again--making this as fine a time as ever to actually complete this post. 

Michael Munger has been thinking about this for some time. This EconTalk is a great discussion with him laying out the problem. And this more recent appearance on Free Thoughts is great as well. Still another discussion highlighting the nuances and difficulty of this topic is with Rebecca Henderson recently on EconTalk. 

The question that I think doesn't get asked enough is: At what point does activity like developing and utilizing business relationships, networking, and advocacy cross over to be cronyism? It is difficult to disentangle behavior and results between these two worlds. In fact people participating in the activity during or after the fact would find it quite challenging even if they could put their natural bias to the side--the bias to believe they were acting in good faith and to good ends using good information and sound logic. 

Use of other people's money is a big key, but it isn't necessarily a smoking gun. For example, Facebook uses cash (shareholder funds) to hire lobbyists to advocate for A) onerous regulations for social media companies or B) a continuation of the protections it enjoys under Section 230 of the CDA. The first case (A) is likely a blatant attempt to use the power of government to prevent startup competitors from challenging their market position. The second case (B) is likely a reasonably good protection of their shareholder's and other stakeholder's interests as well as actually a good protection of free speech and enabling force for social media in general. 

Other people's money can come not just from taxpayers and owners (shareholders in public companies most commonly but not exclusively) but from employees as well. Imagine employees of Facebook being asked to participate in a letter writing campaign to Congress. 

It is not so simple to assume that a company can or should endeavor to right the wrongs of society. Not everyone sees the problem the same way. And not everyone will agree on the means even when they agree on the side to take in the cause. I higher a business to do what they do best--make shoes, install tires, store my money, serve me food, etc. I will do my own charitable giving, thank you very much. This is one of many reasons why Friedman was right. 

How do we get out of this downward spiral? I don't believe it is easy. In fact it is quite challenging. Education and communication are likely keys. Transparency helps as well. But as long as government is both powerful and trusted, these problems will persist. 

Related: 

Just how captured is our economy?

Rent seeking: who is to blame?

It’s More Than Qualified Immunity

To truly help those suffering from poverty (poverty of justice, poverty of spirit, poverty of options, poverty of opportunity, poverty of consumption, etc.), we have to address all of the constraints and forces that are keeping people from being all that they can be. The police state abuses in general are an important aspect of this, but they are just a single portion of this plague. We must look deeper than these very important issues as they are themselves just symptoms of bigger problems. 

Qualified immunity is one particular, nuanced element in a much larger set of problems. The list of police and policing and prosecution reforms is deep:

1. End qualified immunity
2. End mandatory police unions
3. Require police to obtain individual liability insurance
4. Require body cams
5. End no-knock raids
6. Stop militarizing police
7. Implement substantial bail reform
8. End civil asset forfeiture
9. Reform plea bargaining to limit prosecutorial power
10. Strengthen the public defender process
11. We could go on and on.

But these alone are neither exhaustive nor completely sufficient. Broadly there are three additional major areas of reform that would start to help heal and to eventually enable tremendous growth in the communities that are suffering the most: 

1) Occupational licensure - Make no mistake about it. These are very simply anti-competitive policies to protect incumbents. They hide under the pretext of consumer protection yet operationally they are clearly a producer protection. The result is two groups of victims: the consumer generally and the weakest producers (competitors to the powerful vested interests). There is slow progress on this area, but much more is needed. 

2) Zoning and other forms of development restriction especially in housing - Zoning has racism at its origin. No, that does not imply it is still a racist policy in fact or in law, but it should give us pause in accepting it as innocuous. Zoning is still largely about keeping "them" out. Who "they" are varies. While a charitable reading leaves zoning as a plan to make the best decisions, it rests on a dubious logic that we can plan the future and government knows best. Housing unaffordability is a major obstacle to upward mobility for those in poverty (of all kinds). Barriers to opportunity are not a solution.

3) Most importantly the senseless, unjustifiable, and evil drug war - The drug war's biggest victims are those in the weakest position to fight back. Leave aside whether we have the right to punish people for doing things we wish they wouldn't but that otherwise only harm themselves. Leave aside the intentions of those who have promoted it. Prohibition does not work . . . no, it is worse than that. It very greatly harms. It must end if we are to build a world of justice and opportunity.