Highly Linkable

I want to go to there.

For those of you pondering in your apartments 'why should I read in my shower when I could listen to a podcast in my tub', this edition of links is especially for you.

First of all, EconTalk has been on a tear lately. Three gems:

Marina Krakovsky on the Middleman Economy

Jayson Lusk on Food, Technology, and Unnaturally Delicious

Matt Ridley on the Evolution of Everything

Second, Bejamin Powell joins Free Thoughts to discuss Out of Poverty: Sweatshops in the Global Economy.

Third, Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick shares how Uber plans to kill Big Traffic. BTW, Lyft is getting in on the carpool action as well.

Now for those who prefer to click and read the way nature intended:

Kavin Senapathy writing in Forbes suggests we not get too excited about the prospects (and promises) of microbiome makeovers.

Leave it to Grumpy to throw cold water on the magical promises coming out of the Sanders for Tsar camp.

So a science professor claims to have discovered a hidden value accruing to certain members of a particular profession, and a history professor is pretty sure he knows how much several groups of people in a profession should be paid. Luckily, Andy Schwartz is here to disagree.

Phil Magness draws interesting parallels between failed economic modeling and failed climate modeling. The money paragraph (HT: Arnold Kling):

In a strange way, modern climatology shares much in common with the approach of 1950s Keynesian macroeconomics. It usually starts with a number of sweeping assumptions about the relation between atmospheric carbon and temperature, and presumes to isolate them to specific forms of human activity. It then purports to “predict” the effects of those assumptions with extraordinarily great precision across many decades or even centuries into the future. It even has its own valves to turn and levers to pull – restrict carbon emissions by X%, and the average temperature will supposedly go down by Y degrees. Tax gasoline by X dollar amount, watch sea level rise dissipate by Y centimeters, and so forth. And yet as a testable predictor, its models almost consistently overestimate warming in absurdly alarmist directions and its results claim implausible precision for highly isolated events taking place many decades in the future. These faults also seem to plague the climate models even as we may still accept that some level of warming is occurring.

Investment List Question Partially Answered

A few days ago I posted two partial lists of investments and posed the question to identify the key distinction between them. Here is the answer.

The key distinction is cash flows. I contend that the assets in list #1 meaningfully generate cash flows while the assets in list #2 do not.

Consider what a cash flow is: a stream of payments going (flowing) to asset owners generated by the asset itself. This does not include money or other assets taken in exchange for ownership of the asset. That trade value is important, but using it to evaluate current (present) value must ultimately rely on guess work--namely guessing what someone in the future will pay for it. Using cash flows is a very useful method to value assets and get around this resale (aka, "greater fool") theory of value. 

Once you have a guess as to what cash flows will be for a given investment, all you need to do is apply a discount rate, sum the results, and viola you have a net present value (current price). And more importantly you now have a method to compare various assets' valuations. Of course, it is not quite that easy. We have to guess/argue about the timing and amount of cash flows, and we have to appropriately guess what discount rate to apply for a proper time-value of money adjustment. But there is even more complication.

There is a tension between my logic and my lists. The implied rent payment one saves by owning their home is fairly vague while the returns from turning copper into the product of electrical wiring is not so vague. Conceivably, if you define "cash flow" broadly enough, everything has a potential utility value that could be described as a cash flow (or in cash-equivalent terms). For this reason I said list #1 meaningfully generated cash flows. I am assuming a reasonableness standard we can generally agree to. 

As such, I don't view gold as an investment in the same realm as I view, say, a share of stock. Gold's value is too reliant on the presumption that someone else will want to buy it at a later date. (Here is some of what the Oracle has said about gold. Read at least #4.)

My two lists of investments are not intended to be uniformly separate. Each item to varying and changing degrees exists on a continuum. Think of it loosely as the Beanie Babies to U.S. Treasury Bonds scale. The "cash flow" from Beanie Babies is only the joy one may get from holding one and the opportunity to sell it down the road. The cash flow from UST bonds is semi-annual interest paid and the promise to mature at par value. Where do you put gold on this scale? As you answer that question for each asset, you start to see a large gap forming naturally separating the two emerging lists of investments. 

P.S., When I first started to answer the question, I fell down a deep rabbit hole that took me quite a while to escape. Read on if you'd like to witness the journey. Bonus points for realizing the subtle point that creates the difference between the answer above and the answer below.

Consider what a cash flow is: a stream of payments going (flowing) to asset owners generated by the asset itself. This does not include money or other assets taken in exchange for ownership of the asset. Ultimately, for an asset to have value, it has to be intrinsically valuable to someone. Take a bond for instance. A bond is intrinsically valuable because it generates income in the form of interest. And that interest (cash) has value because it can buy stuff like beanie babies and food, which are intrinsically valuable because . . . because my daughter likes beanie babies and she and I both need food. . . okay, we might have a problem here. If you didn’t catch the circular logic, go reread that.

Any time you hear “intrinsic value”, your spidey sense should start tingling. That concept suffers from what I call the artificial logical stopping point. It is the fallacious attempt at halting what becomes “turtles all the way down”. In a chain of subjective value propositions we assert at some point that one of those values is so esteemed, so important, that it is an intrinsic value. If that sounds arbitrary, it’s because it is arbitrary. One can always challenge the leap to the intrinsic showing that leap to be invalid. Objectivism philosophically solves this conundrum by basically rejecting the need for an intrinsic value concept. I believe that is the correct way to conceptualize value—value is the relation between the object valued and the individual valuing it, but can I reconcile it with my belief that the two lists are distinguished by the presence of cash flows? I can because of what I am arguing cash flows are and what they are useful for... [this is where I caught my mistake and began anew].

Highly Linkable

Thank God they don't make 'em like they used to.

Watch this and be sure to watch the last "magic" point about a 52-card deck which starts at the 14:06 mark.

Tucker Max offers great advice on why he stopped (and you should stop or not start) angel investing.

This is not a top ten ranking for a university to aspire to.

Steve Landsburg brings his always valuable counter-conventional perspective to Serial: Season One. It is as hard for me to argue with his logic as it is to accept his conclusion. I believe he is right, but I also believe he has introduced an implied simplifying assumption(s) that ignores principles of justice and that may reduce or even reverse his conclusion. I think these principles could impact the model in both a practical sense (given the iterative and complex/diverse nature of the world of crime and punishment, including these principles might get us to better outcomes) and an ethical sense (it seems problematic to have low thresholds for high severity crimes). I might also quibble with his standard of proof and his philosophical position that a juror should be trying to reach a state of belief rather than my philosophical position that a juror should be trying to validate that the prosecution "undoubtedly" proved its case.

Let's look in on how the nation's first experiment with a $15 minimum wage is going--"Look Away . . . I'm Hideous!" Wonder how the guy who wants to take this model nationwide would react? And keep in mind Seattle's cost of living index is about +20% above the national average. How would this minimum wage sell in Peoria, Illinois, to name just one low-cost-of-living place?

Finally and while we're mentioning The Bern, don't miss Reason's take on Charles Koch's friendly letter to Bernie.

Perfectly Unperfect

A new year begins, another challenge arises to fulfill my perpetual annual resolution. Here is how I achieved it (changing my mind on a strongly-held belief).

I have always had perfectionist tendencies. For a while when I was younger, they were quite strong. I beat them back. But the tendency remained. And I reconciled that with the belief that it was a positive quality. That striving for perfection, in good measure, was an enhancement to achieving my goals. 

The better I've come to understand failure, the more I have doubted perfectionism. I now no longer belief it is a positive quality. My aha moment came last year while reading Megan McArdle's book, The Up Side of Down: Why Failing Well Is the Key to Success. (Imperfection confession: I haven't finished the book yet. My reading discipline is far from perfect.)

The better you are at something the naturally higher-quality your work will be. Trying to make it perfect is a waste of time. Striving to be perfect is a fool's errand. Generally if editing requires more resources than the original creation, then the endeavor was a failure to begin with.

Effective is underrated. "Easy to Fix" is generally far better in all respects than "Hard to Break". 

Don't get me wrong; working hard is a virtue. Striving for improvement even after much has already been achieved is a desirable quality--when well balanced against the cost. Perfectionism is a different animal. In fact it is an alien to both this world and this universe. It is simply the drive to get more than can be expected. It is alchemy masquerading as practice. 

PS. As a corollary I have also always had completionist tendencies. However, in that case I've known for quite a while that it is a negative quality, but I've struggled to have the resolve to fight it. Tyler Cowen is a role model to follow in this regard (check out the transcript (or listen) at 19:01). It was listening to Penn Jillette's podcast Penn's Sunday School last year that got me thinking a lot about completionism. Penn is a classic example as he will readily admit. He says visiting a museum with him is torture because he insists on reading each and every display fully. 

Not Exactly The Monty Hall Problem

This New Year's Eve is the opening round for this season's College Football Playoff. Oklahoma will play Clemson followed by Alabama playing Michigan State. The two winners will then face off for the National Championship 10 days later.

Since my Sooners are in the playoff this year, I've been thinking a lot about it. One random thought that crossed my mind was a bit of a logic puzzle. Read it through and answer quickly, and then think about it a while to see if you would like to revise that answer.

Suppose the following:

You are a fan of one of the teams in this year's playoff. One night while dreaming a genie with light-brown hair appears before you offering a choice among a few options*. The one you choose will be the future.

The options are:

A. Your team's total points scored in the playoff will be 75 points.

B. Your team's total points scored in the first game will be at least 50 points.

C. Your team's total points scored in the playoff will be 75 points, and at least 50 points will be scored in the first game. 

D. Your team's total points scored in the playoff will be 50 points, and you can choose how many to allot to each game.

Which do you take, and can the options be objectively ordered from best to worst?

My answers are below the jump.


*It is helpful to know a little bit about college football to fully appreciate this puzzle. The average points scored by winning teams is about 37 while the average points scored by losing teams is about 19. The lowest final score a team can have is 0 and the next lowest is 2 (a score of 1 is not possible). There are no ties in college football--overtime is played until a victor is determined. Last year out of 776 games played in the highest division of college football (the one of relevance here) a team scored 50 points or more 150 times and only 7 times did that team lose. Also last year a team scored 25 points or fewer 698 times and 564 times that team lost. Note that my data does not include the bowl and playoff games from last year.

Wine: It's More Like Art Than Real Estate

I just returned from Sonoma--so I'm an expert on all things wine for the next month or so.

One could really get used to a life out there: beautiful weather, wonderful entertainment and dining options, friendly and interesting people. What was it that Kurt Vonnegat didn't actually say? "Live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft. Travel."

As we all know, not all wine is created equal and price is NOT the way to tell the difference.

I was enjoying our first tour and tasting at Far Niente when it fermented in my mind how people tend to not understand how to think about wine. The wines at Far Niente are superb . . . in my opinion. Fortunately, I don't find them so superb that it spoils less expensive wine for me. I can appreciate both the difference and that it is a difference rather than a superiority.

Many people don't understand this. They want to think about it linearly: good to bad = expensive to cheap. But wine is not something so simply categorized. The evaluation is multidimensional. Comparing wine is not as simple as comparing soft drinks. Soft drinks are much more a commodity (both in supply as well as demand). There are taste preferences, but the taste dimension has much tighter bounds in soft drinks than with wine.

Doesn't price correlate with quality, you ask. Yes, but quality is in the eye of the beholder. People want wine to be like real estate where quality tends to be relatively linear in definition. Larger dominates smaller. Most people tend to agree most of the time on location preferences. Elaborate dominates simplistic. And so on. There is of course a lot of room for personal taste differences in real estate. It is just that these are muted relative to the linear factors.

Instead of real estate consider wine to be like art. Here there are vast differences in personal taste and these tend to be overwhelming. It is a lucky man who can get as much joy out of his child's painting as he can a Picasso. I look at wine the same way. Our very sophisticated yet down-to-earth guide at Far Niente is perhaps cursed with a high appreciation for fine wine.

Adapting the analogy to hit closer to home, consider the differences in football appreciation. For some only the NFL will do. For others watching the same college team when good and even when not so good is the top preference. Still for others even any small college game gets the job done. Is devotedly liking OU or Texas or Alabama superior to having the same devotion to Kansas or Tulane or Indiana? Of course not. Sitting in premium seats to watch OU beat Texas is consuming an altogether different product as compared to casually watching from home or listening on the radio while you work on your car. It is essentially a coincidence that these three things involve the same sporting event facts and outcome. My meal at Bouchon and your meal at McDonald's share only the coincidence that both involved digestion.

There is one other aspect to consider when it comes to the price of wine: namely, budget constraints matter. One factor that determines consumer responsiveness to price changes (the technical term is elasticity) is how much of a consumer's wealth the price represents. Pencils are a classic example as they are usually so cheap that a large increase in price does not cause a large decrease in the amount purchased (price inelastic). Wine is not an inelastic good for me. So to ask if a bottle that is 10x the price of another is 10x as satisfying is relevant to me. But it is not relevant for a billionaire. So understand that the price dynamics in part of the wine (and art and sports attendance) market is simply not relevant to many of us.

PS. Here are some pictures from my trip. Random thought: How less popular would wine be if it were produced in less amazing places?