Tuesday, January 19, 2021

I'm As Mad As Hell, And I'm Not Going To Let You Take This Anymore!

Partial list of difficult, unsavory (to the third-party at least), or troubling situations that third parties commonly attempt to help or "correct" but end up simply harming the people in the situation: 
  • sex work
  • organ donation
  • child labor
  • drug addiction and misuse
  • pay-day lending
  • immigrant smuggling
  • sudden, high prices in the midst of emergencies - anti-price gouging laws
  • high cost of housing - rent control
  • low-productivity worker earnings - minimum wages
Simply trying to correct the situation by enacting prohibitions or strict limitations does not address the true problems, almost always causes significantly more harm than good, and tramples on the freedom and dignity of those the prohibition ostensibly aims to help.




Monday, January 18, 2021

Understanding Investment Expected Outcomes

Winkler's Law of Investor Risk/Return Trade-Offs: Any time an investor begins a statement affirming they understand the basic risk/return trade-off (high return comes with high risk, low risk implies low return), they are invariably about to implicitly or explicitly argue against it. 



There are specific meanings of risk and return as used here. This is financial risk and return. Risk can be understood as variance or volatility of price. Return is the outcome realized (selling price plus income derived during the time held minus the price paid and costs borne). Once you realize that "high/low" return doesn't mean "good/bad" return but rather means "big/small" return, you'll be a lot closer to understanding what finance people understand about risk/return. Risk and Return are simply two names for the same thing in this framework.

If you buy a share of stock at $100, hold it for a year collecting $2 in dividends, and then sell it, the outcome is going to be high or low. If you sell it for $101 or $95, the outcome was low in either case. In this hypothetical the return and risk were both low. Selling for $10 means a $3 profit ($2 dividend plus $1 price improvement). Selling for $95 means a $3 loss ($2 dividend minus $5 price deterioration). Regardless, the outcome of an approximate 3% return (positive or negative) is a low return.*
 
When the meaning of "risk" is relaxed to include risk of individual ruin (financial or otherwise), hypothetical scenarios that do occasionally exist move from Low Risk/High Return to High Risk/High Return (extreme example: let's bet on 10 coin tosses in a row where for each one if you choose correctly, I give you $1,000,000 and if you choose incorrectly, you pay me $500,000) or from High Risk/High Return to High Risk/Low Return (fairly common example: concentrating nearly all of one's financial wealth in a single stock). 

Bad decision making can move hypothetical scenarios from High Risk/High Return to High Risk/Low Return (example: excessive amounts of slot-machine play--the repetition gives the house a greater and greater advantage . . . start with a 90% payout return, then keep playing . . . 90% times 90% times 90% means the house goes from a 10% edge keeping a dime for every dollar you wager to a 27.1% advantage keeping 27 cents for each dollar through the rewagering). 

The grid is generalized and one should think of these realms as in the extreme. There are certainly examples that would technically fall into the unrealistic realms (hence the name unrealistic rather than impossible). These opportunities (Low Risk/High Return) and pitfalls (High Risk/Low Return) are fleeting, rare, difficult to truly experience, and usually of small magnitude. To good to be true is basically a mathematical and economic fact. 


*Yes, "low" is a relative term--relative to the state of the world. Just assume with me that most returns that are 3% are "low" or change the numbers to make it so in your mind. The amount isn't critical to the point.

The Five Tribes of Politics

Inspired by what Arnold Kling has taught me with his Three-Axes Model as formalized in The Three Languages of Politics, I would like to attempt to explain the actual factions in today’s political arena as defined by their constituents. The factions are:
  1. Crony Capitalists (CC)
  2. Labor (L)
  3. Patriots (P)
  4. Evangelicals (E)
  5. Woke Champions (WC)
Note that to some people at least all five are boo words. I don't mean the labels to necessarily be pejoratives, but I do think it is helpful and instructive that they cut to the core of what motivates these groups. One could easily classify each as a religious movement and analyze within that framework--take that to be as innocuous or incendiary as you like.

I propose that political success (winning elections and maintaining power) largely can be explained by how well parties and candidates gain and retain the support of these constituencies. Getting the support of enough of them allows for electoral success. A key component of that is to figure out which fit together when. 

Notice that the alignments change over time as do the salient forces within each. In the time of George W. Bush the alignment was CC-P-E. During Obama’s time the Woke Champions were tame and not toxic. He enjoyed a successful alignment of CC-L-WC with meaningful support of E. I believe the Great Recession and GFC was a turning point for the CC coalition as Obama's rhetoric was reassuring and McCain seemed rudderless. This left McCain only claiming P as a solid supporting group. 

Trump shifted or enjoyed the shift to where CC-L-P-E was dominant. To the degree he lost favor with CC, perhaps a stronger group for Clinton, he gained L. Before you dismiss this, consider that it is not the CC or L leadership we are concerned with. Those overwhelmingly went to Clinton in the case of L and solidly in the case of CC. Think rather of the membership. Both CC and L share a very common motivation: protection from competition at home and abroad. One big subgroup within CC are all those whose primary political motivation is preservation if not extension of the entitlement-industrial complex (Social Security, Medicare, et al.).

Biden is the leader of CC-L with enough support from P and WC to edge out Trump. There are two ways WC should not be considered a strong faction for Biden: one, there are quite a few WC on the far right; two, he is not the ideal candidate for leftist-WC (the much bigger part of WC). If WC realizes they are on the outside looking in during the next four years, they will turn on him where currying favor with E might be his only refuge (albeit an odd and unlikely one). Notice how this largely but incompletely maps to highly-educated elites (HEEs). 

If you don't find yourself on this grid (I certainly do not), realize that it is not an exhaustive list of political alignment. You are either ignoring your true, primarily political motivations or you are not a member of the significant political class. As a live-and-let-live, small government libertarian I indeed do not have a ideological home within any of these five tribes. Hence, no politician need care about my vote. 

P.S. Yes, I have read Hidden Tribes--I do not find it compelling or complete. Among other flaws, it is two wedded to the left-right duopoly model of politics. 





Thursday, January 14, 2021

Yes, Master - 2020 New Year's Resolution fulfillment

You may not remember the before times, but I do. Way back then I had a conviction in a belief, that while I still do hold it, I must admit I was wrong to hold so strongly. I fulfilled my perpetual, annual New Year's Resolution in 2020 by changing my mind on just how easily willing people are to submit to authority when in a state of fear. Let me explain.

Although I am a student of history and well aware of the many cases of a populous submitting to the king, the conqueror, or the soothsayer promising protection for only the price of precious liberty and self-determination, I foolishly and naively did not connect that reality to my view (hope) for the current world. Time and place again throughout 2020 did I find that view shaken and proven faulty. 

There were recent, stark clues that should have told me the line would not hold. 9/11 and the terrorism threat of the early 2000s was but a hint of how quickly and thoroughly people would yield liberty and self determination in the midst of fear. In that case we traded away freedom for security and as the predictive aphorism goes got neither--just theater and blunt rules with unintended consequences and predictable government excess and abuse. 

Likewise in the financial and economic challenges of the last 25 years we saw populist calls for regulation and takings. We got both repeatedly and with greater gusto in each pass. Captured interests worked hard to draft the legislation and interpret the rules to favor vested interest and the status quo. The experts gave us bailouts and promises to never again . . . allow the wealthy and the powerful to face devastating losses. 

And then came a pandemic. I expected tyrannical nations would react harshly. I expected better from the nations of the free. The Higgsian ratchet is a powerful and reliable effect. This is true because FOOL (Fear Of Others' Liberty) and FOOM (Fear Of Others' Mistakes) are dominant forces in times of great stress. 

I believed that people, not just free people but all people, would gradually and eventually strongly resist and rebel against coercive, dictatorial edicts that did not just seem but were proved to be ineffective, unjust, inconsistent, and in many cases counter productive. While resistance occurred, I was and am still shaken with how little was offered. 

Perhaps I am being too harsh on myself. To be clear I am not advocating nor saying I expected violent resistance. That is not required to stop what we have seen. The popular will alone prevents or enables power from corrupting to this degree. So maybe people are making a practical tradeoff that I am not appreciating. To make a small example, masks and mask policies are often just a wink and a nod letting us go about our lives. In this fashion they are akin to Robin Hanson's example of the public drinker's brown paper bag.

Yet my reading of my fellow man does not make me think this the case. I see people truly scared and truly allowing if not endorsing the lockdown of free lives. Acquiescence is all the permission the powerful need to take more from others. 

If I were to put it into a 2x2, it would look something like this:



Fighting for freedom is the degree to which one will actively take actions against oppression. This is offense. Resistance to coercion is the degree to which one will impede oppression. This is defense. Both play a crucial role and are interconnected in an effective and just battle for liberty. 

Coming into 2020 I put Americans in particular and people generally on the blue line. My revised belief is that the typical person is on the red line--a decided shift away from where I once thought we were.





Tuesday, January 12, 2021

Reading Between the MSM Lines - Partial List

Follow the money. If you want to know something about the credibility of a source, look into what they are actually getting paid to do. For example:
  • Fox News gets paid to shout scary ideas at old people.
  • MSNBC gets paid to say snarky comments that make their friends giggle.
  • CNN gets paid to pretentiously spout conjectures that sound important.
  • CNBC gets paid to use buzzwords and pretend noise is signal to make viewers feel smart.
  • ABC, CBS, & NBC news all get paid by trying to resemble what their viewers remember traditional network news looked like.
Turn off the news. It makes you dumber.

Saturday, January 9, 2021

52 Things I Learned in 2020

Like all of us, I learned a lot about disease, pandemics, epidemiology, government crisis management as well as a lot of misinformation about all these topics. I am very confident that I have an inflated and undue confidence in what I "know" about these things. I am also very confident that most people are in the same boat as me. 

Let's set all that aside to cover the items I collected over the year as truly new knowledge. They are only in the general order of when I learned them or saved them to my list. My apologies in advance for those things learned that turn out to be untrue or otherwise faulty (bound to happen).

1. Chimps can learn to do something regular humans cannot do. [UPDATE 9/21/21: Turns out maybe not.]

2. I generally knew that abortion rates have been declining over the past decades (e.g., specifically it has declined 24% from 2006-2015). Yet I did not know the distribution of abortions by age of the fetus/baby--65% before 8 weeks, 91 before 13 weeks, and almost 99% before 20 weeks all inclusively I presume. (BTW, I greatly miss SSC).

3. An astronaut almost drowned in space in 2013 (both of these start around the 10-minute mark) and you cannot burp in space, therefore you don't drink carbonated beverages in space. 

4. I learned a lot about speed from this Patrick Collison post including: "Walt Disney's conception of 'The Happiest Place on Earth' was brought to life in 366 days." As a side note, see item 52 below. 

5. Rio averages (or was as of this story) 24 shootouts per day. 

6. The college wealth premium, the benefit to overall lifetime wealth for a person attending college versus foregoing it, might be close to zero.

7. NIMBYism now has a tracking index

8. The tiny island nation of Tuvalu has a recently discovered artificial natural resource. Paging Ronald Coase...

9. Richard Nixon committed treason.

10. The often thrown around (buzzword) term "disruptive" when describing technology, innovation, et al. has a specific meaning and is often misused.

11. I learned many things from Adam Minter on EconTalk including that the thrift is a 17-billion dollar industry, Goodwill's mission is employment training for hard-to-employ people, and Marie Kondo didn't invent decluttering but rather emerged from it.

12. Among other interesting facts, which always are surprising at least to me (and I tend to be aware of economic gravity), I learned that 95% of U.S. commercial ginseng production all comes out of Marathon County, WI.

13. This article was almost the base for my 2020 New Years Resolution fulfillment. It still makes the list here for helping me understand when "sustainable" is not a boo word.

14. Testable is not equivalent to falsifiable and Karl Popper was wrong--this one is deeper than most will realize.

15. "The Central Social Institution in Prague was home to the world’s largest vertical file cabinet. It consists of 3,000 drawers, 10 feet high, reaching from floor to ceiling and covering approximately 4,000 square feet. The drawers are all equipped with roller bearings." -- Be sure to check out the pictures.

16. The real size of countries is astonishing.


18. The first two of Clarke's Three Laws.

19. Trying to say that sex is binary is an oversimplification that probably is devoid of meaning.

20. Civil War veteran and amputee James Hanger designed and built a new, lightweight leg from whittled barrel staves and went on to found Hanger, Inc. which remains a key company in prosthetics.

21. The real price of LEGO pieces have declined by about half in the last 30 years--lots more including nuance on this learned fact at the link.

22. USB drives get heavier as you load more data on to them.

23. Dictionaries do NOT in most cases list pronunciations in order of best or preferred or most common first.


25. 530 Boston Police Department employees made over $200,000 (equal to the salary of the mayor of Boston) in 2019. The highest paid made over $350,000.

26. The fatality risk to police and sheriff who patrol makes it only the 16th most risky occupation, and the magnitudes of the differences from the top 15 is meaningfully large.

27. There are more possible games of chess than there are atoms in the universe.

28. Walter Duranty, an NYT journalist in the 1930s, won a Pulitzer Prize for a work of lies that covered up Stalin's mass murder in Ukraine. A heroic man, Gareth Jones, exposed all of this. Sadly, history is remembered poorly to say the least.

29. Karl Marx neither originated nor popularized the term "capitalism".

30. The "Lord of the Flies" is not just wrong in theory and disproven in analogous fact time and time again, but an actual, real-life version actually happened to disprove it specifically.

31. Fish sticks have an interesting origin story.

32. I always thought the Elo Rating System was named for some acronym or shorthand for a mathematical term. Rather it is simply named for its creator, Arpad Elo. Quaint I must say.

33. & 34. I learned many things (two of which I'll list) listening to Terry Anderson on the podcast The Curious Task. The first (located about the 5-minute mark) is a story of the trade axe, which found its way through the beauty of the natural market well ahead of the explorers. The second (located about the 21-minute mark) is the fact that the disgusting "General" Custer was only a general when he was fighting Indians. Otherwise he was a lieutenant colonel--talk about bad incentives. 

35. A key and underappreciated part of the conceptual framework of externalities is the role of expectations--"Externalities exist only when another party’s actions create unexpected spillover effects."

36. A cheap, effective and painless method of stopping tooth decay has existed for over 100 years and is only now beginning to be used in the USA despite use abroad for some time.

37. A team of scientists may have discovered new organs in the human head.

38. Half of Canada's population lives at a latitude south of Lake Superior.

39. The Anti-Digit Dialing League (ADDL), founded in 1962 to oppose telephone number dialing made of just numbers, is still active and fighting hard against the tide of 10-digit dialing.

40. & 41. Here is another example (EconTalk with Virginia Postrel) where I learned a lot and am listing but two items. First (about the 18-minute mark) Luddites were hypocrites and second (about the 40-minute mark) hemp DID NOT stop being produced because of marijuana’s prohibition--it lost out in the marketplace well before that.

42. In 2019 Japan's population on net shrank at the rate of a person a minute.


44. The widely-used (and misused and overused) concept of Black Swans was invented by Bertrand Russell.

45. & 46. Okay, last two-for-one. The Tim Ferriss podcast interview of Steven Rinella taught me two things of note: First (about the 11-minute mark) is that New Mexico is the state with the second most hypothermia deaths behind Alaska, and second (about the 1-hour, 21-minute mark) is the story of The Children of Llullaillaco. The early discussion of hypothermia wasn't too new to me, but it was nevertheless fascinating.

47. Historically almost all of the return in the stock market, for the S&P500 at least, is captured after hours (between the close and the open).

48. Among other amazing facts about real Christmas trees is that at the large producers they use helicopters sunup to sundown to load up to a thousand trees per hour onto truck trailers.

49. Using cotton-tipped swabs (Q-tips, et al.) to clean ears is probably NOT that bad after all. Note: there is an interesting subtext lesson here about science and incentives--so apt for 2020.

51. Listening to The Great Antidote with Tevi Troy I learned a lot about political rivalries and petty grudges and childish behavior including the degree and nature to which Bobby Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson absolutely hated each other. 

52. As referenced above in item 4, perhaps the most amazing speed to build, create, develop was done in 2020 as Moderna's vaccine for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 was developed in 2 days! What I learned was how fast a for-profit company can develop a brand new vaccine, but I must lament how unfortunate it is that government won’t let that technology work for us in a free and timely manner, which costs us immensely in lives and happiness. 

Sorry I ended the list on a sour note, but it is fitting that the first and last items were about science and that the list ended with grimness. 2020 was a great year for science, a sad year for so many, and a bad year for government policy.

Here is to more learning in 2021. Hopefully the tuition won't be so high.



Thursday, December 31, 2020

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.