Who You Gonna Call? Trustbusters!

David Henderson has written two very good pieces recently at the Hoover Institution's Defining Ideas. They are a two-part discussion on antitrust: Let Freedom Rein In Big Tech and A Populist Attack on Big Tech. I particularly like his conclusion:

The more regulations there are to enforce a government official’s idea of competition, the more likely it is that those regulations will hamper actual competition. Companies that give their own products and services an advantage in the marketplace are simply harvesting the value of an asset that they took big risks to create. Competition is dynamic, not static. But heavy regulation will make markets more static. Let’s keep competition dynamic by not penalizing successful competitors but by leaving the market open to alternative business models.

Do read the whole thing in both cases. 

He makes many excellent points--ones that I myself had in some notes for a future piece on antitrust. (Of course, he makes them much better and more fully than I could.)

Sometimes one must be patient for competition to work it’s magic. Just because a monopoly, oligopoly, or other sinister market-dominant firm seems entrenched today, does not mean it will always be or that the cost of immediate correction is worth bearing. Forced correction may not even be feasible. 

At any one point in time there are a lot of reasons the world is the way it is. The challenge for the trustbuster is to know with very-high certainty that the current state of the market is suboptimal ("inefficient" is the eye-of-the-beholder term of choice) and that a better world can and should be achieved through government action. 

It is easy to conjure up a hypothetical better world because only in the wild through real-world experience, the so-called market test, do we truly discover all the constraints and tradeoffs. Comparing the unicorn to the horse is always subject to bias--imagined reality almost definitionally engages in willful blindness. But the trustbuster's Dunning-Kruger problem does not end there. The "can be achieved" is naively assumed through hand-waving theory. The "should be achieved" is generally ignored altogether.

In the realm of current worry, Big Tech (dunt, dunt, duh!), see MySpace, Yahoo!, and AOL along with InternetExplorer, Mapquest, Garmin, Blackberry, et al. Then consider Twitter, Facebook, and TikToc, along with Google, Apple, et al.

Also, remember when the government broke up IBM? Yeah, I don’t either. Apologists for activist government regulation will tell you the threat posed by the 13-year case that went nowhere is what reined in the highly-successful company, but this theory only works by willfully ignoring the fabulous work performed by IBM’s various marketplace competitors. Those quick to point out “you didn’t build it” rely on their own wishful agency when the real work is being done by those actually in the field. 

Why in antitrust do we grant so much benefit of the doubt to regulators and so little deference to the world as it is? Are we just that willing and hopeful that a white knight can remake that which we suppose is in error? Is it just because we don't listen to master Yoda?

Sports Handicapping - The Next Iteration

For over 100 years we have created divisions and categories for athletic competition. The original segregation for purposes of ability matching was by sex. Obviously there were other ones based on prejudices like racial divisions and socioeconomic status. While there were likely strong confounders like desire to keep out of competition from superior athletes who happened to be of a different race, etc., this was not a purely ability-based separation. 

Beyond sex-based categories, there have been many more separations to better group like-to-like competitors. For example, there are designations with the most distinct being professional versus amateur. High schools and colleges normally compete in certain divisions. Within sports there are weight classes (boxing, wrestling, etc.) and tours and qualifiers (golf, tennis, etc.).

It seems to me the next step in this process is to fully segregate sports by proven and expected talent regardless of sex. 

The recent case of swimmer Lia Thomas brings this to the forefront, but it is something that has been around for a long time. It would come as no surprise that many historic female athletes we know of were somewhere on a spectrum of male-female that did not cut neatly between the traditional sex categories. It would further come as no surprise that there are a much larger number we never were given a chance to know of because they were not allowed/encouraged to compete. 

Two recent pieces on the topic of Lia Thomas are instructive: The first by Megan McArdle asks the question whether women’s sports should exist at all. The second by Suzy Weiss prods the awkward juxtaposition that this situation has created whereby those who would/"should" be expected to support a trans athlete are now those arguably harmed by it.

These are undoubtedly rare cases, but we cannot dismiss them unless we are willing to blatantly exclude a meaningful group of potential competitors from participation for sake of forcing clear, hard lines where shades of grey actually prevail. Keep in mind that these edge cases are critical because those in question are generally vying for first place in the female category. If we want a world where we have two definitions of greatness, the actual fastest, strongest, best (almost always males) and the next group excluding the first, then we need to figure out where and how to draw that line between the two. 

Trying to draw the line on the basis of a single metric like testosterone won't get us there as this is multi-causal--there is no more a single athlete gene as there is an intelligence gene. Hence, sex phenotype works almost always until it doesn't either because of genetic edge cases or the more controversial transition cases. The latter is the news of the day and the very interesting dilemma we now face where reconciling two forms of inclusionary fairness have come into conflict. The former is how we know this isn't so easy as to say you can be a member of the club if you have always been a member of the club.

So I propose the thought experiment of self determination (set and test and rethink rules and norms at the most local level practicable) and separation by capability regardless of sex/gender (consider eligibility based purely on ability in the specific sport or event). 

Obviously this is change, which to sports fans specifically like humans in general is bad, very, very bad. But before you reject the proposal out of hand consider two points: For one, are we sure we want to have female-only competitions? Keep in mind this excludes a lot of males from enjoying a competitive forum with status. For another, are we sure males will want to compete with females? The stronger you think the answer to the first question is or should be "yes", the weaker is the concern implied by the second.  

Would there be complications as well as manipulations including out-right fraud? In sports?!? Of course there will be. This is nothing new. But while it creates an opportunity for scheming, it forces a harder look at the processes we use to sort and match competitions. This should result in better outcomes in the long term. Letting a hundred flowers bloom via open-minded exploration is the key to figuring out a new, stable equilibrium. If you doubt we can be open-minded about this exploration, you are totally ignoring why this is now an issue in the first place.

Beyond the risk of bad actors poisoning the pool of competition, the much bigger potential downside is that the disruptions will end women’s sports and perhaps even some men's divisions as we know them. This could be an outcome that means many kids and even adults don’t have a forum in which to play the sport they love and otherwise excel at even as it grants new opportunities to others in those forums (a point raised above). 

Yet again we are faced with the tough reality of tradeoffs. 

By Noske, J.D. / Anefo

Economic Sanctions - Failure in Theory and Practice

Imagine you are trying to change someone's mind. How would you go about it? What techniques would be effective? 

Imagine now you are trying to change a group of people's minds. The difficulty multiplies. 

Now imagine you are trying to get a group of people to change their behavior or worse yet to get them to make active changes in their own status quo implementing changes that put them at high risk or involve great hardship. 

For instance, suppose you are strongly opposed to abortion. You believe it is morally wrong--it is the taking of a human life. Suppose you took political power and while you could not yet overturn the legalization of abortion, you could impose sanctions on those who engage or enable it. To bring about change you would like to cut off access to credit for those who have been a customer of or worked for an abortion clinic. This can't be done, though, because you cannot identify those individuals nor can you legally target them. But you do find a technicality in the law allowing you to target an area that has an abortion clinic. All those who live and work in that area suddenly cannot access credit or the banking system. This is crippling.* 

Do you think this would be constructive to your ultimate cause? Think of those marginal or median voters. While they don't have a strongly-held position on abortion, they are not just caught in this crossfire--they are the target. You are aiming to harm them so as to bring about change. At the very least you are willingly harming them because the shotgun approach you are limited to forces the collateral damage.

If that is too politically charged for you, consider this. You are the mayor of Shelbyville. One of the things that really irks you is how many of your citizens root for the nearby town of Springfield's baseball team, the Isotopes. This isn't just a minor annoyance. Your administration is trying to support the local team and economy by building a huge new stadium complex for the home team. The lack of hometown support, though, is making this quite difficult. So what to do? You institute a blackout zone through an indirect tax. All broadcasters are subject to the onerous tax, $10,000/minute of broadcasting, for any broadcast of a sporting event of a team located more than 20 miles from the Shelbyville town center. Viola, problem solved, right? 

The desire to have people change what sports team they root for is not going to be solved by force. Many people who never watched a single game before are likely to take up the cause against you. 

Want to increase vaccine acceptance and injection rates? Well, you could . . . oh, we've been doing that experiment. I don't think it moved many needles [pun intended].

We can extend this hypothetical to all kinds of causes: disuse of fossil fuels, antipornography, zipper merging, etc.

The result is consistently and predictably emboldened and extended resistance. It is not human nature to succumb to external pressure. Any parent knows reverse psychology and distraction are the keys to getting a young child to change course. Tell them they can't, and the deviant battle begins. 

This thought experiment alludes to why economic sanctions applied by governments so often fail to achieve their desired ends. 

Setting aside all of the very important concerns about moral authority and moral culpability given who is actually harmed by sanctions, consider just if they should work to begin with. Stated differently, why do they so often completely fail? The do so because that's not how people change or how they are made to change.

So why do we do it? Partially it is action bias, the fallacy of . . . something must be done . . . this is something . . . therefore, do it!

Perhaps more importantly it relies on social desirability bias. It seems like a strategy that is more humane than active warfare. However, it is arguably much less noble and less morally defensible as it targets noncombatants attempting to turn them into double agents. In an age of high-precision bombs, economic sanctions are carpet bombing combined with landmines. 

*Arguably the linked (trucker convoy and Canada's emergency response to it) is an example of sanctions that worked! But only in the narrow sense of getting the result of disbanding the convoy. I am not sure it won any hearts and minds on net. Rather I think it turned a lot of people against the government of Canada. It also was an arguably more harmful action than simple police action would have been. The greater harm is in the threat and concern of it being used going forward as a regular tool. In this way the actions of the Canadian government are not analogous to economic sanctions but rather analogous to escalating hot-war conflict.

Resistance to Coercion versus Fighting for Freedom - Dimension Analysis

What do you do when confronted with someone wanting to have you do something you don't want to do? In fewer words, how do you respond to oppositional, hostile force? 

Of course, the force in question is probably a key to your response. Is someone trying to manipulate you into taking an unfair deal, or is someone trying to steal your car, or is someone threatening your life or way of life? Importantly your alternatives matter greatly as well. Can you delay, demur, deflect? Can you exit the situation with grace or perhaps with just some slight shame? Must you submit or resist perhaps with violence?

Let's focus on serious conflict where the stakes are relatively high if not exceptionally high. And in doing so we will think about situations from the standpoint of the victim or person under threat/attack. Therefore, this will be about degrees of losing where the best case outcome is the status quo.

I see the options being somewhere between resistance to coercion and fighting for freedom. In a sense this is passive versus active or reactive versus proactive. Take the recent actions in Ukraine with Russia threatening and then attacking. As I write on February 26, 2022, Russia has invaded and is actively attacking various areas within Ukraine including the capital city Kyiv. It is very ugly, as war always is, and the initial news is likely sketchy and subject to revision. 

That said, we can assume some basic facts to explore the implications. The Ukrainian government has not been friendly to Russia. This is a government the U.S. helped install and support going back to Obama administration. Long before that under the Clinton administration and then continuing into G.W. Bush's administration were numerous political moves and positioning to expand NATO including potentially adding Ukraine at some future date. Regardless of the likelihood of that officially happening, the support for Ukraine from NATO and its member countries as well as the outright enlargement of NATO to include former eastern-block nations in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, and 2020 have presented an expanding defensive/threatening position vis-a-via Russia. 

This is not an apology piece for Russia or especially Putin. It does potentially give us some understanding for what Putin is doing and how he at least tries to defend it. The Russian government is a threat to its neighbors and NATO interests. But from the standpoint of Russia, the same can be said of NATO and actions the U.S. in particular has pursued. What is interesting to me is how the perspective of both sides can be used in this dimension analysis.

As Russia engages in violent acts harming and killing people, one could label it as "fighting for freedom"--just not in the noble sense we typically use that phraseology. They have turned from resistance to coercion as an option to actively striking out (I very deliberately don't say "striking back" since Russia has not been attacked). 

Similarly the Ukrainian position has been resistance to coercion and especially the threat of future coercion by building an alliance with the West. Was this the only or best way to resist coercion? I would say probably not. Rather building ties economically and politically with Russia might have been a better strategy. In this I envision taking on an active Swiss-like neutrality while developing economic co-dependence through trade. NATO and the U.S. itself might have been much wiser to not expand NATO nor threaten to do so. Perhaps NATO should have deescalated following the fall of the Soviet Union in stages negotiating further and further withdrawal and peace leading potentially to eventually dissolving NATO altogether. This is my view, but this is not aimed at being an advocacy post nor a criticism. Rather I want to suggest that in light of these alternatives the geopolitical moves in Ukraine were in actuality fighting for freedom disguised as resistance.

Consider an analogy: A man and his family live and work in a dangerous community subject to high violent crime rates. While moving would be a great solution in theory, exit is not practicable for them. Whether they are correct or not, they feel trapped. Recently they have noticed that there are increasing incidences of violence in places they must frequent like the local grocery store and their workplace. So the man decides to start carrying a gun. Because he lives in a state that allows open carry, he can make visible his choice. [NB: This is not a post about the 2nd amendment, etc.] 

Carrying a gun in this case could be thought of as resistance to coercion, but it also can be escalatory. The thugs in the neighborhood also feel trapped--they can't take their violent ways to another place. This is where they "work". So the thugs now consider their options. They could increase their own muscle/firepower. They could target others who look less capable of defending themselves. They might even consider tactics that amount to negotiating territory and room to operate like co-opting the shopkeeper or threatening more while accepting less. 

But carrying a gun could also be fighting for freedom. The man is taking a stand and putting himself in harms way to the degree this act is escalatory or empowers him to take more risk. As an alternative or complement, he could advocate for more policing or security guards. If he didn't have an open-carry option, this advocacy might actually be more difficult if it puts him at greater risk when he carries a gun. Even if he can carry a concealed gun legally, the advocacy still pushes back on his own fighting for freedom option forcing him to be much more passive.

Sturdy doors with good locks, bars on windows, and burglar alarms are tools of coercion resistance for this family. But so too are guns, knives, big dogs, and baseball bats. The latter can easily become the tools of freedom fighting or outright aggression. The former might not have direct offensive capabilities, but they do invite suspicion as well as stronger opposition when opposition does come knocking. You're probably better off bringing no gun to a gun fight than bringing an unloaded gun and no ammo. 

The point I'd like to make with the analogy is that it is hard to see where the lines are between what is resistance and what is fighting. Active resistance (e.g., carrying a gun) can be a threat, and that can be good, justifiable, and peacekeeping. It can also enable a fight where flight would otherwise be the better course of valor.

While it might be socially desirable to align with fighting for freedom, this positioning is antagonistic with unintended consequences. While it might feel noble to claim the mantle of resistance to coercion, this can be a provocative self-deception. Think how many so-called freedom fighters were either defending a brutal regime or whose actions lead to tyranny. Consider how often a resistance movement became offensive destruction. Once put into motion, forces opposing change or pursing change can be very hard to control.

George Washington fought for freedom, but so supposedly did Che Guevara. Washington's legacy was not a fight for complete freedom (see slavery), but I think his value alignment was much, much closer to virtuous than was Che's. It is hard to know where freedom fighters might lead us.

There is no left or right monopoly with either resistance or fighting. Easily I can think of resistance to coercion as being a conservative position as when something is threatening the status quo or tradition. I can also see how people could decide to resist being victimized by traditional norms--for example, racism, homophobia, etc. Fighting for freedom is on the other side of the axis where "Hell no! We won't go!" becomes "Come and take it." with no natural political connotations.

Neither motives nor outcomes can be determined based on which of these strategies is employed. Both methods can have a claim on the moral high ground as well as disastrous pitfalls if not evil ulterior motives. The non-aggression principle (NAP), a founding concept of libertarianism and classical liberal philosophy, implies strong constraints on both ends of this spectrum lest we become that which we seek to avoid. 

What All The Pundits Are Getting Wrong About CFB Playoff Expansion

In the subculture that is major college football, big news broke earlier this month that the championship playoff at the sport's highest level, FBS, would not be expanding from the current 4-team format for the duration of the current contract.

from CBS Sports:

College Football Playoff expansion on hold, current four-team format will remain until 2026

A 12-team proposal was proposed, but the CFP won't be expanding until after the current contract expires in 2025

Many of us who follow the sport found this disappointing. In fact almost everyone weighing in on it including the people who decided the matter by voting against expansion expressed disappointment. So what's going on here?

Most pundits write it off as simply a group of people too petty and short-sighted to get past themselves and grasp the bigger picture. To be sure, that might actually be true. However, I think there may be something else at play. 

College football is in incredible flux. From the rise/revolt of the student athlete finally demanding and getting a fairer seat at the table to competitive pressures to realign into better and better deals, there is much uncertain about its future. 

I think it is fairly obvious that the current arrangement in college football is not sustainable. There are currently 130 teams in the division with four more planning to make the upgrade from the lower-division FCS. This is a league that ranges from Alabama to Kansas (winningest to losingest over the past 10 seasons). That is a big range.* The bottom of the league would typically be an extreme underdog to any opponent from the top of the league--perhaps on average a matchup between a top 20 team and a bottom 20 team would imply a +90% likelihood the favorite would prevail.

This is not a league with any sense of balance. Frankly, somebody has gotta go. Most of the members of the major conferences, the so-called Power Five, know this. As a group their teams are much better than the rest of the league, the so-called Group of Five. While some of the weakest teams are found in the Power Five (e.g., Kansas and Vanderbilt) and some of the strongest teams are found outside the Power Five (e.g., Central Florida, Boise State, and independent Notre Dame), these are exceptions. 

It is my contention that the major stumbling block to expansion of the CFP before 2026 is what kind of deal the Group of Five would get in the arrangement. If those conferences were granted slots in the playoff, they would hold a lot of bargaining power going forward. The teams within those conferences, especially the very good teams, would have much less incentive to move into a power conference. If nothing else, the buyout of those rights would grow astronomically. 

It has been at least rumored that the Power Five have offered to buy out the Group of Five from the CFP. This would line up with my hypothesis nicely. The elite teams and conferences see the writing on the wall. They know, I believe, that the highest division of college football should have perhaps 64 or so teams in it. 

They also know, I believe, that even if a field of ~130 teams continues, it very well might be one with a de facto two divisions (upper and lower). The lower teams would be there as sort of a relegation à la soccer. By no means in this arrangement should a lower-division team have anything but the slimmest of chances at a playoff berth. 

Any concession made today to a lower-tier team/conference, is very risky. As talent accumulates into the better teams/conferences, those entities have the luxury of wanting a bigger share of the spoils. Negotiations while the future of the league is still sorting itself out means deals can't come together--the lower-level teams/conferences want more than they can offer and the upper-level teams/conferences need more than they can get. 

I didn't see this clearly at first and expected an expansion to happen before the current contract's expiration in 2025. Now I understand it better if for no other reason than having to look hard to understand why a deal fell through. 

*If you don't agree that Kansas isn't a serious team (Texas Longhorns probably don't), then consider the other doormats over the past decade: UMass, New Mexico State, Connecticut. 

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream Portfolio

Imagine being an architect for a couple wanting to build a dream house. Their sentiment and emotions would influence what they asked for, but your job  includes a need to keep them within reason (not too big (or fancy) and not to small (or modest in terms of amenities)—basically Goldilocks).

Now image that they want to argue with you about how certain features should look, about how large certain rooms need to be, about what it takes to be within code and best practices, even about structural and engineering issues. Now complicate it by making yourself somewhat unsure about some of these answers and downright ignorant about the underlying truth of, say, why certain designs will likely work better for structural integrity than others. You must win the initial bid and keep their confidence throughout the project without misleading them or giving them what they think they want without regard to the tradeoffs, the downsides.

Financial management and financial planning is a lot about being the architect and general contractor for some principal (individuals, families, organizations, et al.) who probably wants more than they can reasonably afford and wants to achieve it with unreasonable certainty. Being a financial advisor means always having to say you're sorry.

This is not a rant. Clients are trusting you with their money--potentially all of their financial wealth. For many like individual retirees this will be all their potential wealth too because they are no longer able to work. For others their capacity not to mention willingness to go back into the workforce would leave them only with a fraction of the wages they are entrusting you to earn for them with, let me remind you, their money. They may not know what they do not know, but part and parcel with that is they do not know it. 

Oh, and one more thing: you as their advisor may not know what you think you know about them. It is a continual discovery process seeking to learn and refine and revise what goals they are trying to achieve and what constraints and risk tolerances they are subject to. 

Good car mechanics know a lot about fixing cars and keeping them running well. They know basically nothing about where you should drive. London cabbies know how to get you where you want to go (in London). They cannot know if you should want to go there.

Humility and honesty are essential attributes of a good advisor (financial and otherwise). They are among the necessary conditions for potential success along with actual skill in the area of advisement, good communication, and ability to establish and keep trust. Most clients are know they want the latter qualities in an advisor (skill, communication, trust), but in many cases they give little to no importance to the former (humility and honesty). In fact those often repel rather than attract clients. Add overcoming this bias to that which separates beneficial, successful advisors from charlatans and quacks. 

Rather Sorry Than Safe

When friends who are interested in "prepping" ask me about planning for doomsday scenarios, I love the looks on their faces when I reply, "I'm planning on being one of the attacking barbarians ravaging the countryside. Thanks for telling me about your hideout." 

Let's consider the perspective of a prepper in regards to prepping for financial disaster. There are always reasons to be fearful about the future, and it doesn't take too much imagination to spin these true risks into worry of cataclysm. As I write, worries about the COVID-19 pandemic are gradually fading only to be replaced by concern of war with Russia vis-à-vis Ukraine.* 

If you don't have a back-up plan, you are naively gallivanting about while the asteroid circles the planet. Yet if you always hunker down in the bomb shelter, you are letting your fears prevent you from enjoying life. Risk inconsistency can be worse than consistent, willful exposure to high risk. If you are prepared for and understand that actions you are taking are likely risking bankruptcy for the chance to strike it rich and possibly very rich, then the risk you are taking may very well be prudent and necessary. Extremely few entrepreneurial efforts with appropriate upside potential do not inherently contain that kind of downside risk. But if you are running a decent risk of bankruptcy just through your spending patterns and arbitrary investment decisions, you are likely not getting enough reward for the risk. In a more technical sense you are not matching potential return with the level of risk. 

Return is the expected compensation for risk taken. It is not guaranteed nor predetermined. A lot can get in the way and almost always it is a spectrum of potential returns (some of them low if not negative) that result in the expected return. Sometimes we qualify return compensation in terms of a required rate of return. Required can really be thought of as minimum acceptable expected return. In highly efficient markets this required return becomes equal to the expected return as any potential return above this required level gets competed away.

Successful decision making in life as with successful investing is not about avoiding risk or taking risk. It is about understanding and managing the many varied risks one is exposed to while getting the proper potential compensations. 

We simply cannot predict the future nor can we entirely remove our exposure to it as good and bad as it will be. Well, I guess there is one way, but if that is your solution, this post isn't for you at all. For those of us who want to go prudently into that good night, remember the old adage:

Don't try to hedge the end of the world. It's only gonna happen once, and regardless of what you do, it won't work out too well for you.

*Calvin: You're sure?

Adam: Positive. The Soviet Union collapsed without a shot being fired. The Cold War is over.

Calvin: That's what everybody believes?

Adam: Yes, sir. It's true.

Calvin: What? Did the Politburo just one day say, "We give up?"

Adam: Yes. That's kind of how it was.

Calvin: Uh-huh.

Calvin: My gosh, those Commies are brilliant! You've got to hand it to 'em! "No, we didn't drop any bombs! Oh yes, our evil empire has collapsed! Poor, poor us!" I bet they've even asked the West for aid! Right?

Adam: Uh, I think they have.

Calvin: Hah! Those cagey rascals! Those sly dissemblers! Those, uh... They've finally pulled the wool over everybody's eyes!

--"Blast From The Past" via IMDB