Bryan, what is one major belief you hold that almost all economists get wrong — not because of missing evidence, but because they’re psychologically resistant to accepting it?
The Trump administration has said that they expect the core of the USMCA agreement to remain in place, but separate protocols for Mexico and Canada. Do you think the US might agree to bilateral labour-mobility with Canada? (As a "trial phase" for the hwhole 51st state thing...)
Oh, did you ever see the movie or read the novel: "hWhite Noise"? I think it would be pretty interesting to you, as a professor. If so, hwhat do you think? If not, hWhy not?
How would you rank the plausibility of the following viewpoints that you do not hold? If you can, give some rough descriptions of your credences (I.e. “as plausible that I live in a brain in a vat” or “as plausible as minarchist libertarianism”). Even better if you can assign a numerical credence.
1. Moral Veganism
2. Veganism absent shrimp welfare concerns.
3. Minarchism/small government libertarianism as opposed to anarcho-capitalism.
4. Physicalism
5. Very minimal closed borders (immigration is like going through TSA lines, except imagine that it’s actually relatively effective at what it does)
6. Limited god theism. Can e.g. fine tune the universe, but isn’t omnipotent.
7. Non-religious, unlimited theism.
8. “Little o” orthodox Christian theism (Defined for the sake of the question as belief in the trinity, incarnation, atonement, biblical inspiration, and unlimited theism. Nothing more specific like biblical inerrancy or Catholicism)
9. Political authority.
10. Left-liberalism. (Political authority + we need a large welfare and regulatory state, but live and let live on drugs, immigration, other social issues)
10. Pro-life from the moment of fertilization.
11. Utilitarianism (any kind, including pluralist kinds à la Matthew Adelstein)
Re-ordered from most to least plausible. I tried to be careful to rank stronger claims lower, all else equal!
1. Very minimal closed borders (immigration is like going through TSA lines, except imagine that it’s actually relatively effective at what it does)
2. Minarchism/small government libertarianism as opposed to anarcho-capitalism.
3. Pro-life from the moment of fertilization.
4. Veganism absent shrimp welfare concerns. [I assume this means we're not morally concerned about shrimp?]
5. Moral Veganism
6. Limited god theism. Can e.g. fine tune the universe, but isn’t omnipotent.
7. Utilitarianism (any kind, including pluralist kinds à la Matthew Adelstein)
8. Political authority.
9. Left-liberalism. (Political authority + we need a large welfare and regulatory state, but live and let live on drugs, immigration, other social issues) [would be #4 without the "political authority" part]
--------------Brain in a Vat-----------------
10. Non-religious, unlimited theism. [I assume this means "no revealed religion"?]
11. “Little o” orthodox Christian theism (Defined for the sake of the question as belief in the trinity, incarnation, atonement, biblical inspiration, and unlimited theism. Nothing more specific like biblical inerrancy or Catholicism)
Wow, to be brutally honest, you’re even more dogmatic on Christianity and traditional theism than I thought! Very few of even the most extreme atheists I’ve found online would give such an extremely absurd level of credence to the issue. No wonder you lost to Matthew Adelstein and Huemer on the fine tuning argument that badly. Sorry, but it’s true.
You’re still a favorite of mine, but on religion, I’ll generally look elsewhere for insight on most issues.
Edit: this sounds harsher than I meant for it to sound. Sorry!
No problem. I'm shocked at how many smart people like the Fine Tuning Argument. Why think that the basic physical constants could be any different than they are?!
Because they are contingent facts. The universe’s constants didn’t have to be fine tuned the way they are, like the universe could have been 100% Newtonian. They aren’t the laws of logic. But regardless, even if it were necessarily those laws, there’s the analogous epistemological problem of “If it was necessary that Carl won the lottery twice, why would it be necessary that he would?”
What do you think about sanctions on Cuba, Russia, Iran, North Korea? Take them as a group or each separately if they warrant it.
With Cuba, I think it makes to too easy to blame their troubles on an external force (the US). But people will always blame the US for everything, I guess.
The world's worst dictatorships - most notably Hoxha's Albania and North Korea - have been almost totally autarchic. I think the dictators are correct to believe that foreign trade is dangerous for their regimes' long-run survival, because it allows "dangerous" foreign ideas to spread, and creates alternative power bases. So if you want to undermine a foreign tyranny, your default should be to allow as much trade as the tyranny allows.
On the strategic use of sanctions, I think early Hanania had it right. They very rarely work, especially if you (a) want big changes, and (b) don't even talk to the enemy to tell them what they have to do to end the sanctions. Late Hanania is right that there is a deterrent effect on other regimes. But sanctions are mostly about our leaders' domestic pride and action bias: they have to "do something" even if it's harmful to tyrannies' actual victims.
I haven't read it because he refuses to publish his books now and I don't want to read a PDF on my computer or phone (nor talking to ChatGPT about it for hours on end).
How would fibre optic cable, plumbing, electricity, etc. get built/maintained under anarcho capitalism? I want a more practical answer than "privately" so that I can imagine it in the real world because I'm very sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism.
Isn't Fibre Optic cabling, at least, pretty much already free market? Except that they have to string the fibre optic wires somewhere... Either on poles or in some sort of underground conduits or something. In the Philippines, you see fibre optic cables strung all over the place, pretty haphazardly. I suppose they just string 'em hwhere they can and don't worry so much about damage...
Also, local streets in the Philippines are handled through HOAs basically. Just like the halls of a condo building. Residents can purchase an annual sticker for their car. Visitors pay a small toll (about 10 pesos) for each entry to the neighbourhood. Manually collected by a guard. This gets a bit annoying for delivery services, but surely, the market could eventually find a way to deal with this.
I don’t know, tariffs probably would have polled well before he implemented them! I think people may have realized how bad thy hit the stock market or something.
I doubt they would have polled well with non-Republicans if you told people Trump was doing it. It's true that the stock market crash mattered, too. But that probably wouldn't have mattered much if he had revealed his policy intentions gradually.
62 percent of Americans have money in the stock market and it’s reasonable to guess another 10 percent have an interest in wanting the market to go up. Maybe they’re expecting an inheritance someday or they’re in a business that deals in high-end goods or whatever. Have we gotten to the point where both major political parties would be scared to take action that crashes the market? Does that give you reason for optimism?
Neither party wants to blatantly crash the stock market. They probably never have. But there are minimal consequences of just being persistently crummy, leading to stock market stagnation. If it's not vivid, it won't change electoral outcomes.
Also, there's tons of evidence that voters hate inflation, but that didn't stop Biden...
Bryan, what is one major belief you hold that almost all economists get wrong — not because of missing evidence, but because they’re psychologically resistant to accepting it?
Voter irrationality! Even behavioral economists refuse to face facts.
That's such a cute drawing of you and Valli. How old is she now?
Almost 14.
Wow she's really growing up!
The Trump administration has said that they expect the core of the USMCA agreement to remain in place, but separate protocols for Mexico and Canada. Do you think the US might agree to bilateral labour-mobility with Canada? (As a "trial phase" for the hwhole 51st state thing...)
Sadly unlikely!
Have you ever been to the Philippines?
No, but next year is likely!
Did anyone give you the "birthday bumps"?
How old are you?
Did you have a happy birthday, sir?
hWhat do you think of Mark Carnie?
Oh, did you ever see the movie or read the novel: "hWhite Noise"? I think it would be pretty interesting to you, as a professor. If so, hwhat do you think? If not, hWhy not?
It's actually spelled "White Noise" btw. I'm just being hWheird! 😂
There was something I wanted to axe you. But I can't remember. Do you? 😛
How would you rank the plausibility of the following viewpoints that you do not hold? If you can, give some rough descriptions of your credences (I.e. “as plausible that I live in a brain in a vat” or “as plausible as minarchist libertarianism”). Even better if you can assign a numerical credence.
1. Moral Veganism
2. Veganism absent shrimp welfare concerns.
3. Minarchism/small government libertarianism as opposed to anarcho-capitalism.
4. Physicalism
5. Very minimal closed borders (immigration is like going through TSA lines, except imagine that it’s actually relatively effective at what it does)
6. Limited god theism. Can e.g. fine tune the universe, but isn’t omnipotent.
7. Non-religious, unlimited theism.
8. “Little o” orthodox Christian theism (Defined for the sake of the question as belief in the trinity, incarnation, atonement, biblical inspiration, and unlimited theism. Nothing more specific like biblical inerrancy or Catholicism)
9. Political authority.
10. Left-liberalism. (Political authority + we need a large welfare and regulatory state, but live and let live on drugs, immigration, other social issues)
10. Pro-life from the moment of fertilization.
11. Utilitarianism (any kind, including pluralist kinds à la Matthew Adelstein)
Re-ordered from most to least plausible. I tried to be careful to rank stronger claims lower, all else equal!
1. Very minimal closed borders (immigration is like going through TSA lines, except imagine that it’s actually relatively effective at what it does)
2. Minarchism/small government libertarianism as opposed to anarcho-capitalism.
3. Pro-life from the moment of fertilization.
4. Veganism absent shrimp welfare concerns. [I assume this means we're not morally concerned about shrimp?]
5. Moral Veganism
6. Limited god theism. Can e.g. fine tune the universe, but isn’t omnipotent.
7. Utilitarianism (any kind, including pluralist kinds à la Matthew Adelstein)
8. Political authority.
9. Left-liberalism. (Political authority + we need a large welfare and regulatory state, but live and let live on drugs, immigration, other social issues) [would be #4 without the "political authority" part]
--------------Brain in a Vat-----------------
10. Non-religious, unlimited theism. [I assume this means "no revealed religion"?]
11. “Little o” orthodox Christian theism (Defined for the sake of the question as belief in the trinity, incarnation, atonement, biblical inspiration, and unlimited theism. Nothing more specific like biblical inerrancy or Catholicism)
12. Physicalism
"Pro-life from the moment of fertilization." is higher than I thot... We're slowly winning you over... 😛
Regardless, fascinating list. When I have time, I’ll rank them by credence.
Wow, to be brutally honest, you’re even more dogmatic on Christianity and traditional theism than I thought! Very few of even the most extreme atheists I’ve found online would give such an extremely absurd level of credence to the issue. No wonder you lost to Matthew Adelstein and Huemer on the fine tuning argument that badly. Sorry, but it’s true.
You’re still a favorite of mine, but on religion, I’ll generally look elsewhere for insight on most issues.
Edit: this sounds harsher than I meant for it to sound. Sorry!
No problem. I'm shocked at how many smart people like the Fine Tuning Argument. Why think that the basic physical constants could be any different than they are?!
Because they are contingent facts. The universe’s constants didn’t have to be fine tuned the way they are, like the universe could have been 100% Newtonian. They aren’t the laws of logic. But regardless, even if it were necessarily those laws, there’s the analogous epistemological problem of “If it was necessary that Carl won the lottery twice, why would it be necessary that he would?”
What do you think about sanctions on Cuba, Russia, Iran, North Korea? Take them as a group or each separately if they warrant it.
With Cuba, I think it makes to too easy to blame their troubles on an external force (the US). But people will always blame the US for everything, I guess.
The world's worst dictatorships - most notably Hoxha's Albania and North Korea - have been almost totally autarchic. I think the dictators are correct to believe that foreign trade is dangerous for their regimes' long-run survival, because it allows "dangerous" foreign ideas to spread, and creates alternative power bases. So if you want to undermine a foreign tyranny, your default should be to allow as much trade as the tyranny allows.
On the strategic use of sanctions, I think early Hanania had it right. They very rarely work, especially if you (a) want big changes, and (b) don't even talk to the enemy to tell them what they have to do to end the sanctions. Late Hanania is right that there is a deterrent effect on other regimes. But sanctions are mostly about our leaders' domestic pride and action bias: they have to "do something" even if it's harmful to tyrannies' actual victims.
I really appreciate this thoughtful reply (and agree). 🙏
What do you think of Tyler Cowen's new book?
I haven't read it because he refuses to publish his books now and I don't want to read a PDF on my computer or phone (nor talking to ChatGPT about it for hours on end).
I'm afraid I haven't read it either.
How would fibre optic cable, plumbing, electricity, etc. get built/maintained under anarcho capitalism? I want a more practical answer than "privately" so that I can imagine it in the real world because I'm very sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism.
"Big HOAs" is the easiest answer. Roads are a harder issue that any of these, no?
Isn't Fibre Optic cabling, at least, pretty much already free market? Except that they have to string the fibre optic wires somewhere... Either on poles or in some sort of underground conduits or something. In the Philippines, you see fibre optic cables strung all over the place, pretty haphazardly. I suppose they just string 'em hwhere they can and don't worry so much about damage...
Also, local streets in the Philippines are handled through HOAs basically. Just like the halls of a condo building. Residents can purchase an annual sticker for their car. Visitors pay a small toll (about 10 pesos) for each entry to the neighbourhood. Manually collected by a guard. This gets a bit annoying for delivery services, but surely, the market could eventually find a way to deal with this.
Why do you think voters dislike Trump’s tariffs?
Because they dislike Trump! He's managed to make free trade more popular than any prior president by virtue of being so odious.
I don’t know, tariffs probably would have polled well before he implemented them! I think people may have realized how bad thy hit the stock market or something.
I doubt they would have polled well with non-Republicans if you told people Trump was doing it. It's true that the stock market crash mattered, too. But that probably wouldn't have mattered much if he had revealed his policy intentions gradually.
62 percent of Americans have money in the stock market and it’s reasonable to guess another 10 percent have an interest in wanting the market to go up. Maybe they’re expecting an inheritance someday or they’re in a business that deals in high-end goods or whatever. Have we gotten to the point where both major political parties would be scared to take action that crashes the market? Does that give you reason for optimism?
Neither party wants to blatantly crash the stock market. They probably never have. But there are minimal consequences of just being persistently crummy, leading to stock market stagnation. If it's not vivid, it won't change electoral outcomes.
Also, there's tons of evidence that voters hate inflation, but that didn't stop Biden...