How do you think about organizations like the EU? Large, supernational government, that is inclined towards excessive regulation... all things that are hostile to libertarians and an-caps. Yet, also free movement of goods, services, and people within the bloc.
The net benefits of the EU for both liberty and economic growth are highly positive. >98% of the statism in Europe is done by national governments to their own people.
Also, it isn't that hard for member nations to ignore stupid EU rules if they want. Sanctions for defiance are very weak. There is no procedure for expulsion from the EU!
Given that “public opinion is the most systematic determinant of policy” why do you think it is that economists have not had more success moving public opinion toward the importance of free trade and the unimportance of trade deficits?
Social Desirability Bias! "Helping fellow Americans/Canadians/Frenchman/whatever" just sounds great to psychologically normal humans - and so does scapegoating foreigners.
David Friedman: He's probably more utilitarian than I am, but hard to think of anything specific.
F.A. Hayek: He claims that socialism is a reflection of rationalism and even individualism. I think that's crazy. Socialism is a hostile reaction to the Enlightenment, not an expression of it. He's also far more optimistic about cultural evolution than I am. But above all else, I find his sentences an affront to the craft of writing. (And don't blame his Germanic origins. Mises and Nietzsche were both Germanic, and they wrote beautifully).
Emil Kirkegaard: His anti-immigration stuff is terrible, of course. And while I don't think he's ever explicitly said "I am a misanthrope," his thinking is deeply misanthropic, which leads him to misinterpret a wide range of evidence.
Scott Alexander: Mental illness, of course! Also: Last time I checked, Scott really didn't understand free-market economics in general, and labor economics in particular. (And I don't use the word "understand" lightly). See: https://www.betonit.ai/p/scott_alexander_2html.
What's your experience promoting Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids with women? Are there any additional arguments you've discovered since writing the book that appeal to women that you'd add if you were to write another edition?
Only a few rationalist women are receptive to the actual argument. But many normal moms like the idea of reducing parental stress.
In terms of new arguments likely to appeal to women, I fear I'm at a loss. If you want to convince your partner to have more kids, I think being more charming is much more effective than crafting better arguments.
What do you think of many libertarians focus on ending the Fed? Do you think many, like the Austrians, focus too much on it and describe it as being one of the major institutions that cause many of the issues we see today?
Austrian Business Cycle Theory blames central banks for (almost?) all recessions, so if you believe ABCT, their focus makes sense. But the ABCT is at best pretty questionable, and it's silly to think it's anything like the sole cause of recessions. So yes, they focus too much on the Fed.
There are other reasons for a fed skepticism. Aggressive war is much easier when you can print money. Of course you don’t necessarily need a federal reserve to print money. It just makes it so much easier though.
In First World countries, printing money is a negligible share of government revenue. Even during major wars it's modest. A lot more for LCDs, of course.
No general theory. But stories that appeal to objective facts are almost always wrong, because social and political views are largely unmoored to facts.
I am fond of the view that television greatly reduced war by making gore much more visible.
I'm quite surprised with your general equanimity regarding the EU.
As a British citizen, I'm shocked at how over-reaching an institution it has been, and how much it has contributed the technological, scientific, and biomedical stagnation across Europe.
I voted to Remain solely because of the promise of free flow and free trade, and my country has proven incapable of taking advantage of ridding itself of the incredibly paternalistic and expansive regulations it was saddled with as a member.
Perhaps Europe itself is the problem - our culture and values. Maybe as a block all of these countries don't appreciate the power of allowing people to innovate, create businesses, experiment, and build things.
But I don't think it's a coincidence that an incredible decline in company formation, patent application, and progress has taken place across the EU members as the EU itself embraces a "if we can't be world-leading in AI, we will be world-leading in AI regulation" mindset.
How am I wrong?
Your "net-positive" approach to ranking the EU has shocked me. Particularly when it is hardly more friendly to immigration from outside of itself and making trade more difficult with a broad set of things it simply won't abide or deem worthy of consumption/creation within it.
Doesn't the fact that UK regulation didn't change much after Brexit make you doubt your whole story?
And again, if an EU member actually wanted to ignore EU regs, the sanctions are tiny. The main issue is that European countries are very pro-regulation.
You're right about non-EU immigration, but it's not intra-EU immigration is crowding out other immigration. And the income gaps between west and east are high enough to yield large gains.
But the tech regulations and privacy invasion policies even have implications for US companies.
I don't think they are a benign presence.
And no, the single data point of the UK doesn't override the strong evidence that EU are an incredibly regulation-obsessed bureaucracy.
When you say the "countries are pro-regulaion", what does that even mean, because the people aren't necessarily.
I never meant to imply non-EU migration was crowding out other migration.
And I could flip the point you made about regulation and say "if people are so anti-immigration, why did it increase in the UK after we left the EU". However, I know from ample evidence people are anti-immigration - so I don't think that's good evidence for your point either.
The European Union is already a kind of experiment on open borders. Assume you can invite any country in the world, not just Europe, to join the EU. What four countries would you invite?
You can use any criteria to select those four countries (geographic proximity, maximize gap in income compared to the EU, etc...).
Many economists scoff at, or scorn, psychology. This seems to have been partially obviated by Kahneman winning the Nobel, but then reinforced by the replication crisis. Why are you so open to it, and how do you guard against relying on non-replicable results?
It's amazing that economists would NOT be curious about psychology, the subject that studies how human beings think and feel. Without it, what do economists really know?
Psychology may have a bigger problem with replication than econ, but even that's not clear. The main guards are (a) common-sense skepticism, and (b) placing low weight on any specific study. As I've said, no paper is that good! https://www.betonit.ai/p/no-paper-is-that-good
You strike me as an extraordinarily productive and creative person. Do you use productivity tools (e.g. time trackers) to achieve this, or are you just very high in conscientiousness and openness?
I have a clear schedule every day, but I don't think I'm above the 80th percentile of conscientiousness. I get bored easily, and take many breaks almost every hour. My openness is only average - I'm high in intellect and imagination, but low on most other measures.
I think it's my imagination that takes me the furthest. I daydream constantly. I have written piles of fictional stories (for role-playing games) in virtually every genre.
My best trick: I rush to write down any promising idea before I forget! That's why my queue of Drafts is about 400 blog posts long.
Hey Bryan! As a big fan of your books, is there anything you have changed your mind on since writing the book on the subject? For example, your stance on the function of education and credentials, your thoughts around feminism, and so on.
When I wrote *The Myth of the Rational Voter*, I knew little or nothing about Social Desirability Bias, which I think puts the whole project on a stronger foundation.
Suppose your 5th kid is disinterested in education and not particularly career oriented. At what age would you support your child dropping out and entering the workforce?
If the kid really dislikes school, I'd try to get them a part-time job by the age of 12 or 13. If they find something they like and are good at, I'd support them dropping out ASAP. Otherwise, finish high school.
1. Most important: Free-market policies (not vague "institutions"). There's a lot of randomness for policy, but public opinion is the most important systematic determinant of policy.
2. Human capital matters a lot as long as you measure it with IQ rather than years of education.
How far does your pacifism extend? Suppose a revanchist Mexico is threatening to retake CA, TX, NV, NM, AZ and intends to roll tanks over the Rio Grande if those states are not peacefully surrendered. What would you counsel? appeasement, because war is awful? conquest, because joining the US has long run benefits? Merely defend the border?
Since Mexico would be easy to beat and the Rio Grande area is sparsely inhabited, defending the border would probably be justified. Especially since the mere threat would likely suffice.
I think Bryan would say no. The process of invasion would result in losses that greatly diminish the magnitude. The outcome is also uncertain, as the result might be quick assimilation and a huge increase in the standard of living... or it might be a quagmire of counter-insurgency.
I don’t think we should invade Mexico, but given Bryan’s views on immigration, so don’t think assimilation would be an issue in his view. And I think it’s totally feasible to defeat Mexico for 1/6th of our GDP.
I think the better argument is that, while consequences do matter, there is still a moral presumption against invasion. But I’m unsure if Bryan would retreat to that much deontology.
Consequences aren't just GDP. You'd have to murder a lot of innocent people, and keep murdering them to retain power. Plus the US would lose interest in a few years, leaving behind a total disaster. So no.
How do you think about organizations like the EU? Large, supernational government, that is inclined towards excessive regulation... all things that are hostile to libertarians and an-caps. Yet, also free movement of goods, services, and people within the bloc.
The net benefits of the EU for both liberty and economic growth are highly positive. >98% of the statism in Europe is done by national governments to their own people.
Also, it isn't that hard for member nations to ignore stupid EU rules if they want. Sanctions for defiance are very weak. There is no procedure for expulsion from the EU!
Great question
Given that “public opinion is the most systematic determinant of policy” why do you think it is that economists have not had more success moving public opinion toward the importance of free trade and the unimportance of trade deficits?
Social Desirability Bias! "Helping fellow Americans/Canadians/Frenchman/whatever" just sounds great to psychologically normal humans - and so does scapegoating foreigners.
No need to elaborate too much, but what are your biggest substantive disagreements with Huemer, Tabarrok, Hanson, and Hanania?
Huemer: Animal rights and (recently) the existence of God.
Tabarrok: Natalism, and the underlying question of whether being alive is a benefit to the liver
Hanson: Everything in philosophy of mind, plus moral realism
Hanania: Animal rights, determinism, pacifism (though I consider him the most reasonable hawk)
Ooh. I like this one. Can I add names? David Friedman. FA Hayek. Ayn Rand. Emil Kirkegaard. Scott Alexander.
(that list is not meant as as either endorsement or criticism)
Sure thing!
David Friedman: He's probably more utilitarian than I am, but hard to think of anything specific.
F.A. Hayek: He claims that socialism is a reflection of rationalism and even individualism. I think that's crazy. Socialism is a hostile reaction to the Enlightenment, not an expression of it. He's also far more optimistic about cultural evolution than I am. But above all else, I find his sentences an affront to the craft of writing. (And don't blame his Germanic origins. Mises and Nietzsche were both Germanic, and they wrote beautifully).
Ayn Rand: See Huemer's "Why I Am Not an Objectivist" - https://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/papers/rand.htm
Emil Kirkegaard: His anti-immigration stuff is terrible, of course. And while I don't think he's ever explicitly said "I am a misanthrope," his thinking is deeply misanthropic, which leads him to misinterpret a wide range of evidence.
Scott Alexander: Mental illness, of course! Also: Last time I checked, Scott really didn't understand free-market economics in general, and labor economics in particular. (And I don't use the word "understand" lightly). See: https://www.betonit.ai/p/scott_alexander_2html.
Oh to be a fly on the wall when those guys all go for lunch!
If you want to join us one day, I'm happy to set it up. My treat!
Man, you are too cool.
Do you have any updated judgments/predictions on Milei’s performance?
He's doing 20% better than I expected.
What's your experience promoting Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids with women? Are there any additional arguments you've discovered since writing the book that appeal to women that you'd add if you were to write another edition?
Only a few rationalist women are receptive to the actual argument. But many normal moms like the idea of reducing parental stress.
In terms of new arguments likely to appeal to women, I fear I'm at a loss. If you want to convince your partner to have more kids, I think being more charming is much more effective than crafting better arguments.
What do you think of many libertarians focus on ending the Fed? Do you think many, like the Austrians, focus too much on it and describe it as being one of the major institutions that cause many of the issues we see today?
Austrian Business Cycle Theory blames central banks for (almost?) all recessions, so if you believe ABCT, their focus makes sense. But the ABCT is at best pretty questionable, and it's silly to think it's anything like the sole cause of recessions. So yes, they focus too much on the Fed.
There are other reasons for a fed skepticism. Aggressive war is much easier when you can print money. Of course you don’t necessarily need a federal reserve to print money. It just makes it so much easier though.
In First World countries, printing money is a negligible share of government revenue. Even during major wars it's modest. A lot more for LCDs, of course.
Does that mean there is no problem, or that we should blame the problem on debt instead of on money printing? The Fed buys a lot of government debt.
Do you have a theory or hypothesis of how large scale social and political views shift over time?
No general theory. But stories that appeal to objective facts are almost always wrong, because social and political views are largely unmoored to facts.
I am fond of the view that television greatly reduced war by making gore much more visible.
I'm quite surprised with your general equanimity regarding the EU.
As a British citizen, I'm shocked at how over-reaching an institution it has been, and how much it has contributed the technological, scientific, and biomedical stagnation across Europe.
I voted to Remain solely because of the promise of free flow and free trade, and my country has proven incapable of taking advantage of ridding itself of the incredibly paternalistic and expansive regulations it was saddled with as a member.
Perhaps Europe itself is the problem - our culture and values. Maybe as a block all of these countries don't appreciate the power of allowing people to innovate, create businesses, experiment, and build things.
But I don't think it's a coincidence that an incredible decline in company formation, patent application, and progress has taken place across the EU members as the EU itself embraces a "if we can't be world-leading in AI, we will be world-leading in AI regulation" mindset.
How am I wrong?
Your "net-positive" approach to ranking the EU has shocked me. Particularly when it is hardly more friendly to immigration from outside of itself and making trade more difficult with a broad set of things it simply won't abide or deem worthy of consumption/creation within it.
Doesn't the fact that UK regulation didn't change much after Brexit make you doubt your whole story?
And again, if an EU member actually wanted to ignore EU regs, the sanctions are tiny. The main issue is that European countries are very pro-regulation.
You're right about non-EU immigration, but it's not intra-EU immigration is crowding out other immigration. And the income gaps between west and east are high enough to yield large gains.
But the tech regulations and privacy invasion policies even have implications for US companies.
I don't think they are a benign presence.
And no, the single data point of the UK doesn't override the strong evidence that EU are an incredibly regulation-obsessed bureaucracy.
When you say the "countries are pro-regulaion", what does that even mean, because the people aren't necessarily.
I never meant to imply non-EU migration was crowding out other migration.
And I could flip the point you made about regulation and say "if people are so anti-immigration, why did it increase in the UK after we left the EU". However, I know from ample evidence people are anti-immigration - so I don't think that's good evidence for your point either.
The European Union is already a kind of experiment on open borders. Assume you can invite any country in the world, not just Europe, to join the EU. What four countries would you invite?
You can use any criteria to select those four countries (geographic proximity, maximize gap in income compared to the EU, etc...).
India, China, Brazil, Indonesia.
Many economists scoff at, or scorn, psychology. This seems to have been partially obviated by Kahneman winning the Nobel, but then reinforced by the replication crisis. Why are you so open to it, and how do you guard against relying on non-replicable results?
It's amazing that economists would NOT be curious about psychology, the subject that studies how human beings think and feel. Without it, what do economists really know?
Psychology may have a bigger problem with replication than econ, but even that's not clear. The main guards are (a) common-sense skepticism, and (b) placing low weight on any specific study. As I've said, no paper is that good! https://www.betonit.ai/p/no-paper-is-that-good
You strike me as an extraordinarily productive and creative person. Do you use productivity tools (e.g. time trackers) to achieve this, or are you just very high in conscientiousness and openness?
I have a clear schedule every day, but I don't think I'm above the 80th percentile of conscientiousness. I get bored easily, and take many breaks almost every hour. My openness is only average - I'm high in intellect and imagination, but low on most other measures.
I think it's my imagination that takes me the furthest. I daydream constantly. I have written piles of fictional stories (for role-playing games) in virtually every genre.
My best trick: I rush to write down any promising idea before I forget! That's why my queue of Drafts is about 400 blog posts long.
Hey Bryan! As a big fan of your books, is there anything you have changed your mind on since writing the book on the subject? For example, your stance on the function of education and credentials, your thoughts around feminism, and so on.
I have a more favorable view of private schooling and school choice than I used to: https://www.betonit.ai/p/school-choice-sorry-i-underrated
When I wrote *The Myth of the Rational Voter*, I knew little or nothing about Social Desirability Bias, which I think puts the whole project on a stronger foundation.
Suppose your 5th kid is disinterested in education and not particularly career oriented. At what age would you support your child dropping out and entering the workforce?
If the kid really dislikes school, I'd try to get them a part-time job by the age of 12 or 13. If they find something they like and are good at, I'd support them dropping out ASAP. Otherwise, finish high school.
Long run economic growth: institutions, geography, human capital, or something else?
1. Most important: Free-market policies (not vague "institutions"). There's a lot of randomness for policy, but public opinion is the most important systematic determinant of policy.
2. Human capital matters a lot as long as you measure it with IQ rather than years of education.
3. Geography also matters a lot in a particular sense: https://www.betonit.ai/p/geography_is_pohtml
How far does your pacifism extend? Suppose a revanchist Mexico is threatening to retake CA, TX, NV, NM, AZ and intends to roll tanks over the Rio Grande if those states are not peacefully surrendered. What would you counsel? appeasement, because war is awful? conquest, because joining the US has long run benefits? Merely defend the border?
My rule of thumb is that war is morally justified if the benefits > 5x the cost. (Background: https://www.betonit.ai/p/the_common-senshtml)
Since Mexico would be easy to beat and the Rio Grande area is sparsely inhabited, defending the border would probably be justified. Especially since the mere threat would likely suffice.
GDP of the US is approximately 6x that of Mexico.
Doesn’t this logic justify invasion?
Edit: Apologies, GDP per capita
I think Bryan would say no. The process of invasion would result in losses that greatly diminish the magnitude. The outcome is also uncertain, as the result might be quick assimilation and a huge increase in the standard of living... or it might be a quagmire of counter-insurgency.
I don’t think we should invade Mexico, but given Bryan’s views on immigration, so don’t think assimilation would be an issue in his view. And I think it’s totally feasible to defeat Mexico for 1/6th of our GDP.
I think the better argument is that, while consequences do matter, there is still a moral presumption against invasion. But I’m unsure if Bryan would retreat to that much deontology.
Consequences aren't just GDP. You'd have to murder a lot of innocent people, and keep murdering them to retain power. Plus the US would lose interest in a few years, leaving behind a total disaster. So no.
What do you believe it will take to shift the culture to have a more positive-sum view of immigrants, trade, and wealthy people?