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.
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...).
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.
Alfie Kohn wrote a book titled Punished by Rewards. And that he describes psychological research that indicates that efforts to incentivize Education frequently backfire. How does an economist deal with that sort of hypothesis?
What would Gary Becker say about Agnes Callard’s book Aspiration? Are there any other economists who are following in his footsteps and might be interested in the idea of the rationality of changing your own preferences?
I don't know either book, I'm afraid. But I do know that testing is one of the most evidence-based learning methods. See Dunlosky et al.’s “Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques” (Psychological Science, 2013).
Have you looked at John Hasnas’s new book Common Law Liberalism? Thoughts? Or if not, what are your general thoughts on statute law vs the common law tradition?
You mentioned in a recent election post that you feel politically homeless with respect to the two major parties, and that you are fairly disillusioned with the existing political options and the likelihood of getting better ones in the short term. Given the last couple of months of the new administration, and the hysteria surrounding it (I'm a huge fan of your "don't read the news" stance btw), do you expect the next four years to be a true outlier in US history, or do you expect it to be business-as-usual, with all of the political drama just being a media spectacle?
It's definitely an outlier in terms of my ability to predict what the administration SAYS. Greenland?! In terms of actual changes, I'd say it will be in the 90th percentile at least. Some good, some bad, probably bad on balance but if you're not confused, you don't understand what's going on!
Raise the quota (explicit or implicit) even higher! And get rid of the (few) labor regulations that, like cancer, are likely to spread and mess things up.
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.
If you want to join us one day, I'm happy to set it up. My treat!
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.
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.
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.
What do you believe it will take to shift the culture to have a more positive-sum view of immigrants, trade, and wealthy people?
Alfie Kohn wrote a book titled Punished by Rewards. And that he describes psychological research that indicates that efforts to incentivize Education frequently backfire. How does an economist deal with that sort of hypothesis?
What would Gary Becker say about Agnes Callard’s book Aspiration? Are there any other economists who are following in his footsteps and might be interested in the idea of the rationality of changing your own preferences?
I don't know either book, I'm afraid. But I do know that testing is one of the most evidence-based learning methods. See Dunlosky et al.’s “Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques” (Psychological Science, 2013).
Is there a problematic tension between ethical intuitionism and Kahneman & Tversky’s work on heuristics and biases?
No. Intuition can be wrong, but it takes a stronger intuition to beat a weaker intuition.
Have you looked at John Hasnas’s new book Common Law Liberalism? Thoughts? Or if not, what are your general thoughts on statute law vs the common law tradition?
No, but I wrote an essay on Hasnas's critique of "the rule of law" back in 1991! https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/freelaw2.txt
You mentioned in a recent election post that you feel politically homeless with respect to the two major parties, and that you are fairly disillusioned with the existing political options and the likelihood of getting better ones in the short term. Given the last couple of months of the new administration, and the hysteria surrounding it (I'm a huge fan of your "don't read the news" stance btw), do you expect the next four years to be a true outlier in US history, or do you expect it to be business-as-usual, with all of the political drama just being a media spectacle?
It's definitely an outlier in terms of my ability to predict what the administration SAYS. Greenland?! In terms of actual changes, I'd say it will be in the 90th percentile at least. Some good, some bad, probably bad on balance but if you're not confused, you don't understand what's going on!
What did you see in Prospera that was most promising when you visited? Any plans to return?
The high-rise apartments they're building were the most impressive sign of long-term commitment. I'd be happy to go back if I get another invite.
What two or three moderate changes would you make to the Emirati immigration system that would give the most bang for buck?
Raise the quota (explicit or implicit) even higher! And get rid of the (few) labor regulations that, like cancer, are likely to spread and mess things up.
What do you think of Trump’s “gold card” plan for immigration?
If it replaces existing categories, it's very bad, because almost no one who can afford to pay $5M to migrate will do so.
If added on to existing quotas, it's basically just a symbolic gain. The only good scenario is that the price tag starts coming down.