Friday, June 30, 2023

This Week in Discourse: Ukulele Groomer Apology Song. By Jeremiah Johnson


www.infinitescroll.us
This Week in Discourse: Ukulele Groomer Apology Song
Jeremiah Johnson
9 - 11 minutes

Imagine you’re a celebrity or a well-known content creator. One day some heavy allegations are made against you - pretty serious stuff. You tell your team you’re going to put out a message, let them know what you’re thinking of doing, and your team tells you “Absolutely not, that is a terrible idea. Don’t say anything and keep your mouth shut”.

A rule: If your PR team tells you to shut up, it is almost always a good idea to shut up. This will require you to not post, not tweet, not ‘correct the record’ or ‘reveal the actual facts’. Perhaps this act of willpower is too much, but listening to your PR people is typically the right move.

And if you really must say something, you typically want to keep it short and tight and as bland as possible. A good statement is something like “These allegations are false. I look forward to the full truth coming out and will not be making any further comments at this time.” You absolutely do not want to use your statement as an opportunity to get creative.


Anyways, here’s famous YouTuber Collen Ballinger with a 10 minute long ukulele song about allegations she groomed young children.

“YouTuber sings 10 minute ukulele song about grooming allegations” is a hell of a sentence, so I’m going to give you a second to process that. Ballinger is better known as the character/channel Miranda Sings and has more than 10 million followers on YouTube, with more than 2 billion views of her videos. As best I can tell, the channel began as a sort of parody of the wild/exaggerated YouTube content aimed at younger kids and teens and over time morphed into just… exactly that sort of wild/exaggerated content?

With an audience that skews young, people are naturally concerned about allegations that Ballinger has engaged in wildly inappropriate behavior with underage fans. Ballinger has admitted to sending some of her lingerie to a teen boy, and other accusations include sending sexual messages in group chats with other teens.

Ballinger’s ukulele video is one of the most insane 'I should absolutely not post but I am addicted to posting and will post anyways' moments I have ever seen, and I write an entire blog about these incidents. I am blown away, and have so, so many thoughts:

    The founding thesis of this blog is that Posting Is The Most Powerful Force In The Universe. I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen a better example of someone who just cannot stop themselves from posting. She stares into the camera and sings the lyrics “My team has strongly advised me not to say what I want to say”! Directly! Into the camera! Colleen, when your PR team/manager/agent is begging you not to say anything, listen to them. The power of posting remains undefeated.

    The very next lyric: “I recently realized they never said that I couldn’t sing what I wanted to say”. She is using Air Bud rules to justify the video! Ain’t no rule says a dog can’t play basketball. Ain’t no rule says I can’t sing my thoughts! I am flabbergasted. This is virtuoso level dumbfuckery.

    Also: I cannot get over the ukulele specifically. She’s addressing the most serious allegations she’ll ever face like she’s mid-2000s Zooey Deschanel. Not even the best comedy writers in America could top this.

    We’ve also talked about how the new trend in celebrity PR strategy is to strike back. If people are trying to cancel you, hit back and say you’ve been misunderstood, they’re blowing it out of proportion, what you did was fine actually, etc. Just push through it, build your own narrative, and rely on your fans to stick with you. This sometimes works! But perhaps that strategy of ‘claim to be misunderstood and downplay what happened’ is a strategy that works better for edgy podcast jokes or financial malfeasance, and not as well for when you’ve been accused of inappropriate sexual behavior around kids.

    Also, to repeat: If you absolutely must post, if you absolutely must take a combative stance where you deny, distract and downplay allegations. Do not ‘get creative’ while you do it by playing a ukulele over your defensive non-apology.

    I’m reminded of the infamous interpretive dance apology video, but this somehow seems even worse.

    If your apology video includes you singing the phrase “I’m not a groomer, I’m just a loser”, please for the love of god reconsider the video.

We’ve been talking quite a lot about how Redditors are angry at the site this month. The last time we checked in on Reddit’s drama, many of the volunteer moderator teams were engaging in malicious compliance with Reddit’s demands that they re-open their closed subreddits. There was plenty of marking previously SFW subreddits NSFW, restricting content to absurd categories, and other shenanigans. The anger stemmed from upcoming changes that will be made to Reddit’s API policy, and that deadline is up - starting tomorrow, almost all third party apps for Reddit will die.

My prediction for weeks has been that Reddit will eventually win this conflict, but in a slow and painful way that damages them:

    Reddit isn’t going to be able to quickly or easily plan away these conflicts with moderators. This will drag out for a while. There are too many creative ways for mod teams to undermine them. And frankly, the amount of effort it would take to continuously monitor thousands of subreddits is not something Reddit wants to be involved in. The structure of the site and how much power is placed in the hands of moderators simply does not allow for any kind of fast resolution.

    Ultimately, the moderators can’t win either. Reddit can and will do anything they want with their site. Most subreddits are already back open, and more will open with time. Users will eventually get bored with protesting and want their subreddits back. Network effects are far too strong and Reddit has no real competitors of any kind. There’s just no way for the mods to actually capture any kind of long term victory. 

This prediction mostly seems to have come true. A quick perusal of Reddark shows that most big subreddits are back online, with a minority still holding out with malicious compliance protests. Reddit is *mostly* back to normal. In the big picture the protests will fail and the API changes will still take effect tomorrow. Reddit is no longer actively on fire.
Few large subreddits are still restricted or protesting.

At the same time, some very large subreddits are still completely restricted. Some are still in ‘John Oliver mode’. /r/videos has mandated profanity in every video title. As predicted, the site’s moderators are too creative for this to be quickly and easily quashed, and this could potentially drag out for months. To continue the fire theme - they’re not actively on fire, but the embers are still hot and smoldering.

This is despite a clumsy and heavy-handed approach from Reddit admins. They’ve made it very clear that communities will be opened by any means necessary. They’ve removed top moderators, banned moderator teams, and sent lots of very threatening messages. They’ve genuinely gone pretty damn hard at the protesting moderator teams.

It’s notable that they’ve also reversed course and unbanned plenty of mods, taken down subreddits and mod teams only to re-add them, and had a number of other embarrassing snafus. The perception I get is that there are maybe 5 total people managing the process for tens of thousands of subreddits, so they’re doing a lot of stuff algorithmically and making a lot of mistakes, which then get frantically undone. It explains why so many tiny subreddits with less then 500 users got the same copy-pasted message claiming ‘millions rely on your subreddit’.

The other argument I’ve made is that Steve Huffman, Reddit’s CEO, has handled this terribly at every turn. And to keep that theme going, there’s evidence that Reddit admins are removing posts that insult him. And verified Reddit employees on Blind are turning on Huffman.

    This one probably should have been in last week’s TWID, but another great example of Posting Is the Most Powerful Force - the Titan Submersible Stepson. He spent a full week bizarrely tweeting about going to concerts and living his life, while also having family dead at the bottom of the ocean. He would ask for prayers on Twitter and then 30 minutes later ask an OnlyFans model to sit on his face. A true masterclass in Posting Through It. He’s since deleted his account, but for one shining moment he was the funniest thing on Twitter.

    People keep falling for Rage Bait As Influencer Tactic, and Nick Huber is the king. I’ve come around from being annoyed at him, to thinking that his schtick is great. His ability to figure out what will drive Twitter crazy and voluntarily get himself ratio’d is incredible.

    The Atlantic has a pair of fascinating articles on social media - the first about how online ‘true crime’ sleuths caused misery in a small town, and the second about how we still don’t know how exactly social media affects teens.

    Twitter broke and gave half the site a spam warning.

    Grimace murders are the hot new trend.

    Oppenheimer vs Barbie jokes continue to deliver.

    TREE LAW

    We discuss a lot of insane things here, so every week we end with a lovely post that will make you feel great about the world. Here’s a TikTok of a furry friend who’s just like us. 

Thanks for reading! Share this post or else I’m gonna pick up the ukulele 😳

Share
Subscribe to Infinite Scroll

By Jeremiah Johnson · Launched 2 months ago

The Politics of Posting

Trump's favorite defense in the documents case has more holes than an old sock. By Liz Dye


www.publicnotice.co
Trump's favorite defense in the documents case has more holes than an old sock
Liz Dye
13 - 16 minutes
Trump gives up a thumbs up as he leaves a federal courthouse in Miami following his arraignment earlier this month. (Scott Olson/Getty)

Personal note from Aaron: Sadly, my dad passed Saturday following a lengthy and courageous battle with leukemia. I put together a Twitter thread paying tribute to him and his life that you can check out here, and you can read the obituary I wrote for him here. I appreciate your support during this difficult time. You’ll be seeing less of my writing in the newsletter the next couple weeks, but thankfully I have lots of good stuff lined up from brilliant contributors like Lisa Needham and Noah.

Has Donald Trump discovered one weird trick to defeat the 37-count indictment dropped by special counsel Jack “DERANGED” Smith in the documents case?

The former president has repeatedly declared that something he refers to as “THE CLINTON SOCKS CASE … TOTALLY EXONERATED ME.” The below Truth Social post from last week is a representative example, though many others of Trump making the same claim could be cited. (Including a Truth Social post from Wednesday.)

You’ll be shocked to learn that Trump is wrong. There is no “SOCKS CASE” that empowers a president to declare national security secrets personal property and store them by the pool in his country club.

There is a 2012 decision by US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson refusing to order the National Archives (NARA) to go seize documents from Bill Clinton. From this, Trump and his minions mistakenly infer that the president’s characterization of a document as personal can never be challenged, and that NARA has no means of retrieving government property from an ex-president. 

That is a gross mischaracterization of both the court’s holding and the Presidential Records Act — AKA, it’s a bald-faced lie. 

Or, to be more accurate, it’s a series of four nested lies:

    That the president has absolute authority to designate any document as “personal” and keep it when he leaves office;

    That this designation is unreviewable by any court;

    That the Presidential Records Act (PRA) has no enforcement provision; and

    That Trump’s indictment is based on a violation of the PRA.

As ultra-conservative Judge Michael Luttig wrote on Twitter when the indictment was unsealed, “There is not an Attorney General of either party who would not have brought today’s charges against the former president.”

Prior to Richard Nixon, a president’s records were presumed to be his personal property. But in 1974, fearing that Nixon would destroy evidence of his crimes, Congress passed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA), making Nixon’s official records government property. In 1977, the Supreme Court upheld the PRMPA, and the next year Congress codified the rule for all future presidents via the PRA. 

The PRA tasks the president with maintaining his official records and handing them over to the Archivist at the conclusion of his term. It defines personal records as “all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President,” and gives as examples diaries and materials relating to campaigning for reelection.

Public Notice is supported by readers and funded by paid subscribers. To help make this work sustainable, please consider becoming one.

Notably, it says that, “During the President’s term of office, the President may dispose of those Presidential records of such President that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value if … the President obtains the views, in writing, of the Archivist concerning the proposed disposal of such Presidential records; and … the Archivist states that the Archivist does not intend to take any action under subsection (e) of this section.”

It does not say “The president gets to stuff nuclear secrets in his suitcase and call them personal property, and no one can challenge him.”

So, why does Trump keep saying that?

In 1993, President Clinton began recording interviews with historian Taylor Branch late at night. Clinton stored the 79 cassette tapes, which formed the basis of Branch’s 2009 book, “The Clinton Tapes,” in his sock drawer, and took them with him when he left the White House. 

In response to a 2009 FOIA request from the conservative activist group Judicial Watch, the National Archives said that it didn’t have the tapes, had never had the tapes, and that the Archivist was “of the opinion that the audio tapes created by Taylor Branch are personal records of President Clinton as defined by the PRA.” 
President Bill Clinton and Socks the cat (no relation to the socks case) in December 1993 (Smith Collection/Gado via Getty)

Judicial Watch claimed that was a final agency determination, which it purported to challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). So in 2010, a mere nine years after Clinton left office, Judicial Watch sued the National Archives, demanding that it declare the tapes a presidential record and go get them so that Judicial Watch could then sue for their release under FOIA. 

Judge Jackson rejected this challenge, writing that the archivist is tasked with “responsibility” for presidential records and “If certain records are not designated as Presidential records, the Archivist has no statutory obligation to take any action at all, and there is nothing to compel under the APA.” 

To be fair, there are several passages in the order which imply that the archives cannot second guess a president’s decision that a document is personal in nature. For instance, the court writes, “the PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President.” And indeed Trump’s supporters confidently cite those passages in support of their argument. But in so doing they ignore the fact that Judge Jackson based her opinion on 44 U.S.C. § 2203(b), which says that documents floating around the executive branch “shall, to the extent practicable, be categorized as Presidential records or personal records upon their creation or receipt and be filed separately.” 

A note from Aaron: Working with brilliant contributors like David requires resources. To support this work, please click the button below and sign up to get our coverage of politics and media directly in your inbox three times a week.

Subscribe to Public Notice

In practical effect, this means that documents need to be classified as personal or presidential at the time of creation, or at the time of receipt, like by, say, sticking tapes of private conversations with your biographer in a box hidden in your sock drawer. By contrast, the president can’t decide in 2020 that a presidential daily brief from some random day in 2019 full of classified military secrets is a cool thing he’d like to take home and stash in the desk drawer at his private club. 

Classifying a document as personal doesn’t change the classification status or remove national defense information, and there’s an argument that documents which are agency records can’t be magically transmogrified into the president’s personal property, but those issues are beyond the scope of this article. The important thing to know is that the Judicial Watch holding pertains to the inability of a private party to sue the National Archives and force it to challenge the president’s determination that a record is personal — not whether the agency itself has the ability to mount such a challenge.

CNN reported in August that Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch and not a lawyer, convinced Trump that he didn’t have to comply with the Justice Department subpoena for classified documents. It’s impossible to know if Trump would have behaved so recklessly in defying the grand jury subpoena for classified documents last summer without Fitton feeding him nonsense. But as an anonymous source told CNN, “The moment Tom got in the boss’s ear, it was downhill from there.”

Trump even had Fitton brief his lawyers, who were apparently not all that impressed. If those lawyers thought Fitton’s claims were remotely persuasive, they’d have taken them to the court and moved to get the DOJ’s subpoena quashed instead of signing a false declaration saying that he’d complied with it. 

RELATED FROM PN: Meet Tom Fitton, the charlatan who has Trump’s ear

"He could have given the documents to the government and then sued to bring them back and made his legal arguments as to why they're really his," former Attorney General Bill Barr said recently on Fox. "But he didn't do that. What did he do? He engaged in an outrageous act of obstruction and deception that obstructed that subpoena. And that is wrong. That's a violation of law. That's a serious problem for him."

Trump responded by calling Barr was “a coward who didn't do his job” and continued to heed the sage advice of his buddy Tom.

“Under the Presidential Records Act — which is civil, not criminal — I had every right to have these documents,” he told supporters at his New Jersey golf club last week after being arraigned in Miami. “The crucial legal precedent is laid out in the most important case ever on this subject, known as the Clinton socks case.”

In fact, the holding in the “Socks Case” contains quite a bit of language which Trump wouldn’t like if he actually read it. For instance, Judge Jackson laid waste to the oft-repeated claim that the PRA contains no enforcement mechanism: “The PRA authorizes NARA to invoke the same enforcement mechanism embodied in the Federal Records Act, which begins with a request to the Attorney General to institute an action for the recovery of missing records.” 

There’s also this passage with the court openly mocking the attorney in this case:

    Plaintiff’s indulgence in wishful thinking in order to minimize the ramifications of its own lawsuit underscores the lack of redressability fatal to the case. It is telling that counsel for plaintiff was repeatedly unable to identify anything specific the Court could or should order the Archivist to do under these circumstances: 

    THE COURT: What does “assume custody and control” mean in your view? What do you want them to do?

    [PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: Because they are also required to make them available to the public, “assume custody and control” would be to take control of the records or have somebody else take control of the records …

    THE COURT: How do they take control? … He issues a press release[:] I’ve got them … Then what? What are they supposed to do? 

    [PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: As I said, there are many options. 

    THE COURT: Tell me one. 

    [PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: One option is they can call President Clinton and ask … 

    THE COURT: Okay. He says no. Now what? 

    [PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]: They write a nice letter. They maybe use one of these enforcement mechanisms. Maybe they try something else.

“[PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL]” was Michael Bekesha, who just this week wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal claiming that “The Presidential Records Act allows the president to decide what records to return and what records to keep at the end of his presidency. And the National Archives and Records Administration can’t do anything about it.” So, take his representations with a huge grain of salt.

But if Trump is looking for precedent on the PRA in the US District Court in DC, he doesn’t have to reach back eleven years to find it. In March, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered Trump adviser Peter Navarro to turn over government emails stored on his encrypted ProtonMail account. Navarro, who shares a lawyer with Trump’s co-defendant Walt Nauta, had argued that the PRA lacks an enforcement mechanism.

Thank you for reading Public Notice. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

But the court ruled that the DOJ had every right to file a civil suit to force Navarro to return its property.

“Enforcement of the statute by the government to assert its ownership rights militates that it must be free to utilize those legal processes available to it whether or not they are expressly provided for by statute,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “In this instance, the United States correctly invokes the Court’s judicial power to require the return of the wrongfully retained emails.”

In point of fact, Trump is charged with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information; one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice; one count of withholding a document or record; one count of corruptly concealing a document or record; one count of concealing a document in a federal investigation; and one count of scheme to conceal. 

Exactly none of those charges is for violating the PRA, which, according to both the “Clinton Socks Case” and the “Navarro Emails Case,” empowered the government to use civil process, i.e. a subpoena, to retrieve its stuff. The fact that Trump decided to commit additional crimes by defying it is due to his own stupidity and tendency to disregard the advice of lawyers in favor of charlatans.

“He has dared, taunted, provoked, and goaded DOJ to prosecute him from the moment it was learned that he had taken these national security documents,” Judge Luttig wrote on Twitter, adding, “After a year and a half, he finally succeeded in forcing Jack Smith’s appropriately reluctant hand, having left the Department no choice but to bring these charges lest the former president make a mockery of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.”

Leave a comment

We’ll be back with more Monday, and Aaron appreciates you keeping his family in your thoughts this weekend as he lays his father to rest. Thanks as always for your support.

AI Mailbag: the risks and benefits of AI. By Timothy B Lee


www.understandingai.org
AI Mailbag: the risks and benefits of AI
Timothy B Lee
13 - 17 minutes

Wow you folks asked some great questions! Thanks to everyone who participated. Below are answers to eight reader questions. There were several other questions I wanted to answer but couldn’t because I didn’t know enough about the topic. I’m hoping to research some of these questions and turn them into future articles.

AndrewB asks: “Do you think AI is currently in an overhype phase, the way self-driving cars were several years ago when many were predicting full self-driving was just around the corner? My own experience with co-pilot, for example, is that co-pilot is helpful, but it's certainly not making me 10x more productive (more like 1.1x more productive).”

Yes. I think AI is ultimately going to have big economic and social impacts, but right now I think a lot of people are wildly overestimating how fast it’s going to happen in much the same way they did with self-driving cars six to eight years ago.

AnonymousFactory77 had several questions about the future of work:

    “Are the jobs ‘created’ by AI really going to be available to the average person whose job is lost to AI?”

    “There seems to be a lot of vague talk about retraining people to be able to take on these new AI-created jobs, but if AI is only creating extremely advanced engineering jobs, how is any of this going to work?”

    “When do you personally predict that the majority of current white-collar jobs will be automated?”

    “What advice would you give a young person (who works in a field exposed to automation) to prepare for becoming economically obsolete?”

When a new, potentially job-destroying technology comes along, it’s common for optimists to emphasize that the technology will create new jobs in the process. And often that does happen. But the case for optimism does not depend on new jobs being created by that technology.

Rather, the main mechanism for job creation is more basic: the new technology makes people (investors, employees, customers) wealthier, people spend that increased wealth on various goods and services, and businesses hire workers to meet the increased demand. The new jobs might be—and often are—created in a totally different industry from the one where jobs were lost.

Of course, this process isn’t perfect. During the 2000s, a lot of manufacturing workers in the rust belt lost their jobs and had difficulty finding new ones. New jobs did get created, but they were often in different metro areas and required learning new skills.

With that said, I don’t think job prospects for white-collar workers are as grim as AnonymousFactory77 seems to think. Over the next five to 10 years, I expect most uses of AI in the workplace will be based on the “copilot” model where software makes workers more productive rather than replacing them outright.

But if you’re worried about your job prospects over the longer term, my advice is to try to shift into a career that involves interacting with other human beings.

This includes teachers and college professors, nurses and doctors, therapists and counselors, realtors, and so forth. Many desk jobs also involve interacting with people outside of your company, whether that’s salespeople (talking to customers), law firm partners (talking to clients), PR people (talking to reporters), user experience designers, and so forth. While it might be possible to automate most aspects of these jobs in a decade or two, companies are going to be reluctant to replace people who have built up a rapport with important external stakeholders.

Alex wants to know: “Any guidance for helping people in my life understand the extent to which AI is going to impact the future? Some are turned off by the "human extinction" element of the AI discourse, which they see as grandiose or conspiratorial. How would you go about portraying AI's very certain impacts on humanity to folks who are turned away by the most troubling headlines?”

Honestly I think there’s a lot of uncertainty about how AI will impact our lives in the coming decades.

I don’t buy the most apocalyptic predictions about AI—either human extinction or mass unemployment. But it could be a bumpy ride, with some serious negative consequences along with the positive ones.

The place where I see the most reason for optimism is in medicine. AI is being used for everything from curing paralysis to discovering new drugs. I also see big potential in transportation, especially self-driving cars.

On the other hand, I do worry that AI could make our political system even more volatile. There’s a good argument to be made that the invention of the printing press led to the protestant reformation, which in turn led to the bloody wars of religion. The invention of mass media in the early 20th century probably made it easier for dictators to consolidate power. And I don’t think Donald Trump would have been elected president in 2016 without Twitter and Facebook.

I don’t know how AI will be used in the political arena in the next decade or two but I would not be surprised if it has some big—and not necessarily positive—impacts on American political culture.

Chris writes “I know you're not an economist, but what is your reaction to this tweet (which as an economist I think is correct, and you seem to be on the side of the economists). ‘Economists seem to consistently be the most dismissive of AI existential risk concerns, out of all groups of people who think seriously about the future. Why is this and what can we learn from it?’ What is it we are missing, or conversely what is it we understand that others don't?”

I wasn’t trained as an economist, but my other newsletter is called Full Stack Economics, so I’m pretty familiar with how economists think. And I do think economists have some valuable insights to offer here because they are used to thinking systematically about the large-scale impacts of new technologies.

A lot of people have the impression that computers and the Internet have driven unusually rapid economic change in recent decades. But economists know this isn’t true: the rate of economic growth has actually been slower than was typical in the 20th Century.

In a 1990 paper, the economist Paul David drew an analogy to the early years of electrification. During the early 20th century it took decades for businesses to reorganize their factories to take full advantage of the new capabilities of electric power. By the same token, David predicted, it might take decades for businesses to reorganize to take full advantage of the capabilities of computers.

Another reason we haven’t seen rapid productivity growth in the Internet era is that data processing just isn’t that important for much of the economy, including basics like housing, transportation, food, and clothing.

This background makes me instinctively skeptical when I see people predict that AI will lead to an unprecedented pace of economic and social change. And it also affects how I think about existential risk. Just as economic activity mostly happens in the physical world, any realistic plan for taking over the world is going to require gaining control over the physical world. And that seems a lot harder than singularists think (see my piece last month for more about this).

Another relevant economic concept is complementarity. To accomplish almost any ambitious goal, you need a variety of resources and capabilities. To build a building you need an architect to draw up the plans, a lawyer to get the necessary permits, construction workers, tractors, building materials, and so forth. Hiring more architects won’t help the project go faster if you don’t have enough construction workers or building materials.

It’s crucial to bear this principle in mind any time you’re thinking about a hypothetical future with millions of human-level (or superhuman) AIs. No matter how fast an AI can think, most of its ideas will have to be translated into actions in the physical world. And most of those actions will have to happen at the speed of human beings.

An AI might think of a new scientific theory, but it will need human help to set up experiments to confirm it. The AI can think of a new superweapon, but it will need human help to test and manufacture it. So I’m very skeptical of “fast takeoff” scenarios where superintelligent AIs rapidly take over the world. Because at the end of the day AI is going to complement physical human labor more than it will substitute for it.

Daniel asked “How should schools address AI applications, like ChatGPT? What guidance would you give secondary school teachers in terms of what adjustments to policies and procedures they should employ?”

I definitely want to do more reporting on this in the future, but one analogy that might be helpful here is that large language models are to writing what calculators are to math. A good strategy for teaching math is to have students do arithmetic without calculators in the earlier grades. Then once they’ve mastered arithmetic, let them use calculators in more advanced classes like calculus or physics. It’s also helpful to ask students to show their work to verify that they’re not just writing down an answer they got from a calculator.

I think teachers in writing-oriented classes are going to need to adopt similar strategies. In classes that are designed to teach writing, teachers should try to prevent students from turning in work written by a large language model. This could be done by having students do more writing in class under the supervision of the teacher.

Alternatively, teachers could ask students to “show their work” by having them write in an editor like Google Docs with change-tracking turned on. Teachers could then check a document’s edit history to verify that the student composed the essay over a period of hours rather than cutting and pasting a finished essay from some other source.

In classes more focused on specific subjects like history or philosophy, it might make more sense to allow or even require the use of ChatGPT as a research tool, while teaching students how to check the output for errors.

Aaron Strauss asks: “Training-set/feedback/reinforcement learning has proved dominant over rule-based AI. Yet, when it comes to assuming AIs will be super-intelligent *in the real world* (not chess, Go, protein-folding), I haven't heard any of the dystopians explain what feedback mechanism even has the possibility of creating a threatening AI. Instead, to my lay ears, it sounds like ‘well, computers are logical and fast, ergo they must be capable of super-intelligence’—but that completely skirts the issue and seems to rely more on rule-based thinking. Have you heard folks discuss feedback mechanisms for superintelligence? And might those discussions help clarify how to build AIs safely?”

Because the rules of chess are simple and unchanging, chess software is able to grind through a massive number of possible board states to figure out the best move. This works so well that the best chess software today dramatically outperforms the best human players.

In contrast, the goal of a large language model is to imitate the speech patterns of a typical human being. So you might think this would cause LLMs to “max out” at the intelligence level of the human beings they’re trying to imitate.

Maybe, but I’m not so sure.

Interestingly, Aaron mentions protein-folding as a domain where computers have shown superhuman capabilities, but DeepMind’s protein-folding breakthrough was based on the same transformer architecture that powers large language models. So if a transformer can recognize patterns in protein structure that elude human biologists, maybe they’ll eventually be able to recognize interesting patterns in human writing that no human being has noticed.

Chris Cottee asks, “Given that human consciousness arises from being physically present and vulnerable in a natural environment, thus giving rise to emotions and desires (pain, loss, excitement, fear, joy, love, etc) and that our whole mental life extends from those experiences, do we really need to be worried about AI when it can never achieve true consciousness without them?”

Chris is making an astute observation about human nature here. Our ancestors’ struggles for survival powerfully shaped our minds, giving us powerful desires and emotions that digital minds are unlikely to have. Perhaps that means that AI will neve achieve “true consciousness.”

But I don’t think it necessarily follows that we don’t need to be worried. AI minds might be quite different than our own, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll be less dangerous. The strangeness of AI might mean that it malfunctions in odd ways that we can’t anticipate. And even if you don’t buy the premise of an AI spontaneously going rogue and trying to take over the world, it’s easy to imagine a malicious human being creating an AI and giving it goals that are harmful to other humans.

JPodmore asks: “What do you think are the odds of a widening regulatory approach between Europe and the US? GDPR already seems to be driving a bit of a wedge between the EU and the US and I can't see Europe taking a laissez faire approach to e.g. training datasets or outputs that mimic a specific person's work.”

It seems pretty likely to me. I don’t think the US is going to pass any significant legislation in the next few years. I am not an expert on the EU legislative process but it seems like they are taking the AI Act pretty seriously. So it seems pretty likely that we’ll wind up with strict regulations in Europe and little to no regulation here in the US.

What I expect to happen next is that US companies will largely ignore the EU laws, European citizens will want to use the American services anyway, and then EU authorities will come under pressure for a face-saving compromise.

That’s basically what has happened in the privacy arena over the last decade, and frankly it hasn’t been good for the EU’s technology sector. European policymakers might want to think carefully about whether they really want to go down this path again.

Josh Hawley Is Good at Neither Preaching Nor Practicing “Masculine” Virtues. By Steve Chapman


www.theunpopulist.net
Josh Hawley Is Good at Neither Preaching Nor Practicing “Masculine” Virtues
Steve Chapman
11 - 14 minutes
Hawley speaking with attendees at the 2022 Student Action Summit at the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa, Florida.

Wikipedia, Creative Commons. Gage Skidmore.

Josh Hawley is a U.S. senator who previously served as attorney general of Missouri and is thought to have ambitions for higher office. But readers who pick up his recently released book Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs, expecting a political tract will be surprised to find they have been lured into church, where Rev. Hawley sermonizes confidently from the pulpit. American men are in crisis, he declares, and his search for solutions appears to have begun and ended with Christian scripture. “The Bible story is an epic that speaks directly to the purpose of men,” he writes in his opening chapter. “The Bible’s epic has forged my sense of meaning and purpose and reality, so much so that when it comes to life’s guides, it is nearly the only guide I can think to offer.” You can’t say you weren’t warned.

There is not much dispute about the existence of a serious problem. While American women have made huge gains in education, employment and leadership, American men have fallen back. They do worse in high school than girls, and they now make up just 40 percent of college students. Well-paid blue-collar jobs have grown scarcer, and an alarming number of young and middle-aged men are neither employed nor looking for work. Suicides among men have climbed, and males account for 70 percent of deaths in the opioid overdose plague. The men of 2023 are less likely to marry than men of previous generations, and their children are more likely to be growing up in single-parent homes. They struggle, one journalist reported, with “a gnawing sense of purposelessness.”

There is a good book to be written about the troubles of modern American males—and one has been written, by Brookings Institution scholar Richard V. Reeves. But while Reeves ranges widely in search of solutions, Hawley had found the answers even before the questions occurred to him. At age 17, he recalls, he happened upon an essay by Martin Luther: “And as I read there about God’s purposes for mankind and how Jesus had given his life for mine, I suddenly felt, with a force and clarity I had not known before, that God knew me, personally.” It also eventually led him to the conclusion that everything we need to know about the plight of men, we will find in the Bible.

Hawley argues that American men are adrift because of the left’s “disdain for masculinity.” He says they have been taught that “to be a man is to be an oppressor; that to display the masculine traits of assertiveness, independence and risk-taking is to make society unjust; that to work hard at a blue-collar job is a loser’s game for those who can’t learn to code.” The solution lies in becoming servants of the Christian God. “At the center of his creation God placed a garden, and in the garden a man,” he writes. “And he instructed the man to cultivate that garden, to protect it, and to build it outward–to expand it into all the world. That was the man’s calling, his sacred duty, and his purpose in life.”

So, we get passages like this: “The battle with evil is the proving ground of a man’s character. Genesis is direct about this. To build the world into a temple, he must stand in evil’s way, starting in his soul. That is the truth today’s men need to hear.” He rattles interminably about the tasks the Almighty assigned to Adam and how Adam handled his responsibilities. Hawley’s references to the “first man” give no indication that he sees the Bible account as anything but a literal factual record. Maybe Hawley accepts the theory of evolution, but you wouldn’t know it from his book.

His relentless focus on what God has in mind for us founders on the oldest of logical errors: a false premise. For those who don’t believe in the Christian deity (a group that includes me, a former elder of the Presbyterian Church) much of his counsel is about as relevant as the daily horoscope. For a growing number of Americans, the concept of an almighty creator who answers prayers, demands ceaseless worship, and banishes doubters to eternal agony ranges from an unconfirmable hypothesis to a preposterous absurdity. Nor is secular humanism a reliable ticket to societal ruin. Western Europeans are far less likely than Americans to attend church or believe in God, but the United States has far higher rates of murder and poverty. Christianity has never made much of an inroad in Japan, but its crime and divorce rates are well below ours.

Much of Hawley’s advice to men is reasonable, if unoriginal: Get a job. Make commitments and keep them. Be brave. Cultivate humility. Don’t make a god of money. Serve something greater than yourself. These choices, he neglects to note, are equally useful for women. But you don’t need to be a disciple of Christianity or any other religion to see the practical and emotional value of such precepts. Even Democrats are known to abide by them.

This last fact is something else you would not know from Manhood, which blames every social and moral ill on liberalism. However many hours Hawley has logged studying the Bible, the learned pastor seems to have spent none trying to understand what liberals and progressives actually believe and why – despite his lengthy immersion in the “super-woke” swamps of Stanford and Yale, schools that he attended. To call his portrayal of liberals’ views a caricature is unfair to caricaturists, whose creations have to be recognizable.

Hawley proudly recalls questioning University of California Berkeley law professor Khiara Bridges, who in testifying before the Judiciary Committee referred to “people with the capacity for pregnancy,” prompting him to demand, “Do you believe men can get pregnant?” The witness, replied, accurately, that some transgender men can indeed get pregnant. From this exchange, Hawley deduces, “To leftists, manhood is fake. Womanhood, too. Both are merely social confections that society made up and can remake at will.” The number of liberals who believe these propositions is probably not zero, but I’d wager that it’s smaller than the number of Republicans who think John F. Kennedy Jr. is still alive.

The Judiciary Committee encounter is one of those instances where Hawley’s faith-based certitude collides with immovable facts. Sex and gender are real, but they are not infallibly correlated. Some people suffer from gender dysphoria, feeling desperately uncomfortable with their biological sex as it was perceived at birth. Another reality is the existence of individuals who are intersex, which the Cleveland Clinic defines as having “genitals, chromosomes or reproductive organs that don’t fit into a male/female sex binary. Their genitals might not match their reproductive organs, or they may have traits of both.” In Hawley’s world, people like this don’t exist.

No passage in this book allows for the possibility that those who disagree with him act upon any good motives. Hawley condemns “the modern liberal disdain for ordinary people, the everyday Joe. Modern liberals think little of these men . . . They certainly don’t think most men—you—can be trusted to run the country.” This will come as a surprise to the 48 percent of voters without a college degree who voted for Joe Biden in 2020. Also to voters making less than $50,000 a year, 55 percent of whom voted for Biden, and those making between $50,000 and $99,999 a year, 57 percent of whom voted for him. Liberals seem to have a higher opinion of ordinary people than, for example, Fox News stars have of the ordinary people in their audience.

Hawley has a strange obsession with the Greek philosopher Epicurus, whom he blames for the grim fact that “today’s popular culture instructs us to prioritize self-fulfillment over duty, pleasure over sacrifice. It tells you to find ‘your truth’ and choose your own values.” But the celebration of individualism in America goes much further back than Ralph Waldo Emerson or modern libertarianism.. The signers of the Declaration of Independence proclaimed the right of every person not only to life and liberty but to “the pursuit of happiness.” A book about American values that gives more attention to Epicurus than to Thomas Jefferson is guilty of literary malpractice.

Nearly every Biblical passage that Hawley refers to comes from the Hebrew Bible, where he finds that every man is called on to be a father, husband, warrior, builder, priest and king. Among those figures he cites for warrior virtues is Joshua – failing to mention that after capturing Jericho and acting at the command of Jehovah, his army, in the Bible’s account “utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword.” (Joshua 6:20, Revised Standard Version) Is someone who butchered babies a model of what a man should be?

Oddly, Hawley barely mentions a somewhat more important Bibilical figure: Jesus Christ, who is quoted only twice in 211 pages – and who showed little use for many of the roles extolled by Hawley. Father and husband? “I have come to set a man against his father and a daughter against her mother,” said Jesus, “and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.” (Matthew 10:34) Builder? “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin.” (Matthew 6:28) Warrior? “Blessed are the meek,” (Matthew 5:5) he said, and “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39). If Hawley could find statements by his savior to support his case, no doubt he would. But the Nazarene apparently didn’t care about promoting “masculine” virtues.

Someone else is conspicuously absent from these pages, namely Donald Trump – with whom Hawley has slavishly aligned himself, even going so far as to vote against certifying Joe Biden’s election victory. The senator often describes the sort of behavior a man should avoid. “Some men, of course, desperately want authority for all the wrong reasons,” he writes. “They preen, they abuse, they dominate. They see others as a means to their own ends.” “The Bible rebukes men who would use their power in life to dominate, demean or belittle.” “There is a kind of death in lying, in blaming, in living in resentment.” You could hardly find a fuller embodiment of these descriptions than the “Bad Orange Man.” Not once, however, does Hawley mention Trump. His refusal to address or even admit this clanging contradiction makes mincemeat of his claim to moral leadership.

But then, self-awareness is not one of his distinguishing traits. Hawley is best known for two images of him from Jan. 6 – the first when he raised a fist to show his support for a crowd of Trump supporters, and the second when he literally ran to escape the mob as it invaded the Capitol. These moments come vividly to mind during the chapter titled “Warrior,” where he writes, “A man needs strength and courage. He needs the character of a warrior.” And: “There is a kind of strength that comes only from the battle.” And: “If your cause is just, if it is true, you must defend it. If you stand on holy ground, fight for it.” There are many words you could use to describe Hawley’s flight from danger that day: sensible, prudent, cowardly. But courageous is not one of them. Whatever character he displayed, it was not that of a warrior prepared to risk death for a just cause.

Unlike many troubled American men, Hawley clearly does not lack a sense of purpose—whether building God’s supposed kingdom on earth or advancing his political ambitions. But what stands out in his public conduct are his flair for demagoguery, his supine fealty to Trump, his intellectual dishonesty, and his distrust of individual freedom—not his virtues, that is, but his vices. “When we choose evil rather than confront it, when we coddle and side with it, we bring ourselves and those we love closer to death,” he writes.

To that, I can only say: Amen.

© The UnPopulist 2023

Follow The UnPopulist on Twitter (@UnPopulistMag) and Facebook.

Share

Wednesday, June 28, 2023

The real reason it's harder for families to "thrive". Matthew Yglesias


www.slowboring.com
The real reason it's harder for families to "thrive"
Matthew Yglesias
12 - 15 minutes

In her autobiography, Agatha Christie writes about living in London in 1919 with her husband while expecting their first child. The couple already had a live-in maid but were looking to hire a nanny when the baby was born.

“Looking back, it seems to me extraordinary that we should have contemplated having both a nurse and a servant,” she writes. “But they were considered essentials of life in those days, and were the last things we would have thought of dispensing with. To have committed the extravagance of a car, for instance, would never have entered our minds. Only the rich had cars.”

I thought of this anecdote when I read Scott Winship from the conventionally free market-ish American Enterprise Institute debating a claim made by Oren Cass from the right-populist group American Compass. Cass argues that something he calls the Cost of Thriving has risen over time, and if you review the debate, I think Winship is clearly correct. He at times undermines his position by incorporating some ideas that miss Cass’ point and make the dispute seem more even than it is. But I wrote about a version of this claim back in 2020, and on the key points, Winship is right and Cass is wrong — he counts health insurance incorrectly, for example. The fact that Cass has persisted in some of these errors suggests that the exercise is not on the level.

It is, after all, quite easy to see that inflation-adjusted wages and inflation-adjusted household income have gone up over the past several generations. It’s also obvious that many things exist now that you couldn’t have bought at any price in 1950 or 1980. The only reason to generate an alternative price index is that you already know the answer you want, so you just keep tweaking the items until you get the desired result. This is a shame, because I think the basic conclusion that Cass wants is roughly correct and reachable without invoking any exotic price indexes. The issue is exactly what Christie points to in her biography — relative price shifts — and how those changes intersect with the vision of a good life that centers childrearing.

Why is it that 100 years ago, a middle-class family could afford two servants but zero cars? Because, as the great economist William Baumol observed in the 1960s, wages rise with economy-wide productivity but productivity does not increase evenly across the economy.

Precisely because we got so much better at making things like cars — turning them from niche luxury items into mass market commodities — wages rose, and hiring someone to do something labor intensive like be a live-in maid got more expensive. Baumol used the example of a live string quartet, which by definition requires four players. But even though hiring live musicians has gotten more expensive, we have good technological substitutes like Spotify. Hiring a full-time maid would cost a bundle these days, but washing clothing and dishes is a lot easier than it was 100 years ago thanks to appliances.

But kids are tough.

There’s been little, if any, technological advancement in the field of “pay someone to watch your kids.” And that’s an activity we should construe broadly as encompassing not just child care, but also regular school and afterschool activities and summer camps. It includes things like getting someone to coach the Little League or soccer team. Even if you pay $0 for a volunteer coach, the opportunity cost of being a volunteer has gone up because wages are higher.

And then there’s the opportunity cost of mom. Women’s wages have soared, boosting household incomes a lot. Most married mothers with kids under six don’t work full-time, in part because of childcare costs and in part because people like spending time with their kids. But averting the cost of daycare, aftercare, beforecare, whatevercare by having mom do it herself doesn’t actually change the economics — the opportunity cost of taking time away from the workplace is dramatically higher than it was in the 1950s.

I assume there was someone sitting around in 1969 looking back at Agatha Christie’s time with nostalgia. “It’s nice that middle-class people have cars these days,” she might think, “but all this loading and unloading the dishwasher is very undignified, and we’re not truly thriving the way we were when we had servants.” But most people think that’s dumb. By 2019, a typical two-parent family had two cars (with GPS) and were carrying around supercomputers in their pockets. But the number of children per household has fallen. You might look at that and say “well, trading away traditional family life for streaming video isn’t really thriving; the nostalgics are right this time.”

And maybe they are. But it’s worth saying that if you want a genuine 1950s lifestyle today, you can probably afford it.

Some things really are harder to afford than they were in the past because we are richer today. But by the same token, middle-class people from the past were poor by our standards. In 1950, the average new single-family home was 983 square feet.

If you’re willing to live someplace unfashionable like Cleveland, I can find you a 1,346-square-foot, three-bedroom house for $189,900. That’s an estimated monthly payment of $1,382 per month or $16,584 per year. Let’s say you’re living by the rule of thumb that says housing should be 30% of your annual income. Well, that pencils out to $55,280 per year. Is that out of reach for the modern Ohioan? The BLS says the mean wage for all occupations in the Cleveland metro area is $59,530.

There’s no all-occupations median, unfortunately. But for postal service clerks, the median is $56,200. Suppose you know a skilled trade and you can apply for this mechanic job at the airport that pays $32/hour. That’s north of $60k per year.

So what about child care? Summer camp? All that Baumol stuff? Well, it doesn’t matter, because you’re thriving 1950s-style and your wife takes care of all that. People think it’s weird that you guys only have one car, but that’s the ‘50s for you.

It’s a 27-minute commute to your job at the airport by metro. You’re four blocks from the elementary school and two blocks from the playground, so mom and the kids are fine to be carless if you need it for the day, and it’s only a 25-minute walk to the shopping center at Kamm’s Corners. Of course with three kids and a modest income, you’re not taking vacations by airplane or dining out much, but ‘50s people didn’t do that either.

How about groceries? Intern Maya found this website with food prices from 1950s ads.

    You could get two pounds of bananas for 27 cents in 1957, which is $2.98 adjusted for inflation. The Target near my house is selling them for $1.99 and it can’t be cheaper here than in Cleveland.

    Sugar cost 43 cents for five pounds in 1952, that’s $4.93 in today’s money. Today at Target, I see 10 pounds of sugar for $7.29.

    Chickens were 43 cents per pound in 1950, or $5.56 in today’s money. Today we have such chicken abundance that they’ll give you special boneless skinless chicken breast tenderloins for $4.99 per pound. If you’re a foodie who’s against chicken breast, you can get bone-in chicken thighs for $1.69 per pound. 

How does all this thriving work? Basically, you avoid Baumol Effect problems by having a stay-at-home mom, which makes your household income low for a middle-aged married couple, but it’s fine because you are accepting the much lower material living standards of the 1950s. You can even splurge on some occasional out-of-season fruit that would blow the mind of anyone living in the 1950s. The AARP says a new car in 1960 cost $2,600 or about $27,000 in today’s money, just about what a new Camry costs today. We can debate how much value there is in the quality improvements — today’s cars are safer, more comfortable, and more fuel-efficient — but the basic affordability doesn’t hinge on those claims. For $80 you can get a television with a bigger screen and better resolution than what RCA was selling for $400 in 1965.

The problem — and here’s where Cass’ framing about “thriving” is clever — is that my Cleveland family is not really thriving in 2023. They are, in fact, exceeding the material living standards of the typical American family of the 1950-1965 era. But they’re being very eccentric. We think of a thriving family in 2023 as having a large house by the standards of 2023, not by the standards of 1953. Having only one car because that’s cheaper than two cars is not exactly a sign of thriving in the contemporary United States, unless you’re like me and live someplace with expensive houses and a boutique walkable urbanism lifestyle.

At the same time, it’s not like these kids are suffering from serious deprivation.

Plenty of American kids are much worse off, but they are generally growing up in single-parent households. And it’s not as if contemporary American women can’t afford to get married (what would that even mean?), it’s more like the opposite — women are more economically empowered than ever before, which includes the power to tell men to fuck off. The fact is, any way you slice it, we have become richer. This greater prosperity just means that certain kinds of lifestyles have become relatively less desirable.

You could address this by trying to bring back massive labor market discrimination against women, but that would be neither moral nor workable. Alternatively, the welfare state could be your friend here. There could be very cheap optional afterschool programming, summer camps, and school vacation camps in every city. There could be a generous child allowance and preschool for three- and four-year-olds. We could have a big Child Tax Credit. We could have universal health care. We could eliminate the marriage penalties in the welfare state by making every program more generous. The basic economic problem with children is that they consume stuff but don’t have gainful employment. So in general, the more you expand the welfare state and provide services to people, the better off you make households with a large ratio of non-workers to workers. Public libraries, public schools, a good city bus system — it’s all good for families. And of course targeted direct financial support à la the CTC is especially good.

Outfits like American Compass that are trying to chart a course for the post-neoliberal American right aren’t going to go there, of course. I had a lot of quibbles with the precise design details of the now-dead Build Back Better family care agenda, but in broad strokes, it was much closer to what I’m talking about than anything Cass would embrace. And of course a giant expansion of the welfare state would be expensive and require higher taxes — broadly higher taxes, not just on billionaires.

I’d be inclined to leave it there, except that American Compass’ handbook for conservative policymakers features the following striking proposal in its trade policy discussion:

    Establish a uniform Global Tariff on all imports, set initially at 10% and adjusted automatically each year based on the trade deficit. After any year when the trade deficit has persisted, the tariff would increase by five percentage points for the following year. After any year when trade is in balance or surplus, the tariff would decline by five points the following year.

If you think about the mechanics of this, it’s essentially an across-the-board increase in the prices Americans pay for the stuff they buy. If you’re willing to do that, then why not consider a VAT rather than a huge tariff? If I were a politician, I wouldn’t want to propose a VAT because I’d be wary of proposing a big increase in the prices Americans pay for the stuff they buy. But that’s exactly what American Compass is proposing.

The VAT would influence the trade deficit (by curtailing American consumption), but instead of creating a windfall for the owners of incumbent American manufacturing companies, it would create a revenue windfall for the federal government that could be used on pro-family programs. That, it seems to me, would do more to promote a family-centric vision of “thriving” than an effort to narrowly prop up the manufacturing sector. It also seems extremely far-fetched politically. But it would directly address the issue at hand, which is that the price of family-related stuff has gone up, not relative to the absolute ability to pay but relative to the price of other stuff, and we’d need a mix of taxes and subsidies to even it back out.

Weak yen now the key to stronger currency and BOJ pivot later. By Bloomberg News

Weak yen now the key to stronger currency and BOJ pivot later

Bank of Japan Gov. Kazuo Ueda is proving far more dovish than expected, but even without a move by the central bank to normalize its policy, analysts see the yen regaining some strength as the finale of the global tightening cycle plays out. | BLOOMBERG

Policymakers and business leaders appear far more sanguine about the recent slide in the yen than they were about last year’s intervention-triggering collapse — a sign they see the weakness as temporary.


While the currency is at an almost eight-month low against the dollar and at its weakest against the euro in 15 years, the panic of 2022 doesn’t appear to be coursing through the veins of officials, consumers and company executives yet. Last year, Japan spent $65 billion on direct purchases of the yen to help drag it off a three-decade low versus the greenback.


One key factor is the perception central banks are nearer the end of the global rate hike cycle than the beginning. While it’s still not clear when those like the U.S. Federal Reserve will reach stop, that view has helped dampen fears that Japan is peering into the abyss of a yen freefall.


And an extended period of modest currency weakness could counterintuitively lay the ground for long-run yen strength should it help the Bank of Japan boost growth, attain its inflation goal and finally embark on a pivot from the past decade of supereasy monetary policy.


The bottom-line boost to exporters from the soft yen and renewed optimism over the economy have already helped the stock market chalk up 33-year highs.


"Pressure on the yen won’t escalate much from here. The Fed is approaching its terminal rate with probably one more hike, at most two,” said Atsushi Takeda, chief economist at Itochu Research Institute. "The yen doesn’t have the same falling momentum like last year.”


Yen backdrop

The stark contrast between Japan and its ultralow interest rates aimed at stoking prices and the robust rate hikes of the United States intended to cool them has provided the key backdrop for yen weakness since the Fed began its tightening campaign early last year. The Asian nation’s widening trade deficit as commodity prices climbed only added fuel to that fire.


The occasional brakes to that trend have been recession fears, banking sector turmoil and the realization that Tokyo will act to defend its currency, even if it means irritating its allies in Washington.


Japan has a long-stated focus on the pace of declines rather than any particular target. When officials stepped into markets as the currency approached ¥146 against the dollar in September and ¥152 in October, on each occasion the dollar had moved by more than ¥2 in less than 24 hours. Volatility is at much lower levels this year.


"Although the yen has weakened, the issue here is the speed of moves and pace of inflation,” said Kiyoshi Ishigane, chief fund manager at Mitsubishi UFJ Kokusai Asset Management. "The authorities are unlikely to take action at this moment.”


But while the yen at ¥144 per dollar now seems a lot less scary than it did a year ago, a further fall toward the ¥150s would still likely jolt Japan out of its new comfort zone and on the road to fresh action.


Those levels would also be a bad place for Prime Minister Fumio Kishida to consider holding an early election later this year, as it would likely reignite voter discontent over the rising cost of living.


A decision by the U.S. Treasury in mid-June to drop Japan from its currency watchlist appears to give a tacit green light to more yen buying by Tokyo should sharp moves justify it.


"They are only going to step in if the yen is about to break through ¥150,” said Hideo Kumano, executive economist at Dai-Ichi Life Research Institute. "Although they did it last year, currency intervention is still the last option.”


Yen beneficiaries

For now, policymakers are feeling less heat from the public and corporate realms. While the plunging yen last year may have forced some companies to tear up their hedging strategies, the current range is familiar territory.


Japanese firms with a global presence have long been the biggest beneficiaries of a cheap yen — a factor that inflates their overseas earnings. A softer currency added ¥1.3 trillion ($9.1 billion) to Toyota’s annual operating profits and magnified the sales of five key segments at Sony by about ¥1.2 trillion.


On the flipside, importers like Tokyo Gas feel the pain. Its operating profit fell ¥9.5 billion due to the weaker currency in the latest fiscal year.


The difference this year is that globally focused companies benefiting from the soft yen are now joined by a domestic travel industry reveling in the return of foreign tourists after the lifting of pandemic restrictions.


First quarter spending by overseas visitors in Japan was around 88% what it was in 2019, with the biggest spenders coming from South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. That helped lift economic growth by an annualized 1.1 percentage point in the first three months of the year.


"Unlike last year, the yen is now providing benefits to regional economies through a surge in foreign tourists,” said Itochu’s Takeda. "That’s one of the key reasons that criticism hasn’t penetrated across the nation in the same way, providing the authorities with more time to monitor the situation.”


"Businesses and consumers are more tolerant of the weak yen now than they were last year," said Taro Kimura, economist at Bloomberg Economics. "The recent rally in Japanese stocks may also be helping their mood. Still, things will get political if the dollar-yen rate drops back into the upper ¥140 range.”


Gordian knot

Still, if market players do want to test the bounds of Tokyo’s patience, that would put Kishida in an awkward spot.


The central bank is continuing all-out stimulus to fire up sustainable inflation while the government is forking out trillions of yen to limit price growth by subsidizing electricity bills and keeping a lid on costs at the gasoline stand.


Government intervention in currency markets seems a less obvious solution to a weak yen than having the central bank pull back from stimulus instead. But new BOJ Gov. Kazuo Ueda is proving far more dovish than expected.


Inflation continues to outpace expectations and the BOJ is likely to raise its quarterly price forecast in July. Such a revision could be used to justify a tweak to yield-curve control, a move that would likely enable long-term rates to roam upward.


That would almost certainly give the yen a helpful lift without having to dig into the nation’s foreign exchange reserves again, while leaving markets time to calm down before an early election that could come as soon as the autumn. Most economists don’t expect change for some time to come, though it’s not a consensus view.


Ueda has said the sustainable inflation he seeks still isn’t in sight and that easing should continue, but he hasn’t totally ruled out a surprise move.


"In between one policy meeting and another, various new data comes in. Based on that information, the latest policy meeting may have a different result to the one before,” Ueda said after the BOJ’s June decision. "It’s inevitable that sometimes there’s a certain element of surprise.”


Cycle finale

Even without a move by the central bank to normalize its policy, analysts see the yen regaining some strength as the finale of the global tightening cycle plays out. Expected rate increases by major central banks over the next 12 months are well below levels seen during intervention last year.


"It will probably be clearer in September when the Fed will stop tightening and there may be some signs from the ECB too,” said Koji Fukaya, a fellow at Market Risk Advisory. "That means the yen may strengthen toward ¥130 before year-end and then ¥125 next year.”


Tuesday, June 27, 2023

School's out for mailbag By Matthew Yglesias


www.slowboring.com
School's out for mailbag
Matthew Yglesias
27 - 34 minutes

My kid had his last day of school this week and we got what I thought was an interesting answer to last week’s question about year-end slacking in American schools, so I thought I’d start by quoting it:

Stephen: Not a question, but a professional secondary educator here chiming in about learning nothing in the last weeks of school, from a prior week. I've taught in public schools in multiple states and in private schools, and this varies significantly in my experience. In NY, public high school students take regents exams required to graduate at the very end of the school year in June. This means that the end of the school year is, in many NY schools where graduation is not an automatic assumption, crunch time, complete with optional Saturday study sessions.

In other places without this timing of exams, however, the gradebook locks often a week or more before the last day of class, I believe in order for administrators to flag who needs to attend summer school to make up courses for students who have failed. Teachers at these schools can't reasonably assign major projects due on that last day grades are due; we need time to grade, and some grace period to accept work from students who were absent for the exam/on the due date. So in these places, it looks like weeks of low intensity while teachers finish their grades of all major assignments, and then several more days where grades are locked. I've been the person trying to offer new instruction past that point; it didn't go well.

In independent schools, I've seen this end of year fade as well. Fundamentally, people choose private schools, I think, because they want to be able to pick up the phone if their kid says "I had a problem at school today" and get the adult on the other end of the line to fix it. I made the mistake my first year at an independent school of having a big test very late in the school year. A student bombed the test, and so their grade for the whole year dropped. Their parent was disappointed when that report card went out, to understate it a bit, that they hadn't been able to intervene in time to save their kid's grade (note: the kid's grade did in fact get saved with a packet of work they completed, supervised by a private tutor, over the summer). So that leads to what I feel that end of year fade looks like at the schools at the top of income and entitlement scale; teachers want to end the year with assignments that students won't bomb/stress out about to minimize stressful interactions with parents, so assignments designed not to be bombed look (and are!) a lot lighter for students. There may be asymmetry in this between many parents all slightly disappointed by this fade out, but not mad enough to demand change, versus a few parents who would be mad if assignments that ended the year were bomb-able and their kids bombed them.

That's my perspective - hope it helps!

In terms of good news, I’m so old at this point that I rarely hear new bands that I like, but 100 gecs was recommended to me this week and I like them. Here’s “Frog on the Floor,” a great mashup of the ska-punk sound of my youth with some Zoomer social attitudes. More substantively, I liked this look at the subjective impact of Ozempic, Anthony Blinken’s visit to Beijing seems to have calmed things down a little, we got a new look at starlight from distant galaxies, and it’s nice to see Wuhan University students finally able to have a graduation ceremony.

Last but not least, real wage growth is positive again!

Bo: I’m curious about what you think about this idea: West Point for cops?

The link is to Megan McArdle saying we should have something like a national service academy for training police officers. I like the idea a lot. I like it so much, in fact, that I feel in my gut that I specifically wrote this proposal 10 years ago or something, but despite my best efforts to find such a column and claim prior art I can’t find one.

Stepping back, there are sort of two angles on this. One, which I’ve written on several times recently, is that we urgently need to develop new talent pipelines for urban policing. The basic logistics of this are that if you want to hold cops to a higher standard, you need more people to want to be cops. Some of that is just spending money, but there’s more to life than money. In some communities in the United States, being a police officer is considered a prestigious job that’s held in high esteem. In other communities, it’s a profession that’s mildly derogated. Cities would be better off if they could make the kind of people who live in cities and like them want to be cops. The other, which is closer in spirit to my Police for America proposal, is just that we would benefit from getting, specifically, more educated liberal types to try policing.

Megan’s service academy proposal is another idea in that spirit and I endorse it on those grounds, but I also endorse it on the grounds that creating new institutions of higher education is, I think, the right way to deliver on the concept of “free college.” That was the context in which I believed (falsely, apparently) that I’d written about this before — that we should try to create a few more $0 tuition schools oriented around things like training people to be teachers, cops, diplomats, etc.

Michael Adelman: Do you have a take about Vivek Ramaswamy's proposal to raise the voting age to 25 except for military and first responders? I disagree with this on the merits because I think voting should be more of a fundamental right, and of course it would require amending the Constitution. But this proposal strikes me as very savvy politics and I'm sure it would poll well. It seems to me the GOP could use the very popular “Men With Guns” as a wedge to roll back all sorts of social rights and benefits (example — let's gut Medicaid and redirect some of the money to the VA and police pension funds, and if you oppose our bill you're SOFT ON CRIME AND HATE THE TROOPS!!!!!). Do you agree that this is a potential problem for liberals? What can we do to head it off?

I seriously doubt that restricting the franchise would be politically popular. If you think about the history of global politics, there are way more examples of democratic regimes being overthrown by coups than there are of broad classes of formerly eligible voters losing their voting rights. I don’t want to say it’s entirely unprecedented because it did happen in the American South during the redemption period.

But I literally cannot think of another example of this happening anywhere, while there are plenty of examples from the 19th and 20th centuries of the franchise expansion — weaker property requirements, lower ages, extension to women.

I don’t have specific polling on this or anything, I just think there’s something pretty fundamental at work.

Sam Cole: I've seen you tongue-in-cheekily (?) boosting Robert Kennedy Jr. on Twitter. To what extent is this just ironic? I find his anti-vax activism and conspiracy theories disturbingly Trump-like.

I’m not going to vote for Robert Kennedy Jr. and I don’t think you should either, but what I am trying to do is push back a little against the impulse to say that Democrats should try to exile this guy and his admirers from their coalition.

And I say this as a guy who didn’t like RFK Jr.’s influence on the party back when he was getting written up very respectfully in Mother Jones, the New York Times, Rolling Stone, and elsewhere. He’s an avatar of the style of anti-modern environmentalism that I really deplore, was critical in getting New York to shut down the Indian Point power plant, and is all things considered not my kind of guy. Still, the fact is, he’s someone with deep roots in American progressive politics, there’s a nontrivial fraction of the country who likes his style of thinking, and I think if you’re a Democrat, you should try to get people with paranoid anti-corporate views to vote for you, not condemn them to the outer stratosphere.

Joe Biden is a very savvy coalitional politician, and he made a lot of efforts after the 2020 primary to make Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and their key people feel included in the Biden tent. I think that even though it will annoy the pro-Biden internet, he should try to find ways to extend a similar courtesy to Kennedy — make it clear that he respects him and his supporters, search for common ground on issues, and remind him that Trump and the GOP are absolutely awful on core clean air/clean water issues, as well as on pharmaceutical pricing and regulation. It seems like a bunch of rightist figures are currently gassing Kennedy up in hopes that he’ll spend the general election bitter at Biden and mainstream Democrats, helping Trump win.

It’s important for Biden and Democrats to try to flip that and create a situation where people who’ve been exposed to Kennedy’s message — via Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson or whoever else — end up hearing in the summer and fall of 2024 that Kennedy is endorsing Biden and to try to keep Trump out of the White House. You don’t want to give away the store to the guy in pursuit of that goal, but you should be willing to give him something — some respect, some credit for raising awareness about atrazine, kudos for his work on solar power, maybe a review of the evidence in the RFK assassination. At least see what he wants.

Eric P: I’ve noticed that your commentary on affirmative action still mostly ignores the delta between a college applicant’s actual aptitude and how that applicant looks on paper. It cannot be true that Asian students are intrinsically wildly more academically adept than students of other races. Despite the affirmative action disadvantage, Asian students are still overrepresented at elite universities. I think it seems pretty reasonable to both sniff out parental/outside involvement and to instead find the diamond-in-the-rough types who are extremely bright but didn’t have the opportunities to extensively pad a résumé. In the employment market, this is seen as common sense.

I don’t know exactly what “intrinsically” more adept means in this context. I am familiar with this Bruce Sacerdote study of Korean-American adoptees, which suggests large non-genetic family influence on college selectivity:

    I analyze a new set of data on Korean American adoptees who were quasi-randomly assigned to adoptive families. I find large effects on adoptees' education, income, and health from assignment to parents with more education and from assignment to smaller families. Parental education and family size are significantly more correlated with adoptee outcomes than are parental income or neighborhood characteristics. Outcomes such as drinking, smoking, and the selectivity of college attended are more determined by nurture than is educational attainment. Using the standard behavioral genetics variance decomposition, I find that shared family environment explains 14 percent of the variation in educational attainment, 35 percent of the variation in college selectivity, and 33 percent of the variation in drinking behavior. 

That’s an interesting finding, but obviously a very large majority of children are raised by their biological parents, so the question of whether that family influence operates through nature or nurture is of limited practical relevance. But I also don’t think that’s just “resume padding.”

If I look at my National Center on Education Statistics fast facts website, I see that the mean SAT score is 1050 and the Asian mean is 1229. Over on this page, they say the standard deviation is 217. Is that a huge difference? Your mileage may vary. But it’s consistent with the top 5% of SAT scorers being very disproportionately Asian relative to the population average.

Richard Weinberg: I'm old and disconnected with contemporary ideological speech, so I apologize for any possible offense in this question: In the old days, an “enslaver” was someone who enslaved people who had been “free,” like the West Africans who captured unfortunates for sale as slaves to Europeans. The term was reasonably expanded also to encompass the people who operated the slave ships, and those involved in sales in the New World. My impression is that the word is now used instead to refer to all those who used to be called “slaveholders.” Is this correct? If so, is it a sensible expansion of meaning, or is it mainly virtue signaling?

As I’ve written before, I think the practical function of all linguistic reform movements is just to draw in-group/out-group distinctions.

I wouldn’t call it “virtue signaling,” though, because it’s just the general nature of language change and not a particular attribute of this movement. As an example that you might sympathize with, consider an outdated term like “the Jews.” If you go back to 1973, there’s probably an old guy somewhere in Queens (let’s call him Archie Bunker) who’s talking about “the Jews,” “the Blacks,” “the Italians,” and so forth. He doesn’t particularly use those terms with malice, but it’s also true that he has a bunch of retrograde social attitudes. His son-in-law, Mike, with more progressive values says things like “Jewish people” and thinks Archie’s use of “the Jews” is gross. On some level Mike is just virtue-signaling here; the words aren’t what matters. But other people hear Archie and they hear Mike, and it becomes the case that younger and more progressive-minded people don’t say “the Jews,” just bigots and old guys. Over time, the old guys die and by 2023, if you hear someone saying “the Jews” this and “the Jews” that, you are pretty sure this person is vice-signaling — they are going out of their way to use derogated vocabulary.

If a 25-year-old white person told you tomorrow “I have a Negro neighbor,” you’d wonder what the hell was wrong with him. Not because there’s anything inherently wrong with the term — civil rights movement leaders used it all the time — but because in the present-day context it’s just an incredibly weird thing to say.

So back to the present day. The intention behind the switch from “slaves” to “enslaved people” and from “slaveowners” or “slaveholders” to “enslavers” is to, in the former case, emphasize the humanity of the enslaved and, in the latter case, to emphasize the agency and moral badness of the enslavers. Is there some metaphysical truth whereby the words actually accomplish those things? Absolutely not. It’s a mostly arbitrary fad that started in academia and has trickled out from there into the nonprofit world, some museums, journalists who are younger than I am, etc. But it’s now entrenched enough that which word you use really is a signal about where you stand on some larger questions like “should we celebrate Braxton Bragg as an admirable figure?” or more broadly “was the ‘Reunion’ compromise whereby northern whites accepted the legitimacy of the Jim Crow system wise or wicked?”

I personally do not think it’s a good idea to put a lot of emphasis on this kind of linguistic politics, but it is what it is.

Lenzy T Jones: You talk about my former hometown, Chicago, quite a bit. So I’m curious to know why you see Chicago as an outlier compared to every other non-coastal big city? Like why has it succeeded when they failed and do you think they have a better shot at rebounding than those other cities?

Two reasons to write about Chicago a lot:

    It’s a very large city so it’s worthy of attention.

    Outside of the three cities I’ve lived in, it’s the city I’ve spent the most time in. 

But it’s definitely not an outlier “compared to every other non-coastal big city” — consider Dallas. Or even in the midwest, Minneapolis. What I do think is true is that there’s a broad arc of cities sweeping from Milwaukee down to St. Louis over to Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse that have generally been struggling a lot. The true outlier in this zone is probably Columbus, Ohio which used to be small and has become large during the broad period of Rust Belt decline. But Chicago is kind of the de facto capital of this region of the United States, and it did manage to keep its head above water in a way that Detroit and Cleveland and Akron and St. Louis did not.

I think the shorthand explanation for why is “really gigantic cities have cool amenities that make them stand out,” but per my posts on the subject, I now think Chicago is seriously imperiled in part because of this broader regional weakness.

Daniel: I teach High School Economics and had two questions related to my work with students.

First, how useful is the quantity theory of money to understanding inflation? Does the quantity theory of money, coupled with the Milton Friedman’s oft-quoted line that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon” actually create a misconception about the causes of inflation? If you were teaching economics to high school students, for example, would learning about QTM give the students a deeper understanding of inflation a mismatch between production and spending?

Second, what’s the most important thing students need to know currently about monetary policy? Is it still worthwhile to teach students about open market operations or the reserve ratio?

I think quantity theory is a good entry point into the subject. What would you do if you had more money? You’d buy more stuff and increase your standard of living. So if Jerome Powell printed up $5,000 and handed it to you, you’d be pretty happy. So why not print up a couple trillion dollars and hand $5,000 to everyone? Well, if everyone rushed out to try to buy more stuff, prices would rise and we wouldn’t actually end up with more stuff. But then you ask yourself, is that always the case? What if there were lots of unemployed workers and idle equipment and production could easily expand? In that case, you might get some inflation, but you’d also get a rise in real output.

Back to the inflationary scenario. In terms of Friedman’s dictum, if you did the money-printing and then prices went up, you’d see profit margins rise. A lot of people would say this shows that “greed” and profiteering are the real cause of inflation, but Friedman’s point would be that money-printing was the deeper root cause. Conversely, if unemployment were high, people would say the unemployed are lazy or that automation is reducing demand for labor or whatever else, but the deeper root cause would be insufficient printing of money — with more money in circulation, those workers would be re-employed.

I would just caution students against taking the quantity theory too literally, because it turns out nobody can even agree on how to count the money supply. There are some important insights here, but the actual banking system is very complicated.

Evan Bear: One thing immigration proponents correctly say is that immigrants don't steal jobs, because they don't just increase the supply of workers, but also demand for workers. With inflation being high right now partly because of worker shortages, some writers have argued that immigration would help resolve the problem. Can those two arguments be squared, and if so, how?

Stepping back, I think that in general, the impulse to present supply-side solutions to inflation is misguided. If your rent drops, you might go on vacation more and push airfares up. Or if airfares drop, you might take a longer vacation and push hotel prices up. If childcare costs fall, you might have more kids and push up housing prices. “Lower prices don’t reduce inflation” is a very counterintuitive-sounding thing to say, but it’s why I prefer frameworks that focus on nominal spending and nominal income.

That being said, lower rents would be good. Cheaper airfare would be good. Cheaper childcare would be good. All of these things are good because they would increase the quantity of goods and services that people consume. In other words, they would raise living standards.

By the same token, an intelligent immigration policy is a beneficial supply-side reform that increases real output and raises living standards. I wouldn’t say it’s an anti-inflation policy. It’s an answer to the question “how do we boost economic growth in a world where we are trying to reduce demand?”

Wigan: I accidentally discovered that there is an online debate over pit bulls. Do you have a take?

On one side the data appears to show they are wildly overrepresented in serious and fatal dog attacks and even more overrepresented in dogs that end up in shelters (in my area it seems like 90%+). On the other side you have the argument that 90% of pit bulls will not attack anyone, or the top result from google which say pit bulls are overrepresented in shelters due to “pit bull stigma,” and / or that bad owners are especially attracted to them, and any type of dog can bite or attack.

I have no opinions about dogs that I care to share in a public forum.

Monkey staring at a monolith: If you were the dictator of a non-elite university getting a raft of new funding, where would you spend it to maximize impact? Hiring more staff, higher staff salaries, facilities, amenities, cutting tuition, scholarships? Something else?

There’s a cynical answer to this question and an idealistic answer. The idealistic answer is that I’m glad a raft of new funding came to my non-elite school because promoting effective education in non-elite contexts is a very underrated problem in higher education. I’m not 100% sure what I would invest that money in beyond the fact I would invest a good chunk of it in making sure to build measurement and evaluation into everything I do.

My goal in this idealistic vision is to remain a school that enrolls students with average to below-average SAT/ACT scores but does an above-average job of teaching them. My guess is that a key modality of action there is hiring faculty who are enthusiastic about this mission in a way that most college professors aren’t. But it’s fine if most college professors aren’t that jazzed-up about teaching average-to-below-average undergraduates as a mission in life — I’m just one school and I just need to recruit those professors who do find this appealing.

The cynical answer, though, is that I want to climb the college rankings, and that’s achieved not primarily by improving the quality of instruction but by improving the quality of your applicants. I think you mostly achieve that by investing your money in merit scholarships and nicer amenities, which is in turn part of the reason why college costs keep rising. By the same token, though, this is the strategy almost every school is pursuing. To differentiate the product a bit more, I think it would be smart to dabble in some “anti-woke” branding which could let you punch above your weight in recruiting students. Again, not because most students are interested in this, but because if even a relatively tiny fraction of students are interested in it, that gives you a useful differentiating factor.

Isaac: In last week's mailbag you mentioned the “larger framework that incentivizes middle-class savings and wealth building almost entirely through the vehicle of opaque subsidies for owner-occupied housing. I think we could do a lot better than that as a national savings strategy.” What specifically would you prefer? And how can we get from here to there?

There are two big tax preferences specifically for owner-occupied housing wealth — the mortgage interest tax deduction, which people talk about a lot, and the partial exclusion of home sale profits from capital gains taxation, which people talk about less. You could eliminate both of those and slightly bump up the 0% capital gains tax bracket or cut the 15% rate slightly or create some kind of savings tax credit. The basic idea is to try to be more neutral between specifically encouraging middle-class people to save in the form of owning a home that they live in versus owning a diverse stock portfolio.

Why care about this? Well, according to the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances (that’s the most up-to-date one), the median household had assets of about $204,000, of which about $180,000 is equity in their primary residence.

That encourages people to be very, very risk-averse about anything that could have a negative impact on the value of their home. That in turn encourages restrictions on the actual supply of homes, which has the perverse impact of making the overall supply of housing wealth lower rather than higher. By contrast, when people own a diverse portfolio of shares of stock, they don’t think to themselves “now I should lobby Congress to prevent any new startups from forming because that will protect the value of my equity investment in old companies.” If they did, we’d have a big problem. But they don’t, in part because when you have a diverse portfolio of stocks, you clearly benefit from overall economic growth, even if a dynamic economy hurts some particular companies that you own. So we’d have a healthier political economy if we, at the margin, had somewhat more renters and somewhat smaller houses and everyone owned more stock instead.

Brian: Who is the best Democratic president in your lifetime?

I think Obama. Biden’s presidency is still happening, though, so he could pass him.

David: On the Weeds you once said that you were not “a passionate gun control person.” Has that changed at all? If so why?

Somewhat related. How do you feel about the Ja Morant suspension? Obviously, unless the union can stop it, the NBA can suspend Ja for acting kind of dumb but it is a very large suspension for doing nothing illegal.

I write some different version of my gun control take every once in a while, but I think it really comes down to progressives underrating the extent to which shootings are done by people who are already prohibited from owning firearms.

Now, what conservatives miss is that lax gun laws do encourage more homicide because there is a divergence of guns from the licit to illicit markets. The gun control people are correct that if every state adopted New York’s gun laws, we would have fewer murders — and this is in fact why New York has fewer murders than Florida or Texas. That said, New York still has plenty of murders, and it’s not because the gun laws aren’t strict enough. It’s because enforcing the rules against illegal gun-carrying is a nontrivial logistical problem. I think we would have a much healthier country if both sides would at least acknowledge these broad descriptive facts.

Thomas: Why has the narrative stuck that the middle class is shrinking even as data show that to the extent that it’s true, they’re moving upward out of the middle class? Why are some people (particularly though not exclusively on the left) so invested in the idea that America is in decline? Why does the Squad like to make people’s livelihoods sound more precarious than they actually are?

I’m feeling cranky today so instead of answering your question, I’m going to complain.

I’ve been thinking lately about how people are awfully selective in identifying who it is that holds The Bad Opinion for any given value of The Bad Opinion.

Just earlier today I was reading some work from the national conservative group American Compass which developed something they call The Cost of Thriving Index, which is supposed to prove that the middle class is shrinking. They had an event this week with Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance, and others to talk about this idea and how to fix it. So is the myth of middle-class shrinkage a Squad problem or is it a conservative nostalgia problem? Or is it both?

dysphemistic treadmill: Do you support or oppose the municipal regulation of AirBnb-like short-term rentals?

What the anti-Airbnb people get right is that supply and demand matter to housing markets. Airbnb raises the demand for housing units, which presses up the price, so you can reduce prices by banning or otherwise restricting Airbnb.

By the same token, of course, you could lower rents by making it illegal for left-handed people to live in your city. You might think that’s unfair in a way that banning Airbnb isn’t, that banning lefties is kinda like doing racism. So you could do something more neutral like saying that in order to live in your city you have to learn to recite Gerard Manley Hopkins’ poem “Spring and Fall: To a Young Child” by heart. Anyone could accomplish that (it’s a short poem), but it would create a barrier that reduces housing demand and therefore rents. Or you might think that this is a pointless and economically costly way to accomplish the goal.

I think having a lot of people want to visit your city is good. Whether they stay in a hotel or an Airbnb, they are growing your tax base, providing customers to your retail establishments, supporting the existence of a thriving network of cultural amenities, and otherwise creating economic benefits. In general, a thriving economy creates upward pressure on housing prices, and the solution is to eliminate regulatory curbs to construction so as to ensure that economic growth is maximally win-win. In the same spirit, I think taxing Airbnb rentals makes sense (every city I’m familiar with has taxed hotel stays forever) to ensure the gains are widely spread. But Airbnb should be broadly welcomed.

C-man: Why is Freddie DeBoer so obsessed with dunking on you?

You’d have to ask him. I think he’s a pretty persuasive writer on non-Yglesias subjects, but he has some kind of weird hangup about me. I used to enjoy internet feuds but now that I’m in my 40s, I try not to get into that kind of thing.