How would you measure the safety of private motor vehicle travel?
Let’s agree to focus on fatalities. Serious injuries are also important, but all the points I am going to make hold equally as well for injuries as for fatalities. Continue reading
A recent Swiss proposal for a basic income guarantee has sparked interest from commentators on both the left and right. In a discussion of libertarian arguments for the proposal, Bleeding Heart Libertarians blogger Matt Zwolinski suggests that the classical liberal economist Friedrich Hayek supported a basic income guarantee. He relies on a quote from Volume 3 of Hayek’s Law, Legislation and Liberty:
The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born (p 395).
A number of writers, including Zwolinski, his fellow blogger at Bleeding Heart Libertarians, Kevin Vallier and Julie Novak of the Institute of Public Affairs seem to interpret this as a proposal for the government to pay every citizen a basic income, regardless of their income, assets or willingness to work. I think this is a misinterpretation of Hayek’s position. What Hayek actually proposed was a means tested scheme restricted to those who are unable to earn a living in the market.
In the last 5 years, I have made a point of giving clear predictions on complex socio-economic issues. I give predictions partially to improve my own understanding of humanity: nothing sharpens the thoughts as much as having to actually predict something. Another reason is as a means of helping my countries (Australia/the Netherlands) understand the world: predicting socio-economic events is what social scientists should do, even if they will often be wrong.
Time to have a look at my predictive successes and failures over the last few years, as well as the outstanding predictions yet to be decided. Let us start with what I consider my main failure.
Failed predictions
The main area I feel I haven’t read quite right is the conflict in Syria, as part of the general change in the whole Middle East. I am still happy with my long-run predictions for that region, where I have predicted that urbanisation, more education, reduced fertility rates, and a running out of fossil fuels will lead to a normalisation of politics in a few decades time. But at the end of 2012 I was too quick in thinking the Syria conflict was done and dusted. To be fair, I was mainly following the ‘intrade political betting markets’ which was 90% certain Assad would no longer be president by the end of this year, but the prophesised take-over of the country by the Sunni majority has not quite happened. The place has become another Lebanon, with lots of armed groups defending their own turf and making war on the turf of others. The regime no longer controls the whole country, but is still the biggest militia around.
What did I fail to see? I mainly over-estimated the degree to which the West would become involved. Continue reading
I know three people who say they’re quite strongly affected by the weather. They dislike rainy, overcast or muggy days and like fine ones that are not too hot or cold. Me? Well I agree, but while I can enjoy a nice day, I have no feeling of a bad day weighing me down.
I’ve just realised that the three people I know who react more strongly than me are female. And I know quite a few men who are relaxed about the weather like I am. So while I’m sure there’s no one-to-one mapping between gender and this strength of reaction to the weather, I wonder on this tiny sample if I’m seeing a more generally applicable pattern. And perhaps there are other things to be learned about the kinds of people whose mood is strongly influenced by the weather.
So, O Troppodillians, spare us a couple of moments of your time and fess up to your own predilections and sensitivities, and those of people you know.
Read more here.
Awareness Reduces Racial Bias by Devin G. Pope, Joseph Price, Justin Wolfers - #19765 (LS PE)
Abstract:
Can raising awareness of racial bias subsequently reduce that bias? We address this question by exploiting the widespread media attention highlighting racial bias among professional basketball referees that occurred in May 2007 following the release of an academic study. Using new data, we confirm that racial bias persisted in the years after the study’s original sample, but prior to the media coverage. Subsequent to the media coverage though, the bias completely disappeared. We examine potential mechanisms that may have produced this result and find that the most likely explanation is that upon becoming aware of their biases, individual referees changed their decision-making process. These results suggest that raising awareness of even subtle forms of bias can bring about meaningful change.
Prologue to a blog post:
Gentle Troppodillians, as you know, we keep up with the times here at Troppo. Some people like to think just five minutes ahead. Here at Troppo we’re focused on the long-term – eons are seconds in TroppoTime – or seconds are eons depending on the way you look at it. So I know you want to get the latest on Bitcoin – and in that regard this post should not disappoint. It is indeed about bitcoin. But . . . there’s more. This post is also a meta on academic discourse – and how limited it is.
Academia is where one would hope to find a large proportion of the most insightful minds. But for some time I’ve been struck by how limited the academic genre is at engaging with the social and economic transformations that are going on around us. Thus Tim O’Reilly’s “What is Web 2.0” and Clay Shirky’s Here comes everybody, were far more insightful than anything in academia. Indeed I remember the articles on government and web 2.0 I first came across in around 2008 or so were particularly woeful.
Their methodology was often something like this:
Voila, there’s your article – ready to be published by some worthy mid-level government administration or policy journal. And something you can present at seminars. The people you’ve interviewed may not have a the slightest clue what they’re talking about, but their ‘outputs’, give you ‘inputs’. They’re answers to your questions (they might not be the right questions either) will give you ‘data’. And you understand what that means. It means that in seminars you will be able to begin responses to questions with expressions like “According to our data”.
Your conclusions will contain such gems as “Make sure objectives are clearly specified”. “Be clear about who your stakeholders are, and what they are seeking from the project”. “Stay in close touch with stakeholders”. ”Ensure the project is flexible and responsive to feedback”. “Evaluate the success of your project when it’s complete and (if you’re feeling frisky or a little flamboyant, ensure that evaluation methodologies are considered throughout the process).” All deliciously useless, masking a total lack of insight in generalities. One could offer this advice about any and everything from building a bridge to toilet training your kids. Further elaboration can be had here.
Anyway, here’s another example of the . . . Continue reading
I’m a fan of Angel-list and have invested in two companies already over the platform (as trustee for Club Troppo’s 4.7 billion self-managed super fund). Here’s the disclaimer which you verify before you get to invest. I like it, though even here I’d rather just one or two clear and simple statements to tick. At least on the consumer side, it’s the sort of thing that we should be moving towards in our review of crowdfunded equity. Will we? Well I’m not holding my breath.
Angel investors should expect to lose their money—almost all startups fail. Even if you diversify, you should expect your total losses to exceed your gains.I understand that I will likely lose my money
Unlike public stocks, angel investments are illiquid. You can’t sell your stake when you choose—it may take years for a startup to return money, if it ever does.I understand that I have no control over the timing of liquidityInvesting with notable investors does not guarantee a return. Make your own decisions. Watching notable investors can inform your decisions, but you must do your own diligence.I understand that I must do diligence and read the investment docsEarly investors are diluted every time a startup raises money. Your share gets diluted in every subsequent financing and you have no right to invest in those financings.I understand that my ownership will be diluted in subsequent roundsStartups change plans constantly and often enter a different market with a different product. Plans and forecasts are not predictions about the future.I understand that startups often radically change their plansYou must indemnify AngelList against any losses, even if the startup committed fraud or lied. This includes any investment opportunities you may have missed.I understand that AngelList isn’t responsible for losses or missed opportunities