Tag Archives: Regulation

Board Games As Policy Arguments

When we want to convince others to support our policy positions, we often tell stories. We tell people about things that happened to us, to people we know, and to people we’ve heard of. Journalists tell stories about what happened to famous people recently, or to whole sets of people in “studies”. Popular books also include such policy-lesson stories. And fiction often tries to persuade about policy using “true-like” stories, which are not actually true.

The way that these stories are supposed to support policies is that we are invited to imagine how such stories would have turned out better with different policies. That is the policy “moral” of a story. A big problem with this approach, however, is that even if the story is true, and even if we can correctly judge how a policy would have changed a story, each policy influences a great many other stories. Policy advocates are likely to select the stories that make their policy look best, out of all the other possible stories they could tell.

Academias often tell these kinds of stories, but we also tell other kinds that better avoid this problem. For example, formal game theory models describe entire formal worlds, including agents, resources, actions, info, locations, and preferences. So one can judge if a policy is good overall in such a world. A similar benefit holds for agent-based simulations, lab experiments, and field experiments. In each case, one can judge how much a policy helps or hurts overall for the world that is studied.

Of course most of these methods actually only consider relatively small worlds, which at best correspond to small parts of our big world. So if a policy has effects outside of the scope of the world that it considers, these methods won’t see that. You can try to analyze the many small worlds that a policy influences, and add up the overall effect across them all, but that is hard to do well.

These sorts of small world models also make many assumptions about the basic situations in the small worlds that they consider. So the lessons that they draw from their small worlds need not apply to the corresponding parts of our big world, if those assumptions are bad approximations to our big world. This is less of a problem when one relies on true stories drawn from our actual world. So both sorts of methods have their advantages and disadvantages, and one should plausibly use both when drawing policy conclusions.

All these methods by which academics model policy in small worlds have one big disadvantage: it is hard to use them to persuade ordinary people. They and their supporting analysis can be complex, and also just boring, and thus not emotionally engaging. Dramatic stories from the real world can overcome these big disadvantages.

However, there is another kind of policy story that has so far been neglected, but which can combine the advantages of a wholistic policy evaluation across an entire small world, with the advantages of being simple enough for ordinary people to understand, and also emotionally engaging enough to get them to pay attention. And that is board games. Consider Monopoly:

In 1903, Georgist Lizzie Magie applied for a patent on a game called The Landlord’s Game with the object of showing that rents enriched property owners and impoverished tenants. She knew that some people would find it hard to understand the logic behind the idea, and she thought that if the rent problem and the Georgist solution to it were put into the concrete form of a game, it might be easier to demonstrate. …

Also in the 1970s, Professor Ralph Anspach, who had himself published a board game intended to illustrate the principles of both monopolies and trust busting, fought Parker Brothers and its then parent company, General Mills, over the copyright and trademarks of the Monopoly board game. (More)

The rules of each board game describe both an entire small world, and also the policies that govern player actions in that world. So when people play a board game, they get an intuitive feel for how that world works, how much they enjoy living in that world, and how alternate rules would change their enjoyment. At which point they are ready to hear and understand this policy argument:

If we changed these policy-setting rules (as opposed to these world-defining rules) in this game, that would turn this into a more enjoyable game, and/or make the world it describes more admirable. So to the extent that an important part of our real larger world is like this game world, we should try to move our real policies more toward these better game policies.

Now as far as I can tell, these policy argument fail badly in the case of Monopoly. People like playing the Monopoly game as it is, and do not enjoy it as much when its rules are changed to embody the alternate property and tax policies favored by those who designed and developed it. But the basic approach to policy argument seems valid, at least as a complement to our other story approaches.

Yes, people may have different agendas and priorities regarding life in a board game, relative to their own real lives. But that critique applies as well to all the other kinds of stories that people use to argue for policies. For example, your priorities about the characters in a story you here may not be the same as your priorities if you were in the story yourself. Yes, to the extent that video games have board game elements, with rules on how players relate to each other, video games can also support policy arguments.

So I’d like to see more people try to make policy arguments in the context of board games. Show us two variations on a game, where the more fun or admirable version corresponds to the policies that you prefer, while the other version corresponds to policies closer to what we have now. Let us prove your claim to ourselves by playing your game. Or maybe find other rules that we enjoy even more, and invite you to prove that claim to yourself by playing.

Yes, I might still not like your policy, because I think your world differs from our real world, or our priorities differ between games and real life.  And yes, the space of fun board games is far smaller than the space of games, so that fun games are far from representative of the larger space. But still, from the point of view of convincing ordinary people about policies, adding game policy arguments probably puts us in a better position than we are in now relying mainly on personal stories, fictional stories, and academic authority.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , , ,

Risk-Aversion Sets Life Value

Many pandemic cost-benefit analyses estimate larger containment benefits than did I, mainly due to larger costs for each life lost. Surprised to see this, I’ve been reviewing the value of life literature. The key question: how much money (or resources) should you, or we, be willing to pay to gain more life? Here are five increasingly sophisticated views:

  1. Infinite – Pay any price for any chance to save any human life.
  2. Value Per Life – $ value per human life saved.
  3. Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) – $ value per life year saved, adjusted for quality.
  4. Life Year To Income Ratio – Value ratio between a year of life and a year of income.
  5. Risk Aversion – Life to income ratio comes from elasticity of utility w.r.t. income.

The first view, of infinite value, is the simplest. If you imagine someone putting a gun to your head, you might imagine paying any dollar price to not be shot. There are popular sayings to this effect, and many even call this a fundamental moral norm, punishing those who visibly violate it. For example, a hospital administrator who could save a boy’s life, but at great expense, is seen as evil and deserving of punishment, if he doesn’t save the boy. But he is seen as almost as evil if he does save the boy, but thinks about his choice for a while.

Which shows just how hypocritical and selective our norm enforcement can be, as we all make frequent choices that express a finite values on life. Every time we don’t pay all possible costs to use the absolutely safest products and processes because they cost more in terms of time, money, or quality of output, we reveal that we do not put infinite value on life.

The second view, where we put a specific dollar value on each life, has long been shunned by officials, who deny they do any such thing, even though they in effect do. Juries have awarded big claims against firms that explicitly used value of life calculations to not to adopt safety features, even when they used high values of life. Yet it is easy to show that we can have both more money and save more lives if we are more consistent about the price we pay for lives in the many different death-risk-versus-cost choices that we make.

Studies that estimate the monetary price we are willing to pay to save a life have long shown puzzlingly great variation across individuals and contexts. Perhaps in part because the topic is politically charged. Those who seek to justify higher safety spending, stronger regulations, or larger court damages re medicine, food, environmental, or job accidents tend to want higher estimates, while those who seek to justify less and weaker of such things tend to want lower estimates.

The third view says that the main reason to not die is to gain more years of life. We thus care less about deaths of older and sicker folks, who have shorter remaining lives if they are saved now from death. Older people are often upset to be thus less valued, and Congress put terms into the US ACA (Obamacare) medicine bill forbidding agencies from using life years saved to judge medical treatments. Those disabled and in pain can also be upset to have their life years valued less, due to lower quality, though discounting low-quality years is exactly how the calculus says that it is good to prevent disability and pain, as well as death.

It can make sense to discount life years not only for disability, but also for distance in time. That is, saving you from dying now instead of a year from now can be worth more than saving you from dying 59 years from now, instead of 60 years from now. I haven’t seen studies which estimate how much we actually discount life years with time.

You can’t spend more to prevent death or disability than you have. There is thus a hard upper bound on how much you can be willing to pay for anything, even your life. So if you spend a substantial fraction of what you have for your life, your value of life must at least roughly scale with income, at least at the high or low end of the income spectrum. Which leads us to the fourth view listed above, that if you double your income, you double the monetary value you place on a QALY. Of course we aren’t talking about short-term income, which can vary a lot. More like a lifetime income, or the average long-term incomes of the many associates who may care about someone.

The fact that medical spending as a fraction of income tends to rise with income suggests that richer people place proportionally more value on their life. But in fact meta-analyses of the many studies on value of life seem to suggest that higher income people place proportionally less value on life. Often as low as value of life going as the square root of income.

Back in 1992, Lawrence Summers, then Chief Economist of the World Bank, got into trouble for approving a memo which suggested shipping pollution to poor nations, as lives lost there cost less. People were furious at this “moral premise”. So maybe studies done in poor nations are being slanted by the people there to get high values, to prove that their lives are worth just as much.

Empirical estimates of the value ratio of life relative to income still vary a lot. But a simple theoretical argument suggests that variation in this value is mostly due to variation in risk-aversion. Which is the fifth and last view listed above. Here’s a suggestive little formal model. (If you don’t like math, skip to the last two paragraphs.)

Assume life happens at discrete times t. Between each t and t+1, there is a probability p(et) of not dying, which is increasing in death prevention effort et. (To model time discounting, use δ*p here instead of p.) Thus from time t onward, expected lifespan is Lt = 1 + p(et)*Lt+1. Total value from time t onward is similarly given by Vt = u(ct) + p(et)*Vt+1, where utility u(ct) is increasing in that time’s consumption ct.

Consumption ct and effort et are constrained by budget B, so that ct + etB. If budget B and functions p(e) and u(c) are the same at all times t, then unique interior optimums of e and c are as well, and also L and V. Thus we have L = 1/(1-p), and V = u/(1-p) = u*L.

In this model, the life to income value ratio is the value of increasing Lt from L to L+x, divided by the value of increasing ct from c to c(1+x), for x small and some particular time t. That is:

(dL * dV/dL) / (dc * dV/dc) = xu / (x * c  * du/dc) = [ c * u’(c) / u(c) ]-1.

Which is just the inverse of the elasticity of with respect to c.

That non-linear (concave) shape of the utility function u(c) is also what produces risk-aversion. Note that (relative) risk aversion is usually defined as -c*u”(c)/u’(c), to be invariant under affine transformations of u and c. Here we don’t need such an invariance, as we have a clear zero level of c, the level at which u(c) = 0, so that one is indifferent between death and life with that consumption level.

So in this simple model, the life to income value ratio is just the inverse of the elasticity of the utility function. If elasticity is constant (as with power-law utility), then the life to income ratio is independent of income. A risk-neutral agent puts an equal value on a year of life and a year of income, while an agent with square root utility puts twice as much value on a year of life as a year of income. With no time discounting, the US EPA value of life of $10M corresponds to a life year worth over four times average US income, and thus to a power law utility function where the power is less than one quarter.

This reduction of the value of life to risk aversion (really concavity) helps us understand why the value of life varies so much over individuals and contexts, as we also see puzzlingly large variation and context dependence when we measure risk aversion. I’ll write more on that puzzle soon.

Added 23June: The above model applies directly to the case where, by being alive, one can earn budget B in each time period to spend in that period. This model can also apply to the case where one owns assets A, assets which when invested can grow from A to rA in one time period, and be gambled at fair odds on whether one dies. In this case the above model applies for B = A*(1-p/r).

Added 25June: I think the model gives the same result if we generalize it in the following way: Bt, and pt(et,ct) vary with time, but in a way so that optimal ct = c is constant in time, and dpt/ct = o at the actual values of ct,et.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , , ,

Philosopher Kings in Blue?

When things go wrong in our lives, we are often tempted to invoke governments to fix them. So we add more systems wherein governments do things, and we make more laws to influence what other people do. However, in the messy process of translating our general purposes into particular system and rules, we often allow various groups to control important details, and turn them more to their purposes. We also get random outcomes due to randomness in which political factions happen have more control when we turn our attention to changing each particular system or rule. In addition, we often leave out details because we are hypocritical, and unwilling to fully admit our real purposes. For example, we often want to appear to oppose things more than we do, like say drug use, prostitution, or adultery.

The net effect of these many messy processes is that our government systems and rules are poorly integrated, clumsy, and vague. We don’t bother to work out many details, and we don’t decide how to make key tradeoffs between different systems and rules. For such elaboration, the public and their politicians often punt to judges and government agencies. And for details where agencies don’t set policies, they punt to individual civil servants.

To influence these agencies and their civil servants, we set bosses who can give them orders, and perhaps promote or fire them. Bosses who have other bosses all the way up to the politicians we elect. But we are afraid of new politicians taking too much hidden control over these agencies, say by firing everyone and hiring all their friends. So we often limit politicians’ powers to direct and fire civil servants. This gives agencies and civil servants more discretion, to do what they choose.

Of course in any one social equilibrium, an individual civil servant may not feel they have great discretion. But that doesn’t contradict the claim that collectively they have a lot. That is, there can be many possible government equilibria consistent with the overall government rules and larger political and social worlds. Some of this government discretion may be captured by the schools and other systems that train people to become civil servants.

To enforce rules on both civil servants, and on ordinary people, we threaten to punish people for violating rules. The civil servants we put in charge of this enforcement process are “police” (in which I include prosecutors, judges, and other civil servants with rule-enforcing discretion). And to help police in these roles, we give them various budgets and powers.

The above description so far is pretty generic, applying nearly as well to a quite minimal state as to a strong “police state”, wherein police have strong powers to punish most anyone they choose. Where any one state sits on this spectrum is determined by many factors, including (1) police monetary budgets, (2) police direct powers to invade spaces, demand info, etc., (3) police negotiating powers regarding court proceedings, and (4) the frequency and severity of rules that people frequently violate.

While once upon a time (say two centuries ago) the U.S. system looked more like a minimal state, today it looks more like a police state. Maybe not as bad a police state as the old Soviet Union, but still, a police state. This transformation is detailed in William Stuntz’ excellent book The Collapse of American Criminal Justice. Some key changes:

  1. We’ve added a lot more laws, so many that we don’t understand most, and regularly violate many.
  2. We’ve cut the use of juries and also many legal defenses, which previously helped evade guilty verdicts.
  3. Rise of big cities means county-set laws are set by folks different from those suffer, cause most crime.
  4. States, who set prison budgets but don’t control conviction rates, greatly increased prison budgets.
  5. Legal trial complexity & cost has risen greatly, and is now beyond what most can afford.
  6. Plea bargaining is now allowed, which strongly pushes people to plead guilty, even when they aren’t.
  7. The new doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from many lawsuits.
  8. Most complaints about police have long been investigated by the same agency that employs them.
  9. The rise in civil servant unions, especially police unions.
  10. Surveillance, tracking, and info collection has in many ways become much cheaper.

(Some of these changes resulted from courts seeking to encourage big moral movements, such as those against slavery, alcohol, drugs, prostitution, polygamy, and gambling.)

The net effect of all this is that police can, if they so choose, target most anyone for punishment. That is, for most any target, police can relatively cheaply find a rule the target violated, pressure others to testify against the target, and then finally pressure the target to plead guilty. And police collectively have a lot of discretion in how they use this power. (The rich and politically well-connected may of course be able to discourage such use of power against themselves.)

Of course, the fact that police are powerful hardly implies that they use such powers badly. It remains quite possible that, like the proverbial super-hero, they use their super-powers for good. Many people have long claimed that the best form of government is one run by good-hearted but unconstrained philosopher kings.

This is the context in which I’d like you to consider current complaints about police mistreatment of detainees. Police must make difficult and context-dependent tradeoffs between how carefully to avoid hurting detainees, and how aggressively to discourage them from defiance or escape.

These are the sort of areas where, in our system, local civil servants and their agencies have great discretion, and where the basic nature of our government and legal systems makes it hard to pull back such discretion. I’m not saying that nothing can be done; things can and should be done. But I’m pretty sure that the sort of modest changes being now considered (more training, more record keeping, “requiring” body cams, etc.) can’t greatly change what is in essence a police state. (In contrast, changing to a bounty system might do a lot more.)

Look, imagine that while interacting with police you started to insult them and call them terrible ugly names. In many places, this is probably perfectly legal. However, you’d be rightly reluctant to do this, as you’d know they have a many ways to retaliate. If their local people and culture are inclined to retaliate, and to build a “blue wall of silence” around it, there is little most people can do to protect themselves.

This is why you can’t really count on laws that say you have the right to film police, etc. We basically live in a police state, and in such a state its hard for mere rules to greatly change police behavior. We may well be gaining some benefits from such a police state, but being able to exert detailed control over police and how they use their great discretion is just not one of them.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Why Does Govt Do Stuff?

Looking across the many different activities and sectors of society, how well can we predict where governments get more vs. less involved?

Though this is an oft discussed topic, I can’t recall seeing an overall theory summary. So I thought I’d write one up. Here are some big relevant factors, and areas they may explain. Most are tentative; you may well convince me to move/change/add them.

Control – Whomever runs the government prefers to control areas that can be used to prevent and resist opposition and rivals.
Predicts more: religion, military, police, law, news, schools, disaster response, electricity, energy, banking.

Scale – If supplying a product or service has strong economies of scale, network, or coordination, it can be cheaper to use one integrated organization, who if private may demand excessive prices and thereby threaten control.
Predicts more: military, “roads” (including air, boat travel support), social media, money, language, electricity, telecom, water, sewer, trash, parks, fire, software, fashion, prestige
Predicts less: housing, food, medicine, art, entertainment, news, police, jail.

Innovation – As governments seem less able to encourage or accommodate effective innovation, governments tend to be less involved in rapidly evolving sectors.
Predicts more: roads, water, sewer, track, parks.
Predicts less: military hardware, vehicles, tech/computers, entertainment, social networks.

Variety – Governments tend to encourage and be better at relatively standardized products and services, done with fewer versions, more the same for everyone everywhere at all times.
Predicts more: war, medicine, schools, disaster response, roads.
Predicts less: housing, food, entertainment, romance, parenting, friendship, humor.

Norms – Norms are shared, and we like to enforce them together, officially.
Predicts more: religion, law, war, romance, parenting, medicine, drugs, gambling, slavery, language, manners, sports.

Show Unity – As we want to show that we are together, and care about each other, we like to do the things we to do to show such care together in a unified way.
Predicts more: religion, poverty/unemployment/health insurance, school, medicine, fire, parks, housing, food, disaster response, trash/sewer, coverage expansion subsidies.

Show Off – We want to impress outsiders with our tastes, abilities.
Predicts more: research, schools, high art, high sport, roads, parks, shared space architecture, trash/sewer.
Predicts less: low art/entertainment, low sport, gossip.

Hypocrisy – When we profess some motives, but others are stronger, the opacity and slack of government agencies, and better ability to suppress critiques, makes them better able to hide such differences.
Predicts more: medicine, drugs, gambling, schools, police, jail, courts, romance, zoning, building codes, war, banking.
Predicts less: water, sewers, electricity.

If we could collect even crude stats on how often or far govt is involved in each area, and crudely rate each area-factor combo for how strongly that factor applies to that area, we could do a more formal analysis of which of factors predict better where.

Note that scale is the strongest factor suggesting that govt does more when more govt helps more. Innovation and variety suggest that also when those factors are the cause of govt involvement, but much less so if those features are the result. While norms are on average valuable, it is much less clear when govt support improves them. Most signaling likely helps each society that does it, but is done too much for the good of the world overall.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , , , ,

Peter Doherty on Variolation

Two noteworthy media mentions of variolation:

1. The New Yorker features Douglas Perednia talking about controlled infection and variolation, as its Exhibit A on on why conservative media shouldn’t presume to write on health/medicine, as they will only say stupid obviously terrible things:

After the Federalist tweeted it out, Twitter, which has been cracking down on coronavirus misinformation, temporarily locked the Federalist’s account. … He’d submitted it to a number of medical journals and blogs. “They all turned it down with no comment,” … tried the Federalist, almost at random. … The site accepted his article the next day, no questions asked. …

On the site … most commenters found Perednia’s idea absurd, dangerous, hilarious, or all three. … many angry e-mails and calls … Andrew Lover, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, told the Times that Perednia’s article was “exceedingly ill-advised and not evidence-based in any way shape or form.” …

Perednia [said] the way to adapt his idea to this reality was to make sure that the infecting was done with ‘the lowest possible dose’ … a concept known as variolation—which, he thought, would cut the death rate among those who chose to take part. (more)

2. A month ago, Adam Ford interviewed me on voluntary infection. Yesterday, Ford posted his interview with Nobel laureate Peter Doherty, author of Pandemics (2012), wherein Ford asked Doherty about variolation. Here are selected quotes from that discussion (fuller quotes below the fold):

47:10 Ford: “Controversially, in leu of actual vaccine that could come, hopefully in 9 months, but maybe even in 18 months if things go okay, if social isolation doesn’t work well enough too, would something like strategic or voluntary small dose low dose infection, like variolation, work in order to gain immunity, or nudge herd immunity? Is that something that we should be considering?

Doherty: (laughing) “Well let’s tell people what variolation was. … What they did was do this in young children, young children had a good immune response, generally survived smallpox, so what they were doing essentially is giving them smallpox, and they survived, whereas if they got it when they were older, they’d have a much worse disease. … So its not an unthinkable thing. …

52:40 With Covid19 I don’t know, but it would take a brave soul to be a test candidate, With younger people who are not severely affected, it’s possible. But you’d have to be enormously careful that they didn’t get any dose through their nose. But there would be ways of doing this. …

53:40 Ford: Is this something that could be achieved in the near term, if the vaccine timeline ends up looking like its going to be longer?

Doherty: If it was an absolutely catastrophic situation, if it was like the situation that is depicted in Contagion, where everyone who is within 100 feet of the virus gets it and dies, yes it could be reasonable. But I think for a virus where 80+% of people are definitely mildly infected at worse, or not sick enough to go into hospital, I don’t think you would take risk of that. The thing about a vaccine is that you have to give it to large numbers of normal people. You can’t take risks with vaccines.

You can take risks with end stage therapy. If someone is very very sick, and you’ve got something you think might work, you can try it pretty easily. People will approve that, … But you can’t take risks with vaccines. And the magnitude of the severity of this threat is not great enough to do that. You could say, … we’ll take a vaccine that looks a bit risky, maybe, and we’ll give it to the elderly. These are the people who are at risk, they can try it. … People like me, say would volunteer, I certainly would. I’d give it a go, and see if that works. But I wouldn’t want to be giving a vaccine that had any risk at all to younger people. You know, these are all theoretical arguments. But there is no way anything is ever given to anybody in this sense without going through extremely thorough review processes. … I think it is pretty unlikely.

So Doherty accepts “variolation” as a term that applies outside the context of smallpox. He thinks it could work, but oddly seems to see the main concept as infecting the young, rather than controlling dose, delivery vector, or strain. And he sees it only as justified in extreme circumstances, which Covid19 will never be, as it isn’t deadly enough. Even if the Great Suppression crashes the economy worse than the Great Depression, and even if millions will likely die from accidental infections, in his eyes and those of regulators that’s no excuse for letting healthy people voluntarily take substantial personal risks. Continue reading "Peter Doherty on Variolation" »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: ,

Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?

A recent influential report posed the key Covid-19 issue today as: to mitigate or suppress? Should we focus on “flattening the curve” under the assumption that most everyone will get it soon, or adopt even stronger measures in an attempt to squash it, so most never get it.

Some simple obvious considerations are:

  1. if successful, squashing saves many more lives,
  2. you have to do a lot more to squash than to flatten,
  3. while flattening policies need be maintained only for a few months, squashing policies must be maintained until a strong treatment is available, probably years, and
  4. squashing is far easier when you have only a few infected and when your trading, travel, and physical neighbors don’t have many infected.

Several nations, mostly Asian, seem to have successfully squashed so far, though they started when they had few infected. China and perhaps S. Korea are the main examples of squashing more than a tiny number of infected, though even they had far fewer than we do now in the West where so many are suddenly eager to squash. China had much recent experience with mass surveillance, controlling population movements, and enforcing strict rules. Even so, they screwed up badly early on, and it isn’t at all obvious that China’s squashing will keep working as they let people go back to work, or when many big neighbors get highly infected.

The main point I want to make in this post is that trying to get your Western government to suppress Covid-19 in the usual way is making a big bet on the quality of they and typical neighboring governments. And also of your public’s commitment. As in the famous Dirty Harry (non-)quote, I ask: “Do you feel lucky, punk?”

Western government agencies and expert communities so far have had a bad record dealing with Covid-19. At first they criticized China’s strong measures and focused on signaling political correctness. The US government badly screwed up the generation and regulation of tests and masks, and the West continues to fail to cut regulation preventing rapid expansion of medical personnel and resources. Western governments only changed policies when public opinion changed, and even now seem more focused on handing out cash to allies, and symbolic but useless acts like banning bicycles.

As with most policy, you must expect that the details matter a lot. So even if you see China policy as a success, you shouldn’t have high hopes if your government merely copies a few surface features of China policy. That only works if this is a simple problem, with simple solutions, and few problems are that simple. This is not just a problem of insufficient moral fervor.

You should have higher hopes if they copied the whole China policy package relatively exactly, and even higher if the Chinese officials who managed their policy implementation personally came to manage implementation here. Even then climate, cultural, or infrastructure differences might mean their policies don’t work here. But no government seems even interested in copying the exact China package, and in my recent poll, 80% of 927 opposed this last idea of Chinese management.

Dear Western citizen, your government has already demonstrated incompetence at dealing with this in the absence of public pressure, and public pressure will mainly push them to do what they guess they would be most blamed by the public for not doing if things go badly. Regardless of whether that actually works; the public may never learn what actually works.

This pandemic has already been allowed to get much bigger than any that has ever been squashed before, and it is harder to squash than most, passing via the air, living on surfaces for days, and with infected folks showing no symptoms for over a week. And in contrast to China, your government doesn’t have much recent experience with the mass surveillance, movement controls, and strict rule enforcement.

And yet now at this late date, you are considering if to authorize these same governments to oversee not just large efforts to flatten the curve, but the more extreme efforts required to squash it. Even knowing that to make it work you’ll need very strong public support in a far less-communal culture than those that have so far managed to squash.

Mind you, you are now considering this not because you have great confidence in your government’s competence, or your public’s support. But mostly, it seems, because it would look morally bad for you to give up hope on the millions who will die even if we flatten the curve well. Really, do you feel lucky, punk?

Also consider: even if your local government manages to successfully squash its internal infections temporarily, what happens if half of its neighbors fail, and become mostly infected? Or what if they succeed for a while, but half of their neighbors fail? What will it take to keep external infections from overwhelming you then? Or what will it take for your government and others to coordinate to ensure that most governments succeed? Remember, these are the governments who have so far largely failed to prevent massive illegal immigration, and who continue to fail to coordinate to limit global warming, war, and ocean overfishing, or to promote global innovation.

This wouldn’t matter much if the policies for squashing looked much like the policies to flatten, so we could actually flatten but pretend for a while that we were trying to squash. But there are policies that could help to flatten that look obviously bad for squashing, such as deliberate exposure, which might cut 3/4 of life-years lost. And locking down the economy and social contacts for many years at a level that looks at all like it might succeed in squashing is going to involve enormous costs to the economy and your freedoms.

In my recent polls, 73% and 74% of 393 and 533 respondents predicted US and world (respectively) will become >25% infected before an >80% effective treatment was given to >80% of world. So 3 in 4 agree that global containment just isn’t going to happen. Yet, to show that they care, most governments are giving lip service to squashing as their goal, not flattening. How far will we all go in paying huge costs to pretend that this is at all likely?

Before we all jump off this cliff together, can we at least collect and publish some honest estimates of our chances of success? Such as perhaps via conditional betting markets? If you aren’t willing to exactly copy the whole China policy, or have them manage it, how serious could you really be about succeess?

Look, this is like starting a war. Its not enough to ask “would it be nice to win such a war”; we also need to ask “can we actually win?” Don’t start what you can’t finish.

I fear suppression is a monkey trap; afraid to let go the nut of saving everyone, we’ll be trapped in the gourd of not saving nearly as many as we could have.

Added 20Mar: Note that the many responses defending suppression talk about how many lives could be saved, and how they can imagine a plan that would work, but none address the issue of how competent is our government to implement such plans. Amazing how easily people slip from “it could be done” to “my government could do this”.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

For Fast Escaped Pandemic, Max Infection Date Variance, Not Average

In an open column, … to provide greater dispersion, the vehicle distance varies from 50 to 100 meters, … distance between dismounted soldiers varies from 2 to 5 meters to allow for dispersion and space for marching comfort. (More)

The troop density has decreased through military history in proportion to the increase in lethality of weapons being use in combat. (More)

Armies moving in hostile areas usually spread out, as concentrations create attractive targets for enemy fire. For soldiers on foot, it might be possible to try to induce such dispersion by having a vicious wild animal chase them. After all, in the process of running fast to escape, they might spread out more than they otherwise might. But this would be crazy – there’s no reason to think this would induce just the right level of dispersion, and it would have many bad side effects. Better just to order soldiers to deliberately space the right distance. 

For a very infectious pandemic like COVID-19, clearly not contained and with no strong treatment likely soon, the fact that medical resources get overwhelmed toward a pandemic peak creates a big value in dispersion – spreading out infection dates. But, alas, our main method is that crazy “chased by a wild animal” approach, in this case chased by the virus itself. 

That is, each person tries to delay their infection as long as possible, in part via socially destructive acts like staying home instead of working. Like soldiers running from a wild animal, our varying efforts at delay do create some variance as a side effect. But probably less than optimal variance, and at great cost. 

Yes, delay has some value in allowing more stockpiling. For example, we should (but apparently aren’t) mass training more medical personnel who can function in makeshift ICU tents. But increasing average delay is can be less valuable than increasing delay variance. Even if we can’t just tell each person when to get infected, like telling soliders where to walk, we have several relevant policy levers. 

First, as I’ve discussed before, we might pay people to be deliberately exposed, and covering the cost of their medical treatment and quarantine until recovery. Yes, if their immunity has a limited duration, then we might want to not start deliberate exposure until there’s less than that duration before the pandemic peak. But there’s still big potential value here, especially via targeting medicine and critical infrastructure workers. 

Second, this is a situation were inequality of wealth, health, and social connections is good. In the last few years, many have loudly lamented many kinds of social inequalities that make the low feel ashamed and unloved, resulting in their more often becoming lonely and sick. Some are enough friends and money that they can afford go to all the parties, while others suffer in poverty alone. And no doubt many will cry loudly when such inequality makes the low get infected before the high.

But however bad such inequality might usually be, in a pandemic it is exactly what the doctor should order, if he could. Among a community close enough to share the same medical resources, the more that individuals vary in their likeliness of catching and passing on the pandemic, the better! Those who catch it early or late will do better than those who catch it just at the peak.  So for this pandemic, let’s maybe back off on whatever we now do to cut inequality, and maybe even open up more to whatever we are not doing that could increase inequality. 

In my next post, I’ll describe some simple concrete sim models supporting these claims.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , , ,

Defrock Deregulation Economists?

Recent economics Nobel prize winner Paul Romer is furious that economists have sometimes argued for deregulation; he wants them “defrocked”, & cast from the profession: 

New generation of economists argued that tweaks … would enable the market to regulate itself, obviating the need for stringent government oversight. … To regain the public’s trust, economists should … emphasize the limits of their knowledge … even if it requires them to publicly expel from their ranks any member of the community who habitually overreaches. …

Consider the rapid spread of cost-benefit analysis … Lacking clear guidance from voters, legislators, regulators, and judges turned to economists, who resolved the uncertainty by [estimating] … the amount that society should spend to save a life. … [This] seems to have worked out surprisingly well … The trouble arose when the stakes were higher … it is all too easy for a firm … to arrange for a pliant pretend economist to … [defend them] with a veneer of objectivity and scientific expertise. …

Imagine making the following proposal in the 1950s: Give for-profit firms the freedom to develop highly addictive painkillers and to promote them via … marketing campaigns targeted at doctors. Had one made this pitch to [non-economists] back then, they would have rejected it outright. If pressed to justify their decision, they [would have said] … it is morally wrong to let a company make a profit by killing people … By the 1990s, … language and elaborate concepts of economists left no opening for more practically minded people to express their values plainly. …

Until the 1980s, the overarching [regulatory] trend was toward restrictions that reined in these abuses. … United States [has since been] going backward, and in many cases, economists—even those acting in good faith—have provided the intellectual cover for this retreat. …

In their attempt to answer normative questions that the science of economics could not address, economists opened the door to economic ideologues who lacked any commitment to scientific integrity. Among these pretend economists, the ones who prized supposed freedom (especially freedom from regulation) over all other concerns proved most useful …  When the stakes were high, firms sought out these ideologues to act as their representatives and further their agenda. And just like their more reputable peers, these pretend economists used the unfamiliar language of economics to obscure the moral judgments that undergirded their advice. …

Throughout his entire career, Greenspan worked to give financial institutions more leeway … If economists continue to let people like him define their discipline, the public will send them back to the basement, and for good reason. …

The alternative is to make honesty and humility prerequisites for membership in the community of economists. The easy part is to challenge the pretenders. The hard part is to say no when government officials look to economists for an answer to a normative question. Scientific authority never conveys moral authority. No economist has a privileged insight into questions of right and wrong, and none deserves a special say in fundamental decisions about how society should operate. Economists who argue otherwise and exert undue influence in public debates about right and wrong should be exposed for what they are: frauds. (more)

Oddly, Romer is famous for advocating “charter city” experiments, which can be seen as a big way to escape from the usual regulations.

So how does Romer suggest we identify “pretend” economists who are to be “exposed as frauds” and “publicly expelled from economists’ ranks”? He seems to say they are problematic on big but not small issues because firms bribe them, but he admits some are well-meaning, and doesn’t accuse Greenspan of taking bribes. So I doubt he’d settle for expelling only those who are clearly bribed. 

That seems to leave only the fact that they argue for less regulation when common moral intuitions call for more. (Especially when they mention “freedom”.) Perhaps he wants economists to be expelled when they argue for deregulation, or perhaps when they offer economic analysis contrary to moral intuitions. Both sound terrible to me as intellectual standards.

Look, people quite often express “moral” opinions that are combinations of simple moral intuitions together with intuitions about how social systems work. If they are mistaken about that second part, and if we can gain separate estimates on their moral intuitions, then economic analysis has the potential to produce superior combinations.

This is exactly what economists try to do when applying value of life estimates, and this can also be done regarding deregulation. The key point is that when people act on their moral intuitions, then we can use their actions to estimate their morals, and thus include their moral weights in our analysis.

In particular, I don’t find it obviously wrong to let for-profit firms market drugs to doctors, nor do I think it remotely obvious that this is the main cause of a consistent four-decade rise in drug deaths.

Yes of course, it is a problem if professionals can be bribed to give particular recommendations. But in most of these disputes parties on many sides are willing to offer such distorting rewards. My long-standing recommendation is to use conditional betting markets to induce more honest advice from such professionals, but so far few support that.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,

Firms & Cities Have Open Borders

Cities usually don’t much limit who can move there. If you can find someone in a city to give you a job, to rent you an apartment, to sell you food and other stuff, and to be your friends, etc. and if you can pay for your move, then you can move to that city from anywhere in a much larger region. Of course individual employers, landlords, and stores are mostly free to reject you, but the city doesn’t add much in the way of additional requirements. Same for other units smaller than a nation, such as counties and states.

Large firms also don’t usually much limit who can work there. Oh each particular small work group is usually particular about who works there, but the larger firm will mostly defer to local decisions about hires. Yes, if the larger firm has made commitments to trying never to fire anyone, but to always find someone another place in the firm when they are no longer wanted in any one part, then that larger firm may put more limits on who and how many folks can be hired by any one small group. But when the larger firm has few obligations to local workers, then local groups are also mostly free to hire who they want.

The obvious analogies between cities, firms and nations make it somewhat puzzling that nations are much more eager to limit who can enter them. The analogy is strongest when those who enter nations can only do so in practice if they can find local employers, landlords, suppliers, friends, etc. willing to deal with them. And when the nation assigns itself few obligations to anyone who happens to live there.

Yes, in principle there can be externalities whereby the people who enter one part of a nation effect the enjoyment and productivity of people in other parts of a nation. But those same sort of effects should also appear within parts of a city or of a firm. So why don’t cities and firms work harder to limit local choices of who can enter them?

You might claim that cities and firms don’t need to attend to limiting entry because nations already do it for them. But most nations already have a lot of internal variation; why is none of that variation of interest to cities and firms, yet the variation between nations would supposedly be of huge interest, if nations were not handling that? And firms and cities within the nations that hold all those bad people that you think good nations are focused on excluding don’t have firm- or city-wide exclusion policies either.

Furthermore, many multinational firms today already have employees who are spread across a great many nations, nations that vary a lot in wealth, development, etc. Yet such multinationals usually don’t have much in the way of centralized limits on who can be hired by their divisions in different firms, nor on who can be transferred between such divisions. These firms may face limits imposed by nations, but they seem to mostly lament such limits, and aren’t eager to add more.

Firms and cities live in more competitive environments than do nations. So we should expect their behavior to be shaped more by competitive pressures. Thus we can conclude that competitive entities tend not to create entity-wide limits on who can enter them; they are mostly content to let smaller parts of them made those decisions.

So if nations act differently from firms and cities, that should be because either:
1) there are big important effects that are quite different at the national level, than at firm and city levels, or
2) nations are failing to adopt policies that competition would induce, if they faced more competition.

My bet is on the latter. In that case, the key question is: is there a market failure that makes the entry policies that competition pushes lamentable? If not, we should lament that competition isn’t inducing more free entry into nations. That is, we should lament that competition isn’t inducing national open borders, like we mostly have for cities and firms.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , , ,

Rules of Public Evidence?

The United States is perhaps unique among the developed world in that under law, some hate speech is protected. (more)

The United States has a very complicated system of evidentiary rules; for example, John Wigmore’s celebrated treatise on it filled ten volumes. James Bradley Thayer reported in 1898 that even English lawyers were surprised by the complexity of American evidence law. (more)

The main rules of evidence in Sweden are: (i) the principle of free evidence, meaning that there are basically no provisions on what is permitted as evidence as long as it is relevant to the facts to be proven in the case; and (ii) the principle of free evaluation of evidence, meaning that the court evaluates all evidence at its discretion. (more)

On 2 December 1766 Sweden became the first country in the world to have freedom of the press written into the constitution. (more)

Many in the US are proud that the US has weaker limits on speech than do most other nations, especially regarding political speech. However, most in US are not aware that the US also has some of the strongest “rules of evidence” limits on speech in legal courts. These US rules are new; we didn’t have them centuries ago.

Yet the usual arguments used to argue for free political speech can also argue for free court speech, while the usual arguments supporting rules of evidence can also support similar limits on political speech. And the examples of other nations shows that there isn’t a strong world consensus that court limits make more sense than political speech limits. Sweden shows that one can allow free speech in both contexts, while many other nations show that one can also have strong limits in both contexts.

Here are some common rules of evidence limiting trial speech. These are rough guides; the law is quite complex with simple summaries rarely applying exactly.

  • A big clear separation is required between “news” and “editorials”, that is between supporting evidence (most of a trial) and arguments for conclusions (given in closing statements).
  • All witnesses must swear oaths to tell the truth, and are guilty of a crime if they lie.
  • Anyone may be required to testify, except the accused, spouses, docs, therapists, lawyers.
  • One must apply any burdens of proof separately to each element, not just to overall evidence.

All these kinds of evidence are not allowed:

  1. The opinion of a non-expert, unless it is reached unconsciously,
  2. Unauthenticated tangible evidence,
  3. Indirect circumstantial evidence,
  4. Data on similar prior convictions or behavior by the accused,
  5. Hearsay, i.e., what someone heard someone else say,
  6. Simple “naked” statistical evidence, based on relative counts rather than direct observations,
  7. Extrinsic evidence of the contents of a written contract,
  8. Evidence obtained via illegal acts, and
  9. Confessions obtained in an “unreliable” context.

If we wanted, we could eliminate these court rules, and just let everyone say anything relevant that they want in court, as happens now in Sweden.

Or, we might instead apply many of these rules to public political speech. For example, we could require evidence and argument to appear in separate places, we could ban opinions by non-experts, and ban arguments using hearsay or naked statistical evidence. We might even ban irrelevant distracting tangents.

Such rules would require some discretion to enforce, but not much more than judges already use now to apply such rules in courts. Any disputes about excess or misdirected discretion would be judged by those very same legal judges who now make those judgments in courtrooms. And as with most law, minor offenses, which bring small sanctions, may be mostly ignored by both state police and by private suits.

Even in the US, we already apply many limits to business speech. For example, alcohol firms can’t tell the public that most studies find health benefits from modest consumption, anti-discrimination laws limit the kinds of questions one can ask in a job interview, professional licensing limits who you can pay for advice, and some offers are banned by blackmail and wrongful interference with relations rules.

The business world still roughly functions with these rules, as do political worlds in other nations that have strong limits on political speech. And courts could still roughly function without rules of evidence, as happens now in Sweden. These are clearly choices we could make, not clearly forced on us by survival or even wealth considerations.

So what should we choose, more free speech at trials, less free political speech, or a continuation of our inconsistent approach? Here’s a Twitter poll on that:

GD Star Rating
loading...
Tagged as: , ,