El 20 de mayo …

Today (May 20th) is a holiday in many countries around the world, like Cameroon (National Day), East Timor (Independence Day), Indonesia (National Awakening Day), and Cambodia (Day of Remembrance). It’s also Cuban Independence Day (or used to be, see below), for on this day in 1902 the Republic of Cuba declared her independence from Spain the United States, since Spain had ceded her last overseas colonies — Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines — to the US after Spain’s defeat in the Cuban-Spanish-American War of 1898. (By contrast, the US did not grant independence to the Philippines until 1946, while Puerto Rico is still a colony of the US.) Today’s Cuban Government, however, is so insecure, petty, and small-minded that it refuses to recognize “El 20 de mayo” as a national holiday. Here’s an idea … Why won’t the Cuban Government hold a national referendum on this symbolic issue and let her people decide whether they want to continue to celebrate “El 20 de mayo” as a holiday or not? On second thought, never mind … dictators don’t like to take orders from their people.

https://priorprobability.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/3bd90-cubalibre.jpgWhen will she be free?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Cuban Economics

In the United States, we have a minimum wage; Cuba has a maximum wage—$20 a month for almost every job in the country. (Professionals such as doctors and lawyers can make a whopping $10 extra a month.) Sure, Cubans get “free” health care and education, but as Cuban exile and Yale historian Carlos Eire says, “All slave owners need to keep their slaves healthy and ensure that they have the skills to perform their tasks.”

That is from Michael J. Totten’s excellent essay “The Last Communist City” about his recent visit to Havana, Cuba (emphasis in original). If you had to venture a guess, aside from “free” health care, what other forms of non-pecuniary rewards do workers in Cuba receive?

Don’t go spend it all at once!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why isn’t Puerto Rico the 51st State yet?

Or why aren’t California and Texas sovereign republics?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Free riding in Trinidad & Tobago

TEDx never ceases to amaze us … Bravo!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Infinite regress in law (a theoretical critique of the Hand formula)

Adjudication is the process of making decisions in law, but decision-making is a costly activity. For simplicity, we can model the process of adjudication (and decision-making generally) as a function consisting of two costly inputs: (i) RESEARCH or information-gathering and (ii) DELIBERATION or information-processing.

Consider, for example, the so-called Hand formula or “calculus of negligence” in tort law. In summary, the Hand calculus is a simple economic decision rule for finding the optimal level of care x*, or B = P*L in the standard formulation of the Hand test. But this simple decision rule imposes non-trivial research and deliberation costs on judges and jurors (assuming, of course, that jurors actually use this formula). That is, finding the optimal level of care under the Hand formula is a first-order decision problem with costly inputs: in order to find the optimal level of care x*, the decision-maker must not only be aware of the Hand formula, he must also go out and collect sufficient data in order to find the actual or approximate values for B, P, and L (the main variables in the Hand formula) and he must then “crunch the numbers” and solve for x*. But how much data should the decision-maker collect? And how much time should he or she spend crunching the numbers? These simple questions pose a second-order decision problem, a new problem with non-trivial information and deliberation costs, just like the original, first-order decision problem (i.e. finding the level of optimal care). This second-order problem, in turn, produces a new, third-order problem, and so on …

Furthermore, because information and deliberation are costly inputs, notice that the regress problem does not just apply to the Hand formula in tort law. It applies to any decision rule requiring the collection of information and deliberation! In the words of Holly Smith in her essay “Deciding how to decide“: It begins to appear that the use of decision guides in decision-making is threatened with some form of infinite regress. To decide how to act, one must first decide how to decide to act. But to decide this, we must first decide how to decide how to decide how to act. But to decide this, we must first decide … ad infinitum. So, does this regress problem have a solution, or is it merely an academic or purely theoretical problem? (Quick acknowledgement: I owe this critique of the Hand formula to Prof. Oren Perez.)

 This is what an infinite regress looks like …

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Don’t freak out …

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s third (and possibly last) “Freakonomics” book — Think like a freak — is out. It’s a breezy though entertaining mish-mash of assorted anecdotes and sundry stories … and an excellent graduation gift for any 6th graders you may know. Our favorite part of their book was Chapter 2 (“The three hardest words in the English language”), about the advantages of keeping an open mind and of testing one’s intuitions through experiments. We can also recommend Chapter 5 (“Think like a child”), about the advantages of thinking small (i.e. incrementally or at the margin) and of having fun in life (note to the economics profession: that’s what you more empirically-minded guys and gals should be measuring — not “happiness” but rather “fun”). All in all, we enjoyed reading their latest tome (though not as much as the first two Freakonomics books), but alas, we didn’t really learn anything new this time around …

Light and tasty … but not very nutritious

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

The self-reference test …

Can your favorite academic theory pass the self-reference test? What is the self-reference test, you ask? It’s a little test we devised after unintentionally stumbling upon (yet again) this perceptive quotation, which appears on page 776 of Gunther Teubner’s essay with the pompous-sounding title “The King’s Many Bodies: The Self-Deconstruction of Law’s Hierarchy,” published in volume 31 of The Law & Society Review: “It is interesting to note how deconstructivism explicitly avoids self-application. It refuses to apply its operations to its own core distinctions …” Although Teubner’s essay reads like a stereotypical parody of bad academic writing, he does make a valid point about theorizing in general. A theory is invented to explain some aspect of the world, but what happens when we self-apply a theory to itself? Does the theory still make any sense? That is, does the theory pass the self-reference test? (Consider, by way of example, Thomas Kuhn’s influential theory of the role of paradigm shifts in the day-to-day practice of science. What happens when we self-apply Kuhn’s theory of paradigms to itself? That is, what deeper paradigm underlies Kuhn’s own theory of paradigm shift? Do you now detect a fatal flaw with Kuhn’s theory?)

Bonus quote: We can’t resist sharing another great Teubner quote on the (over-)use of dialectics by academics: “… whenever dialectics is invoked, it covers a blatant lack of analysis.” (From page 204 of “Breaking Frames: Economic Globalization and the Emergence of Lex Mercatoria,” published in volume 5 of The European Journal of Social Theory.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Probability 101 (independent events)

We recently stumbled upon this wonderful little quotation on page 107 of the book Chances Are … Adventures in Probability by Ellen Kaplan and her son Michael Kaplan (Viking Penguin, 2006):

“Consider the sequence of independent events a1, a2 … an” : as basic a phrase in probability as “Construct triangle ABC” is in geometry. As with all the best magic tricks and confidence games, the hook has been cast and swallowed in the first sentence. “Independent events” – how difficult they are to imagine, let alone consider!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

In defense of intellectual agnosticism …

We are reposting this cool meme in defense of intellectual agnosticism (i.e. the ability to update one’s priors). You can check out the entire series of “epistemic rationality memes” here. (double hat tip: Tyler Cowen & Michael Wiebe)

Image

Please don’t forget to update your priors …

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

“Information hypocrisy” in law

Futurist Robin Hanson has written up another astute blog post on the subject of information hypocrisy. By way of example, Hanson points out the existence of such hypocrisy in law:

We say court proceedings are to get information to decide guilt, but then rules of evidence cut out [relevant] information.

From our perspective, the rules of hearsay and the attorney-client privilege, just to name a couple of obvious examples, quickly come to mind. In his blog post, Hanson makes a larger point about the ubiquity of information hypocrisy in general. He also writes:

When we endorse a policy, we often point out how it may tend to encourage information to be generated, spread, or aggregated. After all, who could be against more information? But the details of the policies we endorse often belie that appearance, as we pick details that reduce and discourage information. Because we have other agendas.

In the case of law (our main academic domain), what are these “other agendas” that could possibly justify the exclusion of relevant evidence from juries? Of course, more information is not always better. But, then, how do we decide what the optimal amount of information disclosure is? Furthermore, while we are on this subject, what’s wrong with a little hypocrisy now and then? Like other economic “bads” such as pollution, noise, etc., couldn’t we argue that there is an optimal amount of hypocrisy, especially in social settings? (Hat Tip: Tyler Cowen, Master of the Internet.)

What’s the optimal level?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment