MoreRSS

site iconMarginal RevolutionModify

Blog of Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok, both of whom teach at George Mason University.
Please copy the RSS to your reader, or quickly subscribe to:

Inoreader Feedly Follow Feedbin Local Reader

Rss preview of Blog of Marginal Revolution

Does Peer-Reviewed Research Help Predict Stock Returns?

2026-02-03 16:12:23

Finance theory is in even more trouble than we had thought:

Mining 29,000 accounting ratios for t-statistics > 2.0 leads to cross-sectional return predictability similar to the peer review process. For both, ≈ 50% of predictability remains after the original sample periods. This finding holds for many categories of research, including research with risk or equilibrium foundations. Only research agnostic about the theoretical explanation for predictability shows signs of outperformance. Our results imply that inferences about post-sample performance depend little on whether the predictor is peer-reviewed or data mined. They also have implications for the importance of empirical vs theoretical evidence, investors’ learning from academic research, and the effectiveness of data mining.

That is from a new paper by Andrew Y. Chen, Alejandro Lopez-Lira, and Tom Zimmermann.  Via KingoftheCoast.

The post Does Peer-Reviewed Research Help Predict Stock Returns? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Mainstream research views on kids, teens, and screens

2026-02-03 13:52:46

From Michael Coren at The Washington Post:

The child development researchers I spoke to about it? Practically blasé. They saw screens as a valuable tool — overused but useful — that can help families when handled well.

What I didn’t hear: bans, panic or moral judgments. It was framed as a choice — one you can make better or worse. Researchers expressed a lot of compassion for parents squaring off against massive technology companies whose profit models aren’t always aligned with what’s best for children’s health.

“I am just a lot more concerned about how we design the digital landscape for kids than I am about whether we allow kids to use screens or not,” said Heather Kirkorian, an early childhood development researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “I haven’t seen concrete evidence that convinces me that screen use itself is creating problematic behavior.”

And for older age groups, there is a new NBER working paper by David G. Blanchflower and Alex Bryson, excerpt:

The change in the age profile of workers’ wellbeing may reflect changes in selection into (out of) employment by age, changes in job quality, or changes in young workers’ orientation to similar jobs over time. But changes in smartphone usage – often the focus of debate regarding declining young peoples’ wellbeing – are unlikely to be the main culprit unless there are sizeable differences in smartphone usage across young workers and non-workers, which appears unlikely.

I am a great believer in work as a way to help improve mental health problems.  Here is a quick discussion of media bias on the screens issue.  I would stress that none of what I am citing here is at variance with mainstream perspectives on these issues.

The post Mainstream research views on kids, teens, and screens appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

My Free Press column on Moltbook

2026-02-03 01:45:05

Here is the link, excerpt:

The reality of bot communication is more mundane than the most extreme examples online make it sound. AI expert Rohit Krishnan measured their conversations and found that they gravitate to the same few subjects.

“LLMs [large language models] LOVE to talk about the same stuff over and over again, they have favorite motifs that they return to,” Krishnan writes. Does that sound like any humans you know? They frequently repeat themselves and each other, with just small variations. And a relatively small percentage of the bots are doing a high share of the talking. Made in our own image, indeed.

What we have done with these agents is to create self-reinforcing loops that keep responding to each other. If enough time passes, as with humans, the bots will end up saying virtually everything, including conspiracy talk. Expect highly unpleasant political views to follow, as well as peacenik chatter and plans for love-ins. They will have favorite heavy-metal songs, too, some of them with satanic themes.

Over the course of 2026, I expect that there will be analogous AI-run networks, created by humans (as Moltbook was) or by bots themselves. Imagine a bot that calls up an AI music generator like Suno and asks for a new Renaissance choral tune but sung in Guarani, and then shares it with the other bots (and some humans) on a bot network devoted to music composition. Or how about a site where the AIs comment on various Free Press articles?

By the way, the bot who wrote me looking for work is now a verified story.  The bot’s “owner” apologized, and offered a full explanation, though I said I was delighted to receive the message.  Here is an update from Scott Alexander.

The post My Free Press column on Moltbook appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Spinoza the Bayesian fine-tunes his own training

2026-02-02 16:00:17

Formerly he would run to the kitchen every time I opened the refrigerator door. Now he comes only when I open the cheese compartment.

He has learned the difference between getting “a pee” (only modestly fun, a quick stint outdoors) vs. “a walk in the park,” the latter being very fun indeed.  He knows the words pee and park, but also can tell from my body language alone what will await him.  He wags his bum for only the park trip.

Often he knows when we are talking about him, even when we do not refer to him by name.  And if someone he knows calls on the phone, he comes over to listen.  Otherwise he does not budge.

Spinoza, a miniature Australian shepherd, is now over eleven years old.

The post Spinoza the Bayesian fine-tunes his own training appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Bill Dudley on scarce reserves

2026-02-02 14:01:45

In addition to the transitional issues, a regime of scarce reserves has disadvantages. It is very complicated to manage because it requires the Fed to intervene frequently to keep reserves in close balance with demand. For example, in the past, the Treasury had to keep its cash balance at the Fed low and stable so that fluctuations did not make it difficult for the central bank to maintain control of short-term interest rates. Banks satisfied reserve requirements over a two-week reserve maintenance period to make it easier for the Fed to match demand and supply.

Also, scarce reserves are incompatible with open-ended backstop facilities that can support confidence during times of stress. In an open-ended backstop, there is no risk that the central bank will exhaust its lending capacity. In contrast, when the amount of funds on offer is limited, there is an incentive to access the facility quickly before the funds run out. An open-ended facility is superior in maintaining and restoring confidence in the system. In contrast, a scarce reserves regime undermines the ability of the central bank to fulfil its lender of last resort function — the reason why the Fed was established in the first place.

Part of the subtext here is a desire to continue paying interest on reserves.  Here is more from Bloomberg.  Here is some analysis from 5.2 Pro, including a look at what Scott Sumner would say.

The post Bill Dudley on scarce reserves appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.