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

The Candidates’ tournament

2026-03-30 03:12:32

Caruana and Sindharov have won today, obviously boosting Caruana’s chances as favorite (he beat Nakamura, the number two rated player in the tournament).  Yet what the chess world needs right now is not a winner, but rather a greater sense of legitimacy for the world title.  Ideally the same person should win a championship match two or three times in a row, and with a decisive margin.  They do not have to be as good as Carlsen, just clearly better than everyone else.  Nepo never quite made it, Ding has retreated from the chess world, and Caruana has yet to win a first title.  Is he young enough to win a few in a row?  Or are we waiting for Nordirbek Abdusattorov (or someone else) to enter the cycle?  I fear decisiveness is not soon on the way.  There are several (relatively) weak players in this tournament, so a variety of players can win just by beating up on the weakies, rather than by demonstrating mastery over their strongest peers.  Legitimacy is likely to remain uncertain, to the detriment of the chess world.  But soon we will know more.

The post The Candidates’ tournament appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Scott Sumner on *The Marginal Revolution*

2026-03-30 00:35:22

My favorite part of Tyler’s book is where he asks a very good but non-obvious question: Why did it take so long for economics as a field to develop a coherent model or framework of analysis? Much of the book discusses how three economists simultaneously developed marginal analysis, with a focus on the work of Stanley Jevons. Here I’ll briefly provide the intuition of marginal analysis and then explain why economics is both extremely easy but also quite difficult…

Tyler does a great job explaining why Jevon’s model of marginal analysis (which underlies most of modern microeconomics) is elementary on one level, but also something that wasn’t discovered until the 1860s because it was not at all obvious. Here’s how he concludes Chapter 3:

[This is TC now] By studying the slow intellectual development of economics, and contrasting it with other fields of study, we can learn the following:

1. Some insights are very hard to grasp, even if they are apparently simple once they are understood. People need to “see around corners” in the right way to understand these insights and incorporate them into their world views.

2. Economics is one of those fields, and that is why it took intuitive economic reasoning so long to evolve, marginalism included. Those of us who are educators, or who spend time talking to policymakers, should take this point very seriously.

3. Even very, very smart people are likely unaware that these “see around the corner” insights are missing – did Euclid rue that he did not have access to proper supply and demand and tax incidence theory? Probably not.

4. Economics is not the only such field that is hard to grasp, some other examples being segments of botany, geology, and evolutionary biology.

5. Scientific revolutions come about when many complementary pieces are in place, such as financial support, intellectual independence, and networks of like-minded others to talk with.

Those conditions help people to understand that “seeing around those corners” can bring both high social and professional returns.

Are there major conceptual corners that today still no one can see around? If so, how might we discover what they are? And why are we not working harder on this? Or are we?

Here is the rest of Scott’s commentary.  Here is the online book.

The post Scott Sumner on *The Marginal Revolution* appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Shruti interviews V. Anantha Nageswaran on the Indian economy

2026-03-29 13:01:46

He is currently serving as the Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India, and also is the co-author of the books Economics of Derivatives and The Rise of Finance: Causes, Consequences and Cures.  The podcast covers import substitution and strategic resilience, futures and options market, gross fixed capital formation, crypto markets, India’s growth trajectory, and much more.

Here is the audio and video on YouTube.  Here is a linked transcript.  Excerpt:

RAJAGOPALAN: The policy response to this has come in a couple of different ways. One has come through SEBI. It has started raising contract sizes and limiting weekly expiration,and so on. Another instrument has come through taxation. There have been STT [Securities Transactions Tax] hikes in consecutive budgets,but there is one thing about STT that I want to understand a little bit better from someone like you who has thought about this deeply.

Now, STT on futures is being levied on the notional value of the contract, which is the full traded price, whereas the STT on the options is levied on the premium, which is a small fraction of the overall underlying value of the notional exposure. The effective tax that is imposed is much more on the futures trade, manyfold more actually, than it is on the options trade, whereas the speculation is mostly happening on the options side, which is also where most of the retail investors are losing money because the futures side is much better capitalized, larger firms, and so on.

NAGESWARAN: No, also the futures side is probably used more by institutions, and therefore, they are able to put up the margin requirement, etc., better than the options trades, where the individuals are being sold almost like the₹10 sachet-type options, and the options…

RAJAGOPALAN: Exactly, sachetization options, absolutely.

NAGESWARAN: Yes. Go ahead.

RAJAGOPALAN: Now with each successive hike in the STT,we’re seeing the gap widen. It’s on the margin, making futures relatively more expensive than options just because it’s taxing each trade. It’s like a toll fee that’s paid almost on every transaction. Your book was precisely about understanding these kinds of policy instruments. Given that now we have a tax instrument which inadvertently favors the more speculative instrument. Is that a good way of thinking about it, or how would you think about this problem?

NAGESWARAN: No, I think you have given me a lot to think about on this. I probably haven’t applied my mind as much to the mechanics of the STT being levied on the premium when it comes to options, but on the notional value of the contract when it comes to futures. Actually, you have given me something to think about. As you said, it could be having the unintended consequence of reducing the hedging role of futures, which probably is playing a better role there and encouraging the speculative element. Let me think about it and also probably take back this aspect of the conversation back to my colleagues in the revenue department, in the Ministry of Finance. Thank you for that, yes.

Of great importance for the world’s most populous country.

The post Shruti interviews V. Anantha Nageswaran on the Indian economy appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Is Tinder actually OK?

2026-03-29 01:20:02

Online dating apps have transformed the dating market, yet their broader effects remain unclear. We study Tinder’s impact on college students using its initial marketing focus on Greek organizations for identification. We show that the full-scale launch of Tinder led to a sharp, persistent increase in sexual activity, but with little corresponding impact on the formation of long-term relationships or relationship quality. Dating outcome inequality, especially among men, rose, alongside rates of sexual assault and STDs. However, despite these changes, Tinder’s introduction did not worsen students’ mental health on average and may have even led to improvements for female students.

That is from a new paper published in AEJ: Applied Economics, by Berkeren Büyükeren, Alexey Makarin, and Heyu Xiong.

The post Is Tinder actually OK? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.