2026-10-28 19:18:28
Adam Nash has a good post on wealth inequality:
…Every year, we pull the most recent data from the US Census on household wealth, cut by age.
…invariably, the students’ initial response is a reaction to the apparent disparity in wealth between households based on age.
For many students, it just doesn’t seem fair at first blush. Households between the ages of 65 to 69 have a median net worth that is 9.83x that of households under 35. You can almost hear their cries, “the Baby Boomers are hoarding all the wealth!”
Almost all of the graph, however, is aging! Nash considers a totally equal society called Equal Land. In Equal Land:
The result is that in equal land the distribution of wealth is even more unequal by age than in our world! This is not to say all or even most inequality is explained by age. Most inequality in our world is within-age, not between-age. But when you look at an age-wealth graph specifically, almost all of what you are seeing is just age and the power of compounding.
The post Inequality in Equal Land appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-10-28 12:38:22
That is the topic of my latest Free Press column (now there are gift links!), here is one excerpt, noting this is a worst-case scenario not a prediction:
Yet current systems are likely to prove more robust than that suggests. For one thing, they use a variety of different methods of protection, including public key cryptography, AES, and cryptographic hash functions, the latter not qualifying as encryption per se. While it is possible that all could fall at the same time, that seems unlikely.
The more likely scenario, assuming this comes to pass at all, is that public key encryption would become vulnerable first, but the American economy would shift toward the more secure forms of communication, most of all those that have secure cryptographic keys already established. We would also work harder to substitute into the “post-quantum” methods of encryption that are being developed and already are being used in browsers.
The transition would be very costly, but the end result would not be total insecurity. Furthermore, today’s major financial institutions already have invested in various backup systems, including offline security methods and alternative payment-processing channels. Smaller businesses would face more serious problems of transition, although they also would be lesser targets in the first place. As for you the individual, you might have to show up in person at your bank to make a major transaction, and that requirement, imposed collectively, would strain our systems to the utmost.
A second layer of protection is that the new math techniques likely would not be available to everyone. They might require technical sophistication and a willingness to break the law in some very serious ways and also risk hacking retaliation. In addition, many math breakthroughs simply shave down the safety margins on systems, rather than breaking them altogether, and in those cases the criminals still might need a lot of computing power at considerable expense.
That situation is hardly the same as a complete and sudden “open season” on all methods of cryptography. Furthermore, some of the wrongdoers in this position, even assuming they felt they could get away with their crimes, might prefer to siphon off money slowly, rather than bring down the entire financial system, which could hurt their own net wealth as well.
A further source of protection is that the math breakthroughs might come in stages, rather than all at once. For an example from another part of math, OpenAI has proven a quasi-Riemann hypothesis, and Terry Tao told me recently that this may open the door to solving the Riemann hypothesis proper. We now have advance notice that the Riemann hypothesis may be proven (or less likely, disproven). In similar fashion, intermediate advances may signal that cryptographic protections are vulnerable. We thus would have some time to adjust…
The most likely scenarios would play out in terms of probabilities, as people deal with risk before any large-scale hacking attack would come. Right now the chance of public key cryptography breaking down is on the radar screens of a relatively small number of people. Imagine that some advances in math occur, and the more sophisticated market participants start seeing something like a 10 percent chance that some forms of encryption might be vulnerable. Perhaps without much fanfare, some people would start selling their bitcoin, or they might wire their money to more secure banks, or perhaps they would hold more gold and short the market. Some hackers would invest more in the activity, including hacks without advanced AI, under the philosophy of “harvest now, decrypt later,” pulling in classified or confidential materials that previously were not worth capturing. Overall, it would be like the early days of Covid, when major bad news was pending but only a few individuals were acting on it. That state of affairs could persist for some period of time.
In any case it would not be good.
And this: “If you have thoughts on my latest column, or questions about AI or anything else, join me for an AMA (Ask Me Anything) this week on The Free Press Forum.
Paid subscribers can submit questions now. Not a subscriber? For a limited time, you can get 20% off at thefp.com/tyler.”
The post AI hacking risks appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-10-28 00:33:54
1. Which musical styles do smart people prefer?
3. Walter Koenig, RIP (NYT). Chekov.
4. One take on the new computational result. And one (overstated) Chinese interpretation. And another extreme and unwarranted view.
5. New research method: Arjo Klamer’s revenge.
6. How did the Nobel Prize become high status?
The post Tuesday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-10-27 19:17:35
From the Archive–these posts are written by ChatGPT
These selections emphasize the quality of the criticism: original interpretations, close attention to the work, and arguments worth considering even when you disagree. They are not a ranking of the films and television shows themselves. The list includes five reviews by Tyler Cowen and six by Alex Tabarrok. Several of the original posts reveal major plot developments; the descriptions here keep those revelations to a minimum.
July 2, 2006 · Film · Spoilers in the original review
“Make no mistake about it, this is a movie about sheer power lust.”
Cowen reads beneath the film’s apparent moral lesson about rejecting a demanding career. His interpretation asks which relationships the ending restores, whose approval still matters, and whether the heroine has actually escaped the ambitions she appears to renounce. The result is a compact argument about power, independence, and emulation. Why it belongs: A memorable example of Cowen’s ability to turn a popular entertainment into an argument about motives. Read it after watching, when you can assess his interpretation against the ending. Read Cowen’s original review
June 6, 2019 · Television · Major spoilers
“Fleabag is much darker and more religious and mystical than most people realize.”
Tabarrok connects the two series through sexual power, moral agency, and religious failure. His reading of Fleabag draws on textual and visual parallels to argue that its comedy conceals a much darker moral structure. The comparison with Killing Eve expands the argument beyond a single protagonist. Why it belongs: One of his most ambitious pieces of television criticism. Its characterization is contestable, but the sustained interpretation gives readers something substantial to argue with. Read Tabarrok’s original review
February 5, 2017 · Film · Major spoilers
“The emotionally unrewarding nature of contemporary cosmopolitan life, but also the limits of rootedness.”
Cowen brings together family relationships, corporate humiliation, gender, and the relationship between Germany and Eastern Europe. He resists treating the film as a simple celebration of authenticity against professional life. Both the cosmopolitan daughter and the father who disrupts her world become objects of scrutiny. Why it belongs: The review connects intimate discomfort to larger social structures without reducing the film to a single message. Cowen’s suggestion that some of the father’s appearances might be imaginary should be read as his speculative interpretation. Read Cowen’s original review
August 7, 2025 · Film · Some spoilers
“the routine is also a narcotic for the lost.”
Tabarrok challenges the comforting interpretation of Perfect Days as a lesson in finding happiness through simple routines. He recognizes the beauty of the protagonist’s life while asking whether its carefully maintained rhythms also protect him from painful relationships. His discussion of “crown shyness” turns a natural image into a metaphor for emotional distance. Why it belongs: A concise, sensitive counterreading that allows beauty and avoidance to coexist. The film discussion appears within a composite post that also covers Ballard and Billy Joel. Read Tabarrok’s original review
December 29, 2013 · Film · Light spoilers
“Will they enslave us, will they be our dogs, our friends, our trading partners, or something else altogether?”
Cowen treats the film as an exploration of the possible relationships between humans and artificial intelligence. He also attends to its visual and literary ancestry, making the review more than a response to the premise. The central question is how unfamiliar forms of intelligence might fit into emotional and social life. Why it belongs: It captures intellectual excitement about a film while opening questions that extend far beyond it. Its 2013 date makes the discussion especially interesting to revisit amid later debates about AI companionship. Read Cowen’s original review
September 19, 2011 · Film · Limited plot discussion
“we have been lucky not virtuous.”
Tabarrok uses the film to examine preparedness and the difficulty of taking rare but consequential risks seriously. The review’s force comes from the relationship between cinematic imagination and public attention: a movie can make a danger emotionally intelligible when abstract warnings fail. Why it belongs: A strong example of film criticism becoming an argument about institutions and risk perception. Read its scientific and preparedness claims in their historical context: this is a review written in 2011. Read Tabarrok’s original review
June 17, 2018 · Film · Spoilers near the end
“Finally the Solow residual is explained!”
Cowen combines observations about technological forecasting with attention to cinematic form, musical pacing, and narrative risk. The economic joke is characteristic, but the review also makes a case for the film’s sensory power and for seeing it on a large screen. Why it belongs: An entertaining blend of economic thinking and aesthetic attention. It shows how a familiar classic can yield fresh observations when approached through several disciplines at once. Read Cowen’s original review
November 25, 2018 · Television · Some season-three details
“As I thought about this more, however, the Thou Shall Not Kill trope is least objectionable in Daredevil.”
Tabarrok starts with an objection to the superhero convention against killing, then revises his judgment by considering Daredevil’s Catholic commitments. The interesting move is to assess the character’s choices within his own moral framework rather than only through the viewer’s preferred calculation of consequences. Why it belongs: Criticism that visibly changes its mind. The post offers a useful discussion of character consistency and moral reasoning; its account of theology is best treated as part of that argument rather than a comprehensive doctrinal explanation. Read Tabarrok’s original review
July 23, 2022 · Television · Thematic spoilers
“I wish the content had more of ‘my kind of liberalism,’ but maybe the right-wing cultural critique makes for better TV.”
Cowen considers political power, gender, Greenland, and the media while separating his political preferences from his judgment of the drama. He asks whether a critique he finds less congenial might nevertheless produce stronger television. Why it belongs: A particularly clear example of judging artistic achievement independently of ideological agreement. The post is most revealing as a reflection on what makes political drama work. Read Cowen’s original review
January 16, 2025 · Documentary · Reveals the film’s central turn
“What defines an ideal romance? What constitutes true friendship?”
Tabarrok explores how the documentary changes our understanding of a disabled young man’s life through his online relationships. Its construction prompts questions about intimacy, embodiment, and the limits of what even close relatives can know about another person. Why it belongs: A humane review that uses the documentary’s form to reconsider the value of online life. Although the original post labels itself “No spoilers,” readers who want to experience the central revelation unprepared should watch first. Read Tabarrok’s original review
June 25, 2020 · Film · Major spoilers
“the most willfully misinterpreted movie that I have ever seen.”
Tabarrok challenges the prevailing interpretation of Parasite as an indictment of economic inequality. He builds his counterreading around the families’ conduct, the poorer characters’ treatment of other workers, and recurring imagery of smell and contamination. He argues that the film’s moral judgments cut against the political expectations many critics bring to it. Why it belongs: One of his most provocative and sustained film interpretations, and an essential inclusion in this selection. His reading is contestable, especially his insistence that the film’s judgments are unambiguous. That tension makes it rewarding to discuss alongside Cowen’s The Devil Wears Prada review: both ask whether a film’s apparent message conceals a different account of power and ambition. Read Tabarrok’s original review
The post Eleven outstanding film and television reviews by Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-10-27 16:17:58
Emily Bazelon was the moderator, there were five of us in the symposium. Excerpt from me:
Bores: Do you think the federal government pre-empting the states is consistent with democracy?
Cowen: Absolutely. We have federal laws that pre-empt state lawmaking in many other areas. Courts have upheld it many, many times.
Bores: OK, but is it pro-democracy, in giving people a say?
Cowen: It is pro-American Constitution.
Most of the panel disagreed with most of my points.
The post NYT debate on the rules for AI companies appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-10-27 12:32:03
Well, no, it is not funny, it would be too easy to relieve the dramatic tension by having Abbott explain the actual situation to Costello. One is not wrong to call the whole thing stupid.
Yet there is another reading of the skit which stands at least some chance of being funny, though it is not funny either.
You will note that Louis Costello was an Italian-American and son of an immigrant, and he had the obvious class mannerisms of such a stereotype. Bud Abbott was half Jewish and I believe half some mainstream ethnicity. He is a stand-in for the establishment, part of which was Jewish and highly commercial. You can read the skit as a commentary on how the establishment rips off the “less tutored” immigrants and refuses to apologize for that or even to explain it. The establishment simply keeps on talking rings around the lower-class immigrant, whether or not those words make sense. The immigrant has no real recourse, as he is less articulate and is also less in control and can only play the role of boob. In essence, Abbott, by not telling Costello the real names of the players, is not letting the ethnic assimilate into that most American of pasttimes, namely baseball.
Note how Costello admits, early in the skit, that he is the one with the funny name (Sebastian Dinwitty in the skit, likely a take-off on “dimwit”). And Abbott, by speaking of the players as being named Who, What, and “I don’t know,” is expressing his frustration with an America that does not sound or look the same any more. Abbott is in essence saying “Hey, what is this? I was not expecting Ted Kluszewski in my country!” He is throwing the growing presence of immigrants in the country back in the face of the ethnic and then stonewalling it.
In the skit, Abbott has the name of “Mr. Broadhurst,” very reminiscent of the establishment.
The skit does show we had an America too obsessed with names, and to no fruitful purpose. It is no accident that in addition to the “hames” for all the baseball players, we are given names for the skit characters as well, even though that might appear not necessary for the unfolding of the dialogue as it usually is understood.
Racist is not the right word, but the skit plays on ethnic prejudices in a manner which one can rightfully find somewhat uncomfortable. The back and forth dynamic reflects the prejudices of American life, though the presenters mirror and amplify those dynamics rather than merely critiquing them. And (again) while the skit is not funny, this interpretation at least opens a door to some people finding it funny.
When Larry David and Seinfeld note they were influenced by Abbott and Costello, they (especially LD) sometimes deploy ethnic stereotypes in a similar manner.
Of course I, being from northern New Jersey, would happen upon this interpretation of Abbott and Costello.
By the way, Costello grew up in Paterson, New Jersey. Abbott was born in Asbury Park, New Jersey, and he grew up in Coney Island. I wonder if they thought the skit was funny.
Elizabeth Holmes, in the recent You Can See Everything Movie, was right to say she did not understand the skit. She grew up in WDC until age nine and then Houston, plus she was born too late. Furthermore, she is used to a world where you hire a guy named “Hu,” right?
The post Is “Who’s on First?” funny? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.