2026-03-02 13:56:43
Numerous nations in the Middle East are being pulled into the current conflict and have received missile attacks from Iran. I believe the proper Bayesian update is that Brazil is underrated.
The country has plenty of water, and lots of capacity to grow its own food. It is an agricultural powerhouse. It is developing more and more fossil fuels. No neighbor or near neighbor dares threaten it. You cannot imagine conquering it, because even the government of Brazil has not conquered its own country.
It is big enough that even the United States can push it around to only a limited degree.
Crime rates are high, but on the up side that gives the place a certain resiliency. People are used to bad events, and society is structured accordingly. You cannot write of “Brazil falling into dystopia” without generating a laugh.
If immigration bothers you (not my view), Brazil and Brazilian culture is not going to be swamped by people coming from somewhere else. For better or worse.
Brazil has “stayed Brazil” through both democracy and autocracy.
Worth a ponder. Here is an FT piece on “Brazil’s Dubai.”
The post Brazil is underrated appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-03-02 13:13:45
Some observations and comments on Trump and Israel’s war on Iran:
1. Tehran is not looking for a ceasefire and has rejected outreach from Trump. The reason is that they believe they committed a mistake by agreeing to the ceasefire in June – it only enabled the US and Israel to restock and remobilize to launch war again. If they agree to a ceasefire now, they will only be attacked again in a few months.
2. For a ceasefire to be acceptable, it appears difficult for Tehran to agree to it until the cost to the US has become much higher than it currently is. Otherwise, the US will restart the war at a later point, the calculation reads.
3. Accordingly, Iran has shifted its strategy. It is striking Israel, but very differently from the June war. There is a constant level of attack throughout the day rather than a salvo of 50 missiles at once. Damage will be less, but that isn’t a problem because Tehran has concluded that Israel’s pain tolerance is very high – as long as the US stays in the war. So the focus shifts to the US.
4. From the outset, and perhaps surprisingly, Iran has been targeting US bases in the region, including against friendly states. Tehran calculates that the war can only end durably if the cost for the US rises dramatically, including American casualties. After the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran says it has no red lines left and will go all out in seeking the destruction of these bases and high American casualties.
5. Iran understands that many in the American security establishment had been convinced that Iran’s past restraint reflected weakness and an inability or unwillingness to face the US in a direct war. Tehran is now doing everything it can to demonstrate the opposite – despite the massive cost it itself will pay. Ironically, the assassination of Khamenei facilitated this shift.
6. One aspect of this is that Iran has now also struck bases in Cyprus, which have been used for attacks against Iran. Iran is well aware that this is an attack on a EU state. But that seems to be the point. Tehran appears intent on not only expanding the war into Persian Gulf states but also into Europe. Note the attack on the French base in the UAE. For the war to be able to end, Europe too has to pay a cost, the reasoning appears to be.
7. There appears to be only limited concern about the internal situation. The announcement of Khamenei’s death opened a window for people to pour onto the streets and seek to overthrow the regime. Though expressions of joy were widespread, no real mobilization was seen. That window is now closing, as the theocratic system closes ranks and establishes new formal leadership.
Again: The question “How will this end?” should have been asked before this war was triggered. It wasn’t.
That is from Trita Parsi, via B. Note that some people consider Parsi a biased source (not sufficiently anti-Iran?), in any case it is worth pondering how other parties may view the current situation.
The post One view of Iranian strategy appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-03-02 01:15:27
2. UAE to cover expenses for affected travelers. And “emergency visas” are issued on the spot.
3. Abbas Amanat, Iran: A Modern History is for me (by far) the best general history of the country. I like the cover too.
4. From two weeks ago: “Perhaps there is a new “Trump doctrine,” namely to focus on going after lead individuals, rather than governments or institutional structures. We already did that in Venezuela, and there is talk of that being the approach in Iran. If so, that is a change in the nature of warfare, and of course others may copy it too, including against us. Is there a chance they have tried already?”
5. “Simple believers” in Ukraine shun the modern world (NYT).
The post Sunday assorted links appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-03-01 23:48:38
Yes I will be doing a Conversation with her. She is the author of a forthcoming book on Weimar, namely Weimar: Life on the Edge of Catastrophe. Note that much of the book considers the city of Weimar, mostly in Nazi times, and not just the Weimar era. She also has published Beyond the Wall: A History of East Germany, and Blood and Iron: The Rise and Fall of the German Empire 1871-1918. She is active in journalism, podcasting, and is a visiting research fellow at King’s College London. She was born in East Germany and is both British and German.
So what should I ask her?
The post What should I ask Katja Hoyer? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-03-01 15:21:54
I promised you I would be tracking this issue, and so here is a major development. From the QJE by Adrien Bilal and Diego R Känzig::
This paper estimates that the macroeconomic damages from climate change are an order of magnitude larger than previously thought. Exploiting natural global temperature variability, we find that 1○C warming reduces world GDP by over 20% in the long run. Global temperature correlates strongly with extreme climatic events, unlike country-level temperature used in previous work, explaining our larger estimate. We use this evidence to estimate damage functions in a neoclassical growth model. Business-as-usual warming implies a present welfare loss of more than 30%, and a Social Cost of Carbon in excess of $1,200 per ton. These impacts suggest that unilateral decarbonization policy is cost-effective for large countries such as the United States.
Here is an open access version. You may recall that earlier estimates of climate change costs were more like a five to ten percent welfare loss to the world. I do not however find the main results here plausible. The estimation is extremely complicated, and based on the premise that a higher global temperature does more harm to a region than a higher local temperature. And are extreme events a “productivity shock,” or a one-time resource loss that occasions some Solow catch-up? Is the basic modeling consistent with the fact that, while the number of extreme storms may be rising, the number of deaths from those same storms is falling over time? Lives lost are not the same as economic costs, but still the capacity for adjustment seems considerably underrated. What about the effects to date? The authors themselves write: “According to our counterfactual, world GDP per capita would be more than 20% higher today had no warming occurred between 1960 and 2019.” I absolutely do not believe that claim.
In any case, here is your update. To be clear, I do absolutely favor the development of alternative, less polluting energy sources.
The post New results on the economic costs of climate change appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
2026-03-01 13:33:21
A landmark law that limits children under the age of 16 to one hour per day on social media apps has been blocked by a US court, in a blow to child safety campaigners seeking to limit exposure to sites such as Instagram and YouTube.
In an opinion released on Friday, a federal judge in Virginia halted the enforcement of a bill passed by the state last year, under which social media companies could be fined $7,500 per violation.
The state “does not have the legal authority to block minors’ access to constitutionally protected speech until their parents give their consent by overriding a government-imposed default limit”, Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles wrote of the measure, implementing a preliminary injunction.
Giles concluded the law was “over-inclusive”. Under it, “a minor would be barred from watching an online church service if it exceeded an hour on YouTube . . . yet, that same minor is allowed to watch provider-selected religious programming exceeding an hour in length on a streaming platform,” she wrote. “This treats functionally equivalent speech differently.”
Here is more from the FT.
The post Stand with free speech and the Constitution appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.