Recent on SubStack NOTES:

The XReal Air as spatial computing at 1/10 the cost of the Vision Pro; Matthew Klein fears the Fed is doing too little; Barry Ritholtz says PHEV's are the sweet spot for his family; Josh Barro on...

Moore’s Law: Overwhelmingly, people who are not on Apple’s payroll who have used the Vision Pro and written about it have been simply, totally blown away by the experience. Glasses like the XReal Air are, by contrast, called "fun" and "cool". This claim that the XReal Air attached to an iPhone 15 is a fantastic accessory for playing games is the most enthusiastic endorsement I have seen:

---

Economics: Klein thinks that there have been big changes in the past few years in income distribution, private-sector balance sheets, and fiscal policy that have substantially and permanently raised the neutral interest rate r*. I see the case for private-sector balance sheets—but I see that as a temporary, plague-time income support factor that is now ebbing. How fast it is ebbing is a big question, and if it is ebbing slowly than Klein has a strong case. But otherwise? Fiscal policy and income distribution? I cannot make those work in terms of the magnitudes. If r* is permanently up, it is for other causes. The big question I face right now is: am I fighting the last war in my desire to take extra steps to reduce the chances that secular stagnation forces will land us back at the zero lower bound?:

---

Global Warming: But… but… but… the engineering of a PHEV is more complicated than that of an EV—you have to have and to switch back-and-forth to a gasoline engine, plus you need a transmission. So how in the Holy Name of the Storm God of the Semites can PHEV’s be a better value proposition for anyone who lives where the charging infrastructure is already there? I do not understand this:

---

Public Unreason: I think Josh Barro has it right with respect to this particular issue ongoing at Berkeley right now. I do not endorse all of his generalizations from this issue to the general shape of the Cosmic All, but I hesitate to disagree with him, because he is as smart and, in this set of issues, more perceptive than I am:

It seems to me that Professor del Valle ought to admit to a serious mental health problem and seek an accommodation under the ADA. But it looks like she is not sane enough to do that.

---

Economic History: Alice Evans has a rather elliptical critique of Boserup and of Alesina, Giuliano, & Nunn on the coming of the plough and the entrenchment of patriarchy that I think is important, but that I do not quite grasp:

BD: If I understand <draliceevans.substack.com/p/what-the-in…> your critique of Boserup & of Alesina-Giuliano-Nunn, it is thus: the key is not that plough forces women into domesticity; breastfeeding & pregnancy push domesticity whether plough or hoe; the key is plough makes wheat land valuable. & once boys start inheriting valuable things from their (supposed) fathers, whether wheat land or animals, Big Trouble is highly likely to follow. Have I misread you?

AE: Exactly. It’s hard to know what motivated people to form patrilocal clans thousands of years ago. But looking at global history, I always find that valuable land –> patrilocal clans, unless it’s interrupted by the Catholic Church! The other issue with the Boserup/ Alesina hypothesis is that they think the primary driver of subordination is domesticity. Not really. The main factor shaping female labour supply is whether there’s a cult of female seclusion. That’s not entailed by patrilocal clans either

BD: Patrilocal clans => male inheritance => great concern for paternity => control & seclusion of women?

AE: Partly, yes. But even among patrilocal clans, there’s ENORMOUS heterogeneity. Turkic, Mongols, and Kazakhs were patrilocal, and women were in a junior position, but they did not enforce seclusion. Genghis Khan organised female diplomats/ ambassadors. So Kazakhs only adopted islam superficially, and women seized job opportunities under the soviets. There was very little resistance to secularism.