jacobion

> if the placebo effect is something that you can scientifically demonstrate, how would you arrange a control group?

Easy, just don't give the control group any medicine. Give the other group a placebo. If outcomes are better for the second group, it's evidence that placebos work, just as clearly as the usual trial provides evidence that medicines work.

Wasn't the someone who dismissed Dropbox when they first launched Steve Jobs?

Arguably one reason those two businesses were successful in areas with entrenched players and business practices was because they handle the money. If AirBnB was asking either travelers or hosts to pay $X to be on a recommendation site, probably very few people would. There's always a cheaper competitor when you're selling information. Because you book through AirBnB, for a service which is relatively expensive, they can skim off quite a lot of money in an opaque way.

The Law of Large Numbers is an actual math theorem. The Law of Averages is a non-technical name for various informal reasoning strategies, some fallacious (like the gamblers fallacy), but mostly just types of estimation that are justified by more formal probability theory.

Yes, this is a problem that a heavily regulated free market actually solved pretty well.

I go to my local grocery store and look at the painkillers they have. There are generic aspirin and Tylenol available for a price almost anyone can afford. There are branded versions which are still reasonably priced. There are reasonable variations such as with caffeine or with decongestant, again priced perfectly fairly. If you want to pay $2 extra for awesome marketing you can. In some stores you might find a 'natural' remedy - essentially a placebo, again priced ok.

Everything on sale is basically safe. Nothing has a business model that relies on addiction. Nothing costs hundreds of dollars. Nothing is adulterated or counterfeit. It's easy to get information about everything available. The vast majority people would be able to choose something to match their own needs (for example, they might be allergic to aspirin, or need to avoid Tylenol because of a kidney condition).

If you bought the worst painkiller on sale in the store, it would be fairly effective and not too expensive. The experience in most stores in large parts of the world would be very similar.

Also, people feel differently about different treatments, for particular reasons. If your mom always took one brand of Tylenol when she had a cold, taking it might reassure you more than the theoretically optimal painkiller. Customers were quite happy to pay more for the exact same Ibuprofen labelled with 'Back Pain' or 'Period Pain', because they felt it worked.

If you think about it, the author's desire to choose 'the scientifically proven to be the most effective' is just another example of such a superstition. If you could convince him that a particular medication was the winner in the meta-analysis, he would probably objectively feel better, even if it wasn't actually true.

Then for you, a meta-analysis would be even more useless, as your own experience is much more valuable.

Isn't there a social benefit in letting the 10% (or whatever) of people that believe in them get a safe and effective placebo, for many conditions where that's all that's needed?

Yes, for headaches no one wants to read a meta-analysis, they just want to buy something quickly and feel slightly better.

On the other hand, for depression medication, they don't want their doctor to look at an online tool and choose the most effective antidepressant. They want their doctor to look at THEM and say "hmm, we'll try you on X but if it doesn't help with the intrusive thoughts we'll maybe switch it out to Y and up the dosage of Z". Or they want to tell the doctor what they think they want to be prescribed. They are paying big bucks to see a psychiatrist. Most of them are not on a self-optimization trip, they just want to feel better, and also feel like someone takes an interest in how they are getting on. Using a snazzy tool would probably lead to the patient being less satisfied with the doctor's service, even if they have slightly better outcomes by whatever questionable metric is in the study.

But doesn't a large majority of 'social services' spending go to retirement incomes? Obviously that is important, but discretionary spending on, for example, taking care of children, is much smaller.

So maybe the problem is a broken political system which serves the interests of only one group of people, rather than high or low interest rates?

Why do low interest rates cause high rents? High house prices sure, but why does it affect rents?

You prefer to live in Copenhagen than the part of Europe you come from, for the higher salaries among other reasons. Probably lots of other people share your preference. Doesn't this suffice to explain why rents are much higher in Copenhagen than in your home region?

'artificially low'

What do you think the natural rate of interest should be? Why?

I think there might be two things going on here: one is a rise in various forms of social inequality, between generations, between people living in tier one cities and smaller cities or towns, between workers in certain industries and the rest. I tend to think this is bad, but I don't think it's related to interest rates.

The other is the culmination of a fifty-year process set in motion when Western economies went from gold-backed currency to fiat currency, and then from political control of currency to independent Central Banks. During this period both inflation and interest rate have moved monotonically downwards, essentially both to zero.

What if you assume that this state of affairs is strange because new, but perfectly benign, and will last indefinitely? It's absolutely true that those people who bought housing and other assets when rates were 10% have profited from a huge windfall. However, it's a one-off windfall. They simply got a discount, because 20/30/40 years ago, borrowing long term to pay cash was hugely burdensome. Today's homebuyers will buy assets at prices which reflect low interest rates, and they will pay low interest rates on their loans. As young workers, they might actually be better off in the long run. In a long term regime of zero rates, more of society's wealth is going to producers (and risk-takers), less is going to people who just hoard cash.

You might think it's nice for society to do something to correct this one-off inequality. Maybe so, but it's not fundamentally different to the other inequalities which exist. In particular, it's unclear why either artificially raising rates or artificially raising inflation are the solution. Neither of these are particularly effective in helping people who have got the short end of the stick. Both benefit some groups of rich people and some groups of poor people, and harm some other groups. There are much better solutions which can be pursued by governments directly without political interference in currencies.

Of course the type of person (job, family status, education level) who could buy a house in Berlin or London in the 1990's could not buy that same house today. You can either say 'too bad, you were out competed', or you can try to do something about it: pay teachers and social workers more, build more houses, make smaller cities more desirable to live in, provide better training and career opportunities etc. Blaming this on the dubious idea that cash in the bank should accrue 8% interest per year lets governments off the hook for actually solving the problems, and just advocates a different set of inequalities and broken incentives.

I brought up the past model to show that apprenticeships in the past worked for a specific reason. Various models of apprenticeship/training/education fail today, because we have rejected what made them work in the past. We don't want / can't have a system where young people are completely under the control of an apprentice master for several years, unable to change jobs or live where they want. This is probably a good thing. But without it, the idea of apprenticeships makes little sense.

Do you think that apprenticeships in the UK have been successful in motivating training for shortage jobs with highly technical skills?

I don't think they have. I've seen reports which claim they are mostly used as a subsidy to training which was already taking place, as a workaround to pay workers less, and generally in low-skilled jobs.

Like the grandparent post, the UK model is guilty of assuming that the word "apprenticeship" together with a sort of folksy appeal to a golden era of apprentices will solve the hard problems of training and education.

Most people will not use the ethical projects that you mention, at least until perception of crypto changes, because they will associate crypto/defi either with full-on exit/Ponzi scams, or with experiences investing in Bitcoin and others right before the peak.

Yes, and despite this there is commonly resentment by academics of the time they spend mentoring graduate students who then leave for higher paid posts outside academia.

It might be easier to compare them, I'm not persuaded it is any easier to evaluate them.

> a project's economic viability doesn't depend on the relative merits of other projects.

I'm not sure this is true - certainly the opposite of this statement is the central thesis of most investment activity.

The way apprenticeships traditionally worked is that the apprentice was bound to the master for a certain number of years, and his parents also often had to pay to have him taken on. The tension between needing trained labour, but not wanting your trained labour to walk out the door and seek employment elsewhere (literal meaning of 'journeyman') was resolved firstly by extremely severe constraints on the apprentice and his freedom, and secondly by pretty severe regulation of the master, to ensure quality of training, and prevent exploitation. In practice there still was a lot of exploitation.

Today neither employers not bootcamps would be able to take on risk/exert control over the apprentice's career to the extent optimal from a strictly economic point of view. You can look at the service-for-education deals offered by the military (for both low-skilled and highly skilled people) to get an example - no other organizations would be allowed to restrict a trainee's liberty to the same extent.

While I don't agree with the moral spin that is sometimes put on this of 'greedy juniors' getting trained up and then abandoning their benefactors for higher salaries, this is a real collective action problem, not just shortsightedness in behalf of employers.

Arguably it's actually in their interest to filter out less determined people, by providing an environment which is confusing or demoralising.

How does the internet 'alleviate issues of information asymmetry'?? I thought it was well understood that this has not generally happened, except in open markets for very transparent and easily comparable products.

Holiday accommodation for example, much less complex than coding bootcamps, is far from a solved problem.

But it doesn't make economic sense to work rather than steal, unless there are enforced rules and sanctions against stealing. Most people who choose to work do so either because of the sanctions, or because of various reasons which are not about maximizing returns in a narrow economic sense.

The thing about efficient markets is that lucrative activities which don't produce much value—borderline scams—can block activity which would be highly wealth creating. For example, there could be a huge untapped retail market for financial derivatives such as interest rate and fx hedges. However, it's very hard to access this market because historically anyone who has started selling such products has pivoted towards targeting degenerate gamblers in order to fleece them. Normal people who want to hedge conclude that it's better to live with the risk than to be the sucker.

Here we can see that there are lots of people who are prepared to make significant personal sacrifices to work in the software industry. The industry itself is crying out for more people and new people. But it literally doesn't make economic sense, either for universities or for new players such as bootcamps, to train people properly. It's vastly more lucrative to confuse them and then rip them off. It's hard to see a simple market mechanism which can resolve this, as opposed to rebuilding something similar to the gatekeeping and signalling functions around universities, commonly regarded as broken nowadays.

Karl Marx WAS a great economist. Is this something one is no longer allowed to say without being smeared as an extremist?

It's incentivized like this:

[At a party] A: What do you do? B: I work for $BIGTECH. A: You suck dude. I bought one of their products and it never worked once.

I somewhat agree with you, but I also think this is different from complaining about the representation of women or black people. Historically most superheroes have been white men. If all contemporary superhero shows had 50% women heroes and 30% non white, it would seem dissonant as fuck, but it wouldn't even remotely be evidence of a "pro-diversity bias".

Binge-watching on streaming services is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, people can jump into a show after missing the first season and hearing good things about it. On the other hand, something I might have started watching every week on network tv, I might decide to wait and see. I know I can watch it later for no additional cost if it turns out to be great.

Now the show is under a lot of pressure to maintain a level of buzz around it. But I also might not watch it if it seems like an okay show but the moment has passed.

I low-key wanted to watch GoT when it was on. Now I wouldn't bother, because all the people I could talk to about it have already watched it and are sick of it.

> If The Simpsons was British, none of the best episodes would have been made.

But neither would any of the 300 worst episodes.