The OC register has an article discussing the views of an English professor on conspiracy theories:

Cal State Fullerton professor Elise Wang is one of 28 scholars across the country selected for the 2024 Andrew Carnegie Fellows Program, one of the nation’s most prestigious grants for social science and humanities researchers examining pressing societal issues.

So, what can someone studying Chaucer tell us about America in 2024?

It turns out quite a bit, Wang would say.

Her book project, which she will work on during the two-year fellowship, is titled “That’s What They Want You to Think: Identifying Dangerous Conspiracy Theories.”

Wang says that medieval texts, often revolving around miracles and sainthood, lay out narrative arcs that reveal a lot about the types of not-exactly-true stories people believe and why, structurally, they’re appealing.

Here’s an example of why I don’t view conspiracy theories as being about conspiracies. In a recent post, I argued that Nixon had been involved in a criminal conspiracy during the 1972 election campaign. A commenter suggested that Nixon was in fact innocent. So who is the conspiracy theorist?

In my view, the commenter was engaging in conspiracy theorizing, whereas I was representing the establishment view. I understand that this is not the literal meaning of the term “conspiracy theory”. But here I’m not talking about literal meanings, I am talking about actual real world usage of a term. He is the one with the interesting contrarian take.

Here’s another example. The CCP has clearly been trying to prevent investigation into evidence that Covid began in Wuhan, China. In a literal sense, that claim is a “conspiracy theory”. But the term conspiracy theory is not applied to the zoonosis hypothesis of the origin of Covid, only to the lab leak hypothesis, even though the CCP denies both. That’s because the lab leak hypothesis goes against the views of most Western virologists. If the establishment claimed it was a lab leak, the conspiracy theorists would be suggesting zoonosis.

You might argue that in order to be a conspiracy theory it is not enough for it to be a contrarian view, there must also be evidence that the establishment is covering up the truth. That’s What They Want You to Think.

The establishment certainly wants you to believe that Nixon was guilty. But suppose they really do believe that Nixon was guilty? Is it still a conspiracy theory? Now we are entering a grey area. Perhaps there is publicly available evidence exonerating Nixon, but the establishment is too lazy to examine the evidence.

My claim that the Fed caused the 2008-09 recession might be labeled a “conspiracy theory”, as it goes against the conventional wisdom among macroeconomists. On the other hand, most macroeconomists sincerely believe that I’m wrong, even that I’m slightly nuts. On the other, other hand, most economists do not want it to be true that the Fed caused the Great Recession, as the Fed’s policy is generally the consensus policy of America’s macroeconomists. Similarly, while most virologists sincerely believe that zoonosis caused Covid, they also do not want it to be true that a lab leak caused Covid.

In the end, I think “conspiracy theory” is a matter of degree. It’s not always about actual conspiracies, often it’s about cases where the members of establishment do not want you to accept a certain hypothesis, but are not actively conspiring with each other. An even weaker form of conspiracy theory is when the establishment doesn’t even know it’s covering up the truth, but its self-interested bias leads it to reject true explanations.

Trumpism is the mother of all conspiracy theories. His entire political career is based on the notion that he’s exposing a vast conspiracy of the elite, which is engaged in all sorts of nefarious evils such as wokism, Marxism, One Worldism, open borders, neoconservatism, and dozens of other crimes. One gigantic conspiracy theory. You say Trump lies all the time? That’s what the media wants you to believe.

You might argue that the Never-Trumpers are doing the same thing, with their overheated claims that Trump aims to abolish democracy and turn America into a fascist state. Those claims may be equally hyperbolic, but they don’t count as a conspiracy theory. Almost by definition, the elite cannot engage in conspiracy theories, because conspiracy theories are claims that the elite is covering up the truth. And the elite actually believes that Trump is an anti-democratic threat.

[Update (8/17): Commenter HL sent me to a Robert Wright podcast, which is the single clearest explanation of the evidence that I’ve come across. Peter Miller is an impressive advocate for zoonosis.]

I’m on record suggesting that Covid probably entered the human population from an animal market in Wuhan. I’ve given 10-1 odds in favor of that hypothesis. Two other researchers looked at essentially the same data as I did, and reached radically different conclusions.

In a presentation at the Hoover Institute, Andrew Levin presented a paper entitled:

A Bayesian Assessment of the Origins of COVID-19 using Spatiotemporal and Zoonotic Data

Levin gave odds of 100,000,000 to 1 in favor of the lab leak hypothesis over the zoonosis hypothesis.

In a recent interview, NPR asked Michael Worobey to place odds on zoonosis vs. lab leak:

NPR: So what is the likelihood of that coincidence happening — that the first cluster of cases occurs at a market that sells animals known to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, but the virus didn’t actually come from the market?

I would put the odds at 1 in 10,000. But it’s interesting. We do have one analysis where we show essentially that the chance of having this pattern of cases [clustered around the market] is 1 in 10 million [if the market isn’t a source of the virus]. We consider that strong evidence in science.

Think about it. You have two people who both rational, highly respected researchers. Both look at the same data set. Both use Bayesian reasoning. One says 100,000,000-1 lab leak and one says somewhere between 10,000-1 and 10,000,000-1 zoonosis.

I’m not a highly respected researcher, but I’m looking at the same data and also using Bayesian reasoning, and I previously ended up guesstimating odds of 10-1 zoonosis.

I feel like this case is telling us something about Bayesian reasoning, but I’m not quite sure what it is. To take one example, Worobey emphasizes that most of the early cases occurred on the west side of the market, which is where the suspicious “raccoon dog” cage was located:

Levin emphasizes that none of the first 5 cases occurred immediately next to the suspicious “raccoon dog” cage, they were one aisle over:

Most of the early lab leak theories focused on the famous Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is not located anywhere the animal market. Levin suggests that a lab leak could have occurred at a different lab, a CDC office near the animal market.

I have a hard time evaluating this claim. He might be correct, but the original focus on Wuhan was based on the idea that the WIV is special, not just another lab. The argument was essentially “What are the odds that the pandemic would happen in the city with this very special virology lab.” If the claim is now that the outbreak was from a different lab, doesn’t that change our priors? On the other hand, perhaps all Wuhan research labs had a special interest in these bat viruses.

One thing I like about both researchers is that they avoid a lot of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, and focus on the spatiotemporal pattern of the outbreak. And yet even with this sort of methodological agreement, they end up about as far apart as the Earth to the Andromeda galaxy. (And I’m somewhere off in the Magellanic Clouds.)

Weird!

Every since the late 2010s, the US fiscal situation has become unsustainable. Unless dramatic changes are made, we are eventually headed toward a major problem (sharp tax increases, high inflation, or default.) Now it seems as though dramatic changes are going to be made—albeit in the wrong direction. Here’s Bloomberg:

The back-and-forth over taxes has escalated in recent days. In an interview with CBS News over the weekend, Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance tried to outflank Democrats by floating a $5,000-per-child tax credit — $3,000 more than the size of the current credit and even larger than President Joe Biden has proposed.

Harris, rallying supporters in Nevada, endorsed a version of Trump’s own promise to exempt tipped wages from taxes. . . .

Trump has also proposed ending the tax on Social Security benefits entirely, replacing current policy that gives targeted tax breaks to lower-income seniors. His proposal could cost as much as $1.8 trillion and ultimately endanger the Social Security trust fund itself, according to nonpartisan budget watchers.

Largely absent from the discussion, for now, are the tax cuts from Trump’s 2017 tax law that will expire at the end of 2025. Extending those cuts carries a $4.6 trillion price tag.

Just what the tax code needs—more complexity.

Inevitably, people will tell me that it’s always been this way. No it hasn’t. America has not always been a banana republic. The national debt as a share of GDP fell sharply in the second half of the 20th century. Bill Clinton ran three consecutive budget surpluses at the end of his administration. Fifty years ago, presidents were held accountable for their crimes—indeed bipartisan pressure forced Nixon to resign. You did not have the Supreme Court ruling that presidents were above the law.

Sorry, it has not always been this way.

I guess if we’re going broke anyway, why not throw a wild party with borrowed money before the creditors show up at the door. Or pray that AI will save us all.

PS. As always, there will be unintended consequences:

But the plan is not without controversy. Economists say it could incentivize workers and employers to shift more compensation from wages to tips.

I recall when 10% was normal. Then 15%. If this passes I might just become one of those greedy old curmudgeons and stop at 20%, no matter how high they try to push the standard tip. And will my dentist start demanding tips, with the threat of pain if I don’t pay up?

As for Social Security, lower wage seniors are already exempt from paying income tax on their benefits. So that tax cut will favor the more affluent—like me!

PPS. Oh, and I forget to mention Trump’s plan to use billions of taxpayer dollars to invest in cryptocurrency. What could go wrong?

PPPS. Predict how many days before one of our politicians advocates abolishing the gasoline tax.

I’ve come around to the HL Mencken view of the world. Treat politics like a big joke or it will drive you crazy.

We all hold back on some unpleasant truths, at least now and then. That’s partly due to fear of angering co-workers, friends or family. We wish to be polite. But if I were rich enough, then I’d be able to say whatever I wish. I would have no fear of losing my job in response to a non-PC remark. And zillionaires always have loyal friends and family.

Or would I? Maybe there is no amount of money that would turn me into a completely honest man. Perhaps I’d still have all my current personality flaws, even if I became the richest man on Earth.

What do you think? In the comment section, tell me how high a net worth you’d need to feel confident expressing the unvarnished truth in 21st century America.

PS. This Matt Yglesias tweet caught my eye:

Elon is absolutely correct, on both points. I truly believe that.

A few days ago Claudia Sahm wrote a Bloomberg column entitled:

My Recession Rule Was Meant to Be Broken

Even before I read the article, I suspected that I would sympathize with her argument, which proved to be the case:

The US is not in a recession, despite the indicator bearing my name saying that it is. The Sahm rule, which was triggered with Friday’s weaker-than-expected jobs report, joins a long list of economic tools skewed by the unusual disruptions of the past four and a half years.

That said — and I say this with a mixture of humility and concern — the Sahm rule is still relevant. The risk of a recession is elevated, strengthening the case for the US Federal Reserve to cut interest rates. . . .

But conditions can change quickly, and by the time the NBER has officially designated a recession, it is usually too late to guide policymakers. The purpose of the Sahm rule is to act as a kind of early diagnosis.

I frequently argue that recessions are almost unforecastable, because if there were a reliable technique for forecasting a (demand-side) slump, the Fed would move to try to prevent this from occurring. I’ve previously suggested that the lack of mini-recessions in the US is evidence that the Fed often reacts too slowly to the onset of recession.

Sahm sees her rule not so much as an unconditional forecasting technique, rather as a guide to help policymakers improve on stabilization policy. As an analogy, the beep your car makes backing up near an object is not supposed to predict an accident, it’s supposed to prevent an accident.

It seems to me that Sahm strikes exactly the right note—that her rule should be viewed as useful, not infallible. The recent triggering of the Sahm’s Rule suggests that the risk of recession is substantially elevated and that policymakers need to take this information into account.

The economics/finance community is full of people with big egos. I often hear people brag about how they have been correct time after time, which tends to make me take their views less seriously. At times, it almost seems like they care more about their reputation than about the health of the economy. Sahm seems to understand that if her rule ends up preventing a recession, it would be a vastly greater achievement than if it ends up predicting a recession. Let’s hope that this time her rule fails, and she succeeds.