Links - It’s Getting Better

I should probably do more posting along these lines.

With all the truly bad news in the world as well as the misleading, mistaken, and down-right fake news, it is important to remember that the long march of progress actually does continue—albeit not at all along a smooth line.

I’ll start with Noah Smith where in one of his recent “At least five interesting things . . .” presented the perhaps surprising news that crime is falling rapidly across America.

In fact, I think my thesis is holding up well. Violent crime, which surged in 2020, has been plunging all across America:

[C]rime appears to be falling all over America. Jeff Asher, an analyst who compiles a real-time crime index from agency-level records, reckons that this year is on track to be the least murderous nationwide since the 1960s.

Here’s a chart of how much murder has fallen in select cities since 2020:

Source: The Economist

What about the mass shootings that seemed to happen on a regular basis in the late 2010s? Those are down too:

As of May 10, there have been four shootings in the United States in which four or more victims died this year, compared with 11 at the same juncture last year. It’s the lowest incident count over the first four months of a year since at least 2006, when researchers started the Mass Killing Database, which is maintained by the Associated Press, USA Today and Northeastern University…The drop builds on year over year data, which shows that mass shootings declined from 39 in 2023 to 30 in 2024…

Last year, three mass killings involving firearms occurred in public settings — at a market in Fordyce, Arkansas, a commuter train outside Chicago, and a high school in Winder, Georgia. That was down from a record of 10 the previous year. So far this year, thankfully, there have been none.

Fewer Americans are protesting, too. In 2016 and 2017, Trump’s election was met with massive nationwide protests, which were the biggest in U.S. history up til that time — until they were eclipsed by the even bigger George Floyd protests of 2020. But Trump’s victory in 2024 has prompted few protests, and in general the streets of America are pretty quiescent. Even the Palestine protests, which were already much smaller than Black Lives Matter or the Women’s March, have dwindled. Meanwhile, right-wing brawlers have all but disappeared from America’s streets.

Yes, there have been a few spectacular and grisly acts of political violence in America recently, such as Elias Rodriguez, the Palestine activist who gunned down two people at a Jewish event in Washington, D.C. But this parallels the experience of the 1970s and 1980s; as general unrest fell and most people walked away from the activist movements of the late 60s, the few activists who remained tended to be more extreme, both because of a selection effect and because the extremists had fewer moderates around to restrain them.1

So while America’s leaders are causing institutional chaos and making radical policies, the country itself continues to feel steadily less unsettled than a few years ago. Ages of unrest don’t last forever.

Read the rest to hear about YIMBY continuing to win and techno-optimism in areas like medicine (changing an infant’s DNA to save his life) and education (AI doing one-on-one direct instruction, the proven best form of education).

Next I have three links to recent posts from Jeremy Horpedahl. In the first one he shows how much spending on necessities has declined.

Has it gotten easier or harder for Americans to afford the basic necessities of life? Part of the answer to this question depends on how you define “basic necessities,” but using the common triad of food, clothing, and housing seems like a reasonable definition since these composed over 80% of household spending in 1901 in the United States.

If we use that definition of necessities, here is what the progress has looked like in the US since 1901:

A chart like this shows great progress over time, but it will inevitably raise many questions. Let me try to answer a few of them in advance.

One thing that could be going on is that consumers are increasingly spending more money on other things, but the real cost of these goods hasn’t declined. Maybe consumers are being squeezed by, say, the cost of education and healthcare (things they spent almost nothing on in 1901). Certainly it is true that families are spending their income on something else! While savings rates have increased (they were basically zero in 1901), families aren’t saving half of their income today.

But the intuition that the real cost of these goods has been rising is dead wrong. Certainly it is wrong for food, which we can see by using “time prices”: it takes a lot fewer hours of work to buy almost any food imaginable compared with 100 years ago, and for most foods even compared with 1980. Clothing is also much more affordable, as I showed in a comparison to 1898 prices. Housing is a tricky one, given that houses are much bigger and have more amenities today than in the past. I tried to do a reasonable calculation for size and quality of housing compared with 1971, and I found that while housing is more expensive relative to income, it’s not dramatically so: perhaps between 17% and 31% more expensive, depending on how much you value air conditioning.

As he eludes to, these comparisons make no adjustment for quality. Even for those very well versed in the conditions of the past including those who believe they remember it from lived experience, it is nearly impossible to fully appreciate how much better virtually everything is today. And when it is not, it is almost always a tradeoff made by choice rather than some quality lost to history.

In the second link he is giving an update on generational wealth including showing how relatively well Millennials and Gen Z are doing. They are largely ahead of schedule compared to prior generations as seen in his chart:

Source: EWED

Third is a follow-up to the chart above explaining how this wealth growth is not primarily driven by higher home prices.

If we look at the past 5 years (2019Q4 to 2024Q4), the total wealth US households under the age of 40 increased by $5 trillion, in nominal terms. That’s not adjusted for inflation, but we don’t need to do so because we can look at how much each asset class increased in nominal terms as well. The total value of assets for households under age 40 increased by $5.86 trillion.

Here’s how the various classes of assets have increased since 2019Q4:

• Real Estate: $2.1 trillion

• Financial Assets: $2.0 trillion

• Consumer Durables: $0.49 trillion

• Private Businesses: $0.47 trillion

• Other Assets: $0.78 trillion

While we can see that the increase in real estate values is the largest category of asset increase, it is roughly equal to the increase in financial assets (retirement accounts and other investments). And the increase in real estate assets was barely over 1/3 of the total increase in assets.

As I say in my subtitle, I need to do more posts like this presenting the good news that is so often overlooked.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Korea?

This hot spot has not become cold.

In a word: Carefully… or should I say "tippy toe"?

While the rest of the world is focused on the important problems of the U.S. & Israel vs. Iran and Ukraine vs. Russia as well as Israel vs. Gaza (et al.), I am looking beyond the headlines to the next crisis. The proverbial mountain of Korea may look relatively calm today, but that is an illusion. In reality it is a dangerous volcano with forces building beneath its surface.

• Objectives/goals: Kim Jong Un wants to stay in power and presumably wants a more successful North Korea, but only to the extent that it is beneficial to him. The United States wants to not go to war and especially doesn't want weapons to hit the American homeland. The U.S. also does not want its economic and political allies harmed simply out of its own self-interest.

• Facts: North Korea is already a nuclear power and is looking to increase its stock pile and threat range. Its neighbors are rightfully unsettled by this fact. The U.S. as well finds North Korea to be a threat. The U.S. and other nations might/should/probably do prefer that the people of North Korea were in a better world, but these nations should not use this as a primary goal and cannot make it happen from without—other than being a good partner with an open, peaceful North.

• Weaknesses with regard to peaceful coexistence: North Korea is very poor and without nuclear weapons would lose a battle against America and allies decisively. America cannot be trusted to live up to any arrangements that leave North Korea vulnerable. Kim Jong Un and company know the U.S.'s position (strategic status and desires) which imply his regime's complete demise.

• Status: We are in a stalemate and an extreme local maximum problem.

• Argument: It is bad reasoning to suppose that the U.S. needs to continue taking a leading role in this stalemate or that in doing so it can be a constructive part of a solution. An act of aggressive regime change on the part of the U.S. might achieve the ends the U.S. seeks, but I rule this out on ethical and practical grounds.

Support for this argument and its implications:

It seems the United States’ only move is to disengage carefully from the situation. The endgame would be US forces no longer having a presence on the Korean Peninsula and normalized diplomatic and economic ties between the North and the South along with a verifiable freezing of North Korean nuclear weapon expansion. This would likely require an even stronger South Korean military, but not necessarily one with nuclear arms itself.

I am envisioning a staged, multi-year withdrawal negotiated with tit-for-tat concessions. Additionally, this would give nations in the region (both allies and others) time to carefully fill the vacuum of U.S. absence.

The secondary hope of this solution to the stalemate is de-escalation. It does not necessarily follow, but it is at least theoretically possible. Continued U.S. engagement does not have this possibility. Regardless, this is written from the point of view of America’s self interest. My contentions are the following:

• U.S. military presence in South Korea and in on-going wargames obviously threatening North Korea do not allow for de-escalation, and they do not actually contribute to a more peaceful region.

• Additionally, that U.S. military presence might be offering protection for the North Korean leadership being that the U.S. isn’t as interested in regime change as others in the region might be. This would include the people of North Korea—they are more easily persuaded that the leadership is keeping them safe from an existential threat from the U.S. Without the U.S. as the major threat, it becomes more difficult for the leadership to convince the people that their interests are aligned.

• In either case the U.S. is playing an undesirable, untenable, and unjustifiable role. On the one hand it is perpetuating a dangerous showdown putting itself (U.S. military personnel and the homeland potentially) as a primary target in harm’s way. On the other hand it is perpetuating a bad regime.

• The position of the American government should be limited to its own self interest. This can certainly extend to a desire for allies to be safe and prosperous, but it does not follow that to accomplish this the U.S. military must take on the role of active policeman.

I see no practical way that the current leadership in the North gives up its nuclear capabilities. The best outcome we can reasonably expect is containment along with a calmer environment.

The situation with Korea isn't just the case of life handing you some lemons. It's a whole orchard of lemon trees. With apologies to Trini Lopez: We'd like to make lemonade, which would be sweet, but this problem may be impossible to defeat.

PS: And yes, of course, we are not going to do anything like this.

Horseshoes and Bedfellows

Sometimes their close enough a single grenade will take them both out.

Credit: Tom Rocks Maths

For those unfamiliar with what I’m talking about here, see this.

Here is a partial list drawing from the recent news.

• SJWs of the left labeling opponents on the right as "fascists" and "Nazis" including in some partially legitimate and occasionally quite legitimate cases to only take up the cause of actual antisemitism including to the extent of defending the murder of actual Jews and calling for genocide against Israel.

• The extreme left worrying about climate change to the extent they want to do away with modern technological luxuries like washing machines aligned with the extreme right (cultural tradcons) who think that a woman's place is in the home.

• Trump leading the Republican party and many conservatives to a position against free trade and very pro-labor including labor unions. Much of the rhetoric on the right is now remarkably close to socialist/Marxist/communist statements from the past.

• The left’s embrace and the right's opposition to Bernie Sanders saying there are too many breakfast cereals and deodorants and then the right embracing and the left mocking Trump saying kids don't need so many dolls and we should make do with much less consumer products.

• The right opposing Biden's forays into controlling drug pricing including Trump campaigning against Harris promising to have price controls on groceries and then when in office signing an executive order for widespread pharmaceutical price controls.

• Left-wing NIMBYs demanding preservation of "neighborhood character" along with right-wing immigration restrictionists demanding preservation of "local culture". [HT to Chris Freiman]

• Either party while in power bemoaning the debt ceiling limit claiming that to avert crisis we simply have to raise it while the out-of-power party claims it is an essential feature of limited government only to then reliably completely switch roles when presidential control switches party.

• Republicans decrying government involvement in private corporations from Obama's governmental ownership stake of GM in the auto bailout to Biden's interference into U.S. Steel's future (blocking Nippon Steel's acquisition) and then when in power striking a socialistic (technically more accurately termed fascist) ownership/control deal with the Nippon takeover of U.S. Steel that includes the sitting president to have a final say in corporate decisions.

Thinking about this topic, this post from Steve Stewart-Williams caught my eye:

A recent paper by Jan-Willem van Prooijen and André Krouwel explores the psychology of political extremists on both ends of the spectrum. It identifies four key traits that both tend to have in common, and which distinguish them from moderates:

…

1. Psychological distress

   First up: psychological distress - a gnawing sense of meaninglessness born of anxious uncertainty.

   …

2. Cognitive simplicity

   Next, we have cognitive simplicity: the tendency to view the world in stark black-and-white terms.

   …

3. Overconfidence

   This one follows logically from the last: If you see the world in simple terms, you're more likely to think that you’re right about it. This opens the door to an unwelcome guest: overconfidence.

   …

4. Intolerance

   Finally, we come to intolerance - perhaps the most obvious and most worrying of all four traits.

   …

What does it all mean?

It means that although left-wing and right-wing extremists might seem like polar opposites, they’re more like estranged siblings. They’re shaped by similar psychological forces, just channeled in different ideological directions.

In Defense of a Double Standard

Some wrongs are worse than others

Most people rightly recoil at the idea of a double standard. In fact, it is downright American to believe that everyone should be subject to the same rules, to be judged on an equal basis.

But some things in this world are rightly asymmetric. While this is counterintuitive, it is nonetheless true. In particular, this is true when it comes to the standards we hold private citizens too as compared to the standards we hold the state. And this too is very much an American concept.

The nuance is lost on those who either fail to think critically enough or willfully blind themselves to the reasons for the distinction.

Throughout history, those in power had special privileges, greater abilities and leniencies than that extended to the common man. The American project turned this on its head. From its origins in British common law and the Magna Carta, the United States of America was founded on the idea that the state derives its powers from those granted by the governed. Power of the state is limited, and it is rightly held in check by rules and norms more strenuous than those extended to the people themselves.

Government power, as Washington himself said, is like fire—a dangerous master always in need of containment. I can order you out of my house for speech or ideas I don't like. Yet the government cannot throw you out of the country or harm you or restrain you simply because of your speech or ideas. Fundamentally this is because I own my house and it is my castle, but the government does not own the country. And a majority of the people do not own the country. That concept of ownership does not extend to the public domain.

Beyond its virtue in principle, this is for very good practical reasons. It acts as a dampener on power excess and abuse creating natural protection for those outside of power—so called, minority rights.

Minority rights go beyond just protecting those who happen to be fewer than the majority. They extend to the concept that while greater in raw number, the governed are less powerful than the government. So the minority/majority concept also includes the idea of the less powerful versus the more powerful. And those in power are definitionally the more powerful.

The pragmatic part that sadly so many so often forget is that they won't always be in power. Eventually both their enemies and those with simply oppositional interests will attain power.

Not just in a democracy but in any system of government, one should never create a government sword so powerful they wouldn't want their enemies to wield it. So yes, this creates a double standard. It is an inconsistency we crucially need to protect and defend.

This is why in the current debate taking place in the nation generally and the streets specifically requires the acceptance of a double standard. For example, when a police officer acts unethically by shooting a rubber bullet at a journalist, it is much more unethical behavior than a rioter setting fire to a Waymo vehicle.

There is no doubt about it that the rioter is wrong as are those looting, vandalizing, and burglarizing. These acts are unjustified and worthy of arrest and punishment. They are counter to the cause, even if they are conducted in the name of the cause—it is important to note that they probably are not actually part of the protest as these are generally bad actors who are taking an opportunity for mayhem or crime. Regardless, these acts should be condemned.

Yet, unethical behavior on the part of the state through its police powers are deplorable and worse by orders of magnitude. When someone in the name of the protest commits a crime even if those in the protest movement defend it, this does not undermine the rightfulness of the protest itself. But when the police commit a crime and that crime is defended by the state, it does undermine the rightfulness of the state.

The protests are demonstrations of the people in opposition to the actions of the state. The role of the government remains to protect the rights of the people even when the people are protesting. Any unlawful or unethical acts by either party are wrong. The reason unethical acts by the state would be worse is because it must be held to the higher standard. Society collapses when unethical activity is tolerated, and toleration of unethical activity by the state itself completely undermines society's foundations.

The violent and wrongful behavior of the government in executing it's deportation policies is what has created the protests. To be clear that does not justify violent and wrongful behavior by protesters. And also to be clear it would justify resistance, including violent resistance, to specific unethical acts. One cannot take the property of another or cause them bodily injury whether one is an independent person or a member of the state. Yet again we must introduce a double standard. And that will bring the concept full circle.

If I were to physically detain you and attempt to remove you against your will, you would have the right to defend yourself including using force. At some point in that altercation you rightfully can use deadly force in defense. In order to have a peaceful society, we give special police powers to the state with the trust that when it is exercising those powers, it will do so with the upmost respect for the rule of law and ethical behavior. Therefore, there must be a double standard. Otherwise, there is no reason to have a trust that those police powers are being executed ethically in that moment and in retrospect. Without that trust and without that double standard, the state actor deserves no special privilege. He becomes like all others and can be dealt with like all others.

Peaceful protests are an essential part of a well functioning society. Violent, harmful, and unethical behavior within a protest undermine the effectiveness of the protest, though they do not undermine the cause itself. Violent, harmful, and unethical behavior by the state, either as the precipitating cause of the protest or in resistance to protests, undermines the legitimacy of the state and the very fabric of society.

License to Drive

Keep in mind that this is NOT a defense of licensure!

Driving is one of the most dangerous things we do. This is true very broadly as it has a very high death rate associated with it and obviously is very widespread across society as an activity.

We license people once in a formal process—a bare bones written and performance test when they are generally quite young—and then we just . . . let them keep doing it.

We don’t make them requalify. Once you have a license, you get to keep it until you actively do something to have it taken away. Rather than proving you are still capable of driving, we make you prove you are incapable of driving to lose the privilege.

Sure, we make you renew it every few years—mine is valid now for 10 years even though it has been 34 years since I’ve taken a driving test. But this renewal process doesn’t have anything at all to do with driving. It is just perfunctory as a means of keeping your records up with the state and giving them another tribute. (Some might say this is a clever trick of big brother to get your information and a little more of your money.)

“How can this be?!?”

Well, we do actually make you retake a test—many tests, in fact. These include the more formal like obtaining and maintaining insurance as well as informal like norms. Ever been criticized for your driving by friends or, worse, shunned as a driver with someone else volunteering to do the driving for the group over your offer? Ever been honked at?

In the case of the formal test that is insurance, the state has wisely outsourced this role as it requires proof of insurance at the time of renewal. This is tantamount to them admitting, “We aren’t really any good at certifying you as a driver, but we know they are.”

Astonishingly, this system works. [narrator, “It is not, actually, that astonishing.”] Sure, driving is super dangerous. But who among us is so naïve as to think that the solution to the danger is more trips to the DMV? Haven’t they done enough already?

Why can we not apply this model to SO MANY OTHER THINGS that instead we burden ourselves with having the government do to/for us? More directly, why is it so hard for so many of us to understand that the government failure we currently tolerate is completely avoidable?

I understand for sure the captured interest problem whereby those who directly benefit from the current situation want to keep it just the way it is, thank you very much. But why do the rest of us fall victim to be the Baptists in this Baptists and bootleggers quagmire?

There is also a very big example of tradeoffs at play here (remember, as Thomas Sowell says, “There are no solutions. only tradeoffs.”). With driving we tolerate the danger—balancing it (imperfectly) against the benefits of driving. We don’t lower all speed limits to 10 mph. We don’t make you retake a very rigorous exam every few years or months or whatever. This imperfect balancing works pretty well. And it works much better than how very imperfect it would be if the government was completely in charge.

We do have some government involvement regarding safety. After all, they are setting the speed limits and other driving rules. These are best done at a local level for the most part. Examples like which side of the road we drive on are best set at the highest levels, these are few. Speed limits and such are best executed when tacit knowledge of time and place can be most finely found. That is at the very local level for sure.

Still, it doesn’t have to be government. “But who would own/build/maintain the roads?” so goes the shallow refrain against the libertarian minimal state. Well, we’ve actually solved this long ago.

Besides, even in our current, government-dominated state of rule setting, we have many norms that tend to take over. Compare the speed limit as derived by actual driving to the statutory posted limit. And have you ever heard of the Pittsburgh left?

From a combination of choice and emergence, we are largely but inexplicably self-trapped in a world that drastically favors asking permission rather than forgiveness—all compounded by the mistake of looking exclusively to the government for that permission and guidance. It is something between comical and tragic that we ignore the obvious example of driving that is staring us in the face, continually offering a better way.