Tweet

More from @PerBylund

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

Mar 21

We need to broaden our discussion on #regulatorycapture. The typical understanding is too narrow and based on a faulty understanding of #economy and #regulation as a one-shot game. It's not; the market is a process, and action in it and regulation of it have process implications.

The standard interpretation seems both neutral and innocuous, but it is not. It asserts a certain order of events that has support neither in theory nor empirically: that government agencies are implemented to then be captured/corrupted.

The creation-then-capture logic doesn't hold in what is often called a "repeated game," i.e. in a world where parties can act and react to each other's actions more than once and therefore cause systemic adjustments, adaptations, and even symbiosis.

Read 16 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

Mar 14

It is amazing the lengths to which people willingly go to make all Russians out as somehow responsible for any atrocity committed by Russian troops in Ukraine. If "the people" are responsible for what the government does, then you should be serving time without access to Twitter.

I can understand the desire to make sense of your emotions with flawed logic. But it is still not reasonable to have an ethic for Russians and another for yourself--just because you feel that way. At least you need to consistently apply it. Even the collectivism you adhere to.

Then, let's talk about the primitive notion of collective responsibility, regardless of the basis for such a collective, and where that leads us. It's not a pretty picture. And it never was. It denies every individual their personhood and agency. That's a recipe for barbarism.

Read 4 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

Jan 27

@joerogan

Frustrated by listening to @joerogan and @jordanbpeterson on the issue of "living wage." Otherwise intelligent people get the discussion completely backwards. Businesses do not pay workers and suppliers out of their profits: they make profits if they produce more value than cost.

It is a common but fundamental mistake to look at the numbers after the fact and, therefore, inadvertently reverse the course of time. Businesses pay for resources based on what they think they can charge for the product they're going to produce. The actual outcome is uncertain.

In other words, Apple bought resources needed to produce the first iPhone without knowing it would sell or at what price consumers would want it. The resources were acquired without information about revenue on hand--demand for it (and any product) arises much later.

Read 6 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

Aug 23, 2021

The Pfizer mRNA is now approved, despite the trial nowhere near concluded. So many questions about what happens now. I'd appreciate insightful pushback. Does this mean the Moderna and J&J EUAs are or must be expired/canceled? washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08…

What I would guess, with no particular insight into the process, is that the Moderna mRNA is also approved, perhaps with reference to the Pfizer vaccine and the technologies being practically the same (?). The authorities have obviously pushed for mRNA from the get-go (but why?).

Are there precedents for this situation with several parallel EUAs for the same end where one, but not the others, were approved? What happened then? Were the others 'grandfathered' in/kept as EUAs until approved? What do the rules say?

Read 6 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

Aug 11, 2021

The role of #entrepreneurship in the market process is little understood. Even those who are well read in Ludwig von Mises's magnificent Human Action tend to get the economic function wrong, especially its implications for the structure and progression of the market process.

To Mises, entrepreneurship is 'simply' the uncertainty-bearing aspect of human action. This is his praxeological definition, which therefore offers us truths about how the structure of human action explains observable phenomena and cause-and-effect relationships in the market.

This broad definition of entrepreneurship explains why some plans and decisions are unsuccessful, why different people may make different decisions, and why actors can reconsider/change their behavior before actions are concluded. Because the data change, actors learn and adapt.

Read 19 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

Aug 9, 2021

@TheAtlantic

I really hate these modern fakester "fact checkers," who provide almost no guidance on what to think of things. Take this telling example from @TheAtlantic. The claim: cases may spike after first dose. The "rebuttal": research shows 90% effective two weeks after the *second* dose

A rebuttal must address the actual claim, not something else. The fact is that, by what's in the article, it may well be that both are correct: a possible spike after the first dose *and* effective protection after the second. (Maybe there's a reason 2 doses are recommended?)

Note also that the article doesn't quote (or link to) Berenson. (We have only the fact-checker's summary.) Isn't that a little odd if you're fact-checking? Even more so when claiming it is a "theme," which means there should be plenty of material to choose a juicy quote from.

Read 6 tweets

Share this page!

Per Bylund

People who liked this thread also liked...

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @PerBylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Like this author's thread?