Regarding executive orders, I notice I am confused. I have heard a lot of people complaining that these things are bad, violation of democratic norms, etc. I have never held this view, and I think that I and others are kinda talking past each other.
My understanding of an "executive order" is that, generally, the President sees something that he wants to do, determines which agencies have the preexisting statutory authority to do that thing, and then orders them to do it. To me, this seems fundamentally the only way that presidenting can work, because the President can't memorize the entire US code so he basically has to decide his policy goals first and then determine how they could be achieved within the existing executive authority. It thus seems to me that opposing this would be tantamount to saying that if the President wants to do something, he would need to get Congress to go pass a bill giving him the authority to do something that he already has the authority to do...? People claim that opposing executive orders is respectful of Congress vis a vis the President, but this doesn't make sense to me either. It seems to me that Congress should have the ability to choose whether it wants to pass a broad, forward-looking law or a narrow law for a specific purpose. And that the President using a broad forward-looking law for some particular instance that Congress couldn't have had in mind at the time, is in fact the entire point of Congress choosing to pass broad laws.
Obviously, I don't think that's people's real view, but can someone who opposes "executive orders" or think they are a norm violation explain what it is, exactly, that they oppose, and provide one or two examples of the thing that they oppose occuring?
I believe you are mostly right. Where this complaint first arose (to my memory) was when Obama wanted Congress to pass some laws, Congress didn't/couldn't, and he decided to go ahead and find a way to implement what he had previously said he didn't have the authority to do. I know one such issue was immigration reform, but I feel like there were several issues.
Then Trump did the same, issuing very broad executive orders that were not necessarily within his existing statutory authority - some of which were struck down by courts as outside his authority.
Now with Biden doing the same thing, he is stretching it even further. I would say that most people, or at least people familiar with the law, would agree that Biden did not have the authority to waive billions of dollars in student loans. Even Nancy Pelosi says he doesn't have the authority.
It's certainly fine, even if the opposing party doesn't like it, to issue directives to executive agencies to follow certain policies and not others. The newer trend is to stretch that to cover just about any policy area, with thinner and thinner justification, rather than following a clear statute.
I mean, I guess I would say that the label "Executive Orders" as a handle for this thing seems like a description that obscures more than it illuminates because by its name and the way that it's talked about, it seems fundamentally inclined to conflate [ordering agencies to do stuff that exceeds their statutory authority] with [ordering agencies to do big important stuff], the latter of which is often clearly authorized.
I think that if people don't like particular XOs because they think that particular XO exceeds statutory authority, its probably better to say on the object level, this order was bad/wrong/lawless/a norm violation, for reasons particular to that order, rather than lumping it into a featureless aggregate. Relatedly, I see a lot of people seeming to reason:
* The president ordered X
* X seems like a big deal
* the opposition party is mad about X and making noise
***
* Therefore, X is one of these bad kind of XOs
But I notice there's no step in that process that actually engages with what the statutory authority is and compares it to what action the President ordered.
That is accurate, and I believe both sides are intentionally muddying the discussion on purpose to develop doubt in the other side's position. Obviously the side that's trying to expand executive orders to include things not allowed by statute (or not previously determined to be allowed) want those orders to be considered the same as a "normal" order that is clearly within statutory authority. Similarly, a controversial order that falls within "normal" statutory authority can be conflated with illegitimate uses of executive power for opposite but similar goals.
It is certainly not clear to me that overperformance through increased risk is an unmitigated good for shareholders/investors! Wouldn’t you get this same profile if the “good” non-bereaved managers did exactly the same thing as the bad ones plus sold some OOM puts? Do we have evidence that the bad managers are off the efficient frontier?
That Telegraph article on the BOE is from 2021...? Am I missing something here? Doesn't make it any less eyebrow-raising, after the Canada stuff earlier this year, but I wonder what's happened in the intervening 17 months.
Also, I notice I am confused: didn't you write a few years ago that most internet food delivery apps are destroyers of value, and to avoid whenever possible? From https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/02/10/minimize-use-of-standard-internet-food-delivery/ : "do not order via online services like SeamlessWeb, GrubHub, Delivery.com or Caviar, if there is another way to contact the restaurant. Period." Have they gotten better since then, or you've simply found more restaurants that cannot be contacted any other way?
-wonder if there's any viable business model where rewards do not at all rely on unfortunate "whales"; probably involves correct pricing somehow.
-feels a bit like a "don't hate the playa, hate the game" situation...even if I personally know my cashback is someone else's cash lost, that isn't convincing enough to therefore pay X% more on ~every transaction and lock out some trades entirely. A dollar here, a dollar there, and soon we're talking about a nontrivial inconvenience.
-besides the actual utility value, I wonder what % of credit card usage is (sub)consciously primarily driven by "must make credit score go up and to the right". Many other loan types exist, but lenders seem to particularly like revolving credit, or so I'm told...
1. No. Or at least, not unless there is something SUPER valuable to non-whales that drives away whales. If you don't target whales then you are offering everyone involved a worse deal because you're not getting subsidized by the whales.
2. Yeah, no one's saying you don't take advantage here, it's fine. My worry is the thing where CCs charge the seller and pay the buyer but won't let the seller alter price and thus crowd out other payments. Different issue.
3. My guess is pretty low, and what of this does exist is intentional.
I paid little attention to the story, most of what I heard was this would primarily benefit small business, as it was unfair to make small business pay for their customers credit card benefits.
So far the only company I’ve come across charging the fee back to customers is Telus, a major national telco, and pretty much the antithesis of small business.
Are these roundups a good place to point out random things that might or might not be relevant to balsa?
Here's an ACX comment talking about the risks of trying to get drugs established as veterinary treatments before going for human approval, and how the feds seem to be clamping down on people who try to get ahold of these drugs for themselves:
re: bereaved managers, obviously we need to test what happens in the opposite: when they have a child!
I have predictions, and they are not 'the exact opposite'...
I think you are likely correct!
Awesome! You should check out the prediction market Futuur, we have questions related to Elon Musk x Twitter, and much more!
Regarding executive orders, I notice I am confused. I have heard a lot of people complaining that these things are bad, violation of democratic norms, etc. I have never held this view, and I think that I and others are kinda talking past each other.
My understanding of an "executive order" is that, generally, the President sees something that he wants to do, determines which agencies have the preexisting statutory authority to do that thing, and then orders them to do it. To me, this seems fundamentally the only way that presidenting can work, because the President can't memorize the entire US code so he basically has to decide his policy goals first and then determine how they could be achieved within the existing executive authority. It thus seems to me that opposing this would be tantamount to saying that if the President wants to do something, he would need to get Congress to go pass a bill giving him the authority to do something that he already has the authority to do...? People claim that opposing executive orders is respectful of Congress vis a vis the President, but this doesn't make sense to me either. It seems to me that Congress should have the ability to choose whether it wants to pass a broad, forward-looking law or a narrow law for a specific purpose. And that the President using a broad forward-looking law for some particular instance that Congress couldn't have had in mind at the time, is in fact the entire point of Congress choosing to pass broad laws.
Obviously, I don't think that's people's real view, but can someone who opposes "executive orders" or think they are a norm violation explain what it is, exactly, that they oppose, and provide one or two examples of the thing that they oppose occuring?
I believe you are mostly right. Where this complaint first arose (to my memory) was when Obama wanted Congress to pass some laws, Congress didn't/couldn't, and he decided to go ahead and find a way to implement what he had previously said he didn't have the authority to do. I know one such issue was immigration reform, but I feel like there were several issues.
Then Trump did the same, issuing very broad executive orders that were not necessarily within his existing statutory authority - some of which were struck down by courts as outside his authority.
Now with Biden doing the same thing, he is stretching it even further. I would say that most people, or at least people familiar with the law, would agree that Biden did not have the authority to waive billions of dollars in student loans. Even Nancy Pelosi says he doesn't have the authority.
It's certainly fine, even if the opposing party doesn't like it, to issue directives to executive agencies to follow certain policies and not others. The newer trend is to stretch that to cover just about any policy area, with thinner and thinner justification, rather than following a clear statute.
I mean, I guess I would say that the label "Executive Orders" as a handle for this thing seems like a description that obscures more than it illuminates because by its name and the way that it's talked about, it seems fundamentally inclined to conflate [ordering agencies to do stuff that exceeds their statutory authority] with [ordering agencies to do big important stuff], the latter of which is often clearly authorized.
I think that if people don't like particular XOs because they think that particular XO exceeds statutory authority, its probably better to say on the object level, this order was bad/wrong/lawless/a norm violation, for reasons particular to that order, rather than lumping it into a featureless aggregate. Relatedly, I see a lot of people seeming to reason:
* The president ordered X
* X seems like a big deal
* the opposition party is mad about X and making noise
***
* Therefore, X is one of these bad kind of XOs
But I notice there's no step in that process that actually engages with what the statutory authority is and compares it to what action the President ordered.
That is accurate, and I believe both sides are intentionally muddying the discussion on purpose to develop doubt in the other side's position. Obviously the side that's trying to expand executive orders to include things not allowed by statute (or not previously determined to be allowed) want those orders to be considered the same as a "normal" order that is clearly within statutory authority. Similarly, a controversial order that falls within "normal" statutory authority can be conflated with illegitimate uses of executive power for opposite but similar goals.
It is certainly not clear to me that overperformance through increased risk is an unmitigated good for shareholders/investors! Wouldn’t you get this same profile if the “good” non-bereaved managers did exactly the same thing as the bad ones plus sold some OOM puts? Do we have evidence that the bad managers are off the efficient frontier?
That Telegraph article on the BOE is from 2021...? Am I missing something here? Doesn't make it any less eyebrow-raising, after the Canada stuff earlier this year, but I wonder what's happened in the intervening 17 months.
Also, I notice I am confused: didn't you write a few years ago that most internet food delivery apps are destroyers of value, and to avoid whenever possible? From https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/02/10/minimize-use-of-standard-internet-food-delivery/ : "do not order via online services like SeamlessWeb, GrubHub, Delivery.com or Caviar, if there is another way to contact the restaurant. Period." Have they gotten better since then, or you've simply found more restaurants that cannot be contacted any other way?
On credit cards:
-wonder if there's any viable business model where rewards do not at all rely on unfortunate "whales"; probably involves correct pricing somehow.
-feels a bit like a "don't hate the playa, hate the game" situation...even if I personally know my cashback is someone else's cash lost, that isn't convincing enough to therefore pay X% more on ~every transaction and lock out some trades entirely. A dollar here, a dollar there, and soon we're talking about a nontrivial inconvenience.
-besides the actual utility value, I wonder what % of credit card usage is (sub)consciously primarily driven by "must make credit score go up and to the right". Many other loan types exist, but lenders seem to particularly like revolving credit, or so I'm told...
1. No. Or at least, not unless there is something SUPER valuable to non-whales that drives away whales. If you don't target whales then you are offering everyone involved a worse deal because you're not getting subsidized by the whales.
2. Yeah, no one's saying you don't take advantage here, it's fine. My worry is the thing where CCs charge the seller and pay the buyer but won't let the seller alter price and thus crowd out other payments. Different issue.
3. My guess is pretty low, and what of this does exist is intentional.
You may be interested that Canada recently enabled merchants to add the merchant fees to their prices when a credit card is used to pay.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/credit-card-surcharge-change-comes-into-effect-for-canadian-businesses-1.6098550
I paid little attention to the story, most of what I heard was this would primarily benefit small business, as it was unfair to make small business pay for their customers credit card benefits.
So far the only company I’ve come across charging the fee back to customers is Telus, a major national telco, and pretty much the antithesis of small business.
Are these roundups a good place to point out random things that might or might not be relevant to balsa?
Here's an ACX comment talking about the risks of trying to get drugs established as veterinary treatments before going for human approval, and how the feds seem to be clamping down on people who try to get ahold of these drugs for themselves:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/acx-grants-project-updates/comment/10276077
Yep! For this particular one it would go Covid post because it's medical, but either way. Thanks.