Policy Punchline

Given the tragic incident of the killing of George Floyd and the subsequent protests, it’s probably the right time to talk about protests. What are the effective ways to protest? How have the shape and form of protests transformed throughout the past decades as black people fought for their rights? And certainly, how justified is violence or how effective is non-violence in protests?

Unfortunately, some of the protests recently have contained violence and looting, and President Trump even threatened to deploy troops on the protestors, further escalating the tension. Many have accused the protestors for not doing it “right,” but is there a right way to do it? It’s really not as if when black people protested in nonviolent ways, such as kneeling during the NFL anthem, they were embraced with open arms by those in power! So, are people simply hiding behind the attacks on the “means,” when what they truly oppose is the argument itself that BLM? Whether violent or not, how should we think about the role of suffering and the dramatization of suffering throughout the history of protest movements? In today's age, how has social media and the rise of technology transformed the way the public perceives pain and injustice? Does the near unanimity of outrage and activism in the aftermath of George Floyd's killing hint that this is finally the moment for fundamental changes to actually happen in our criminal justice system and beyond?

Policy Punchline is not partisan, but we believe that Black Lives Matter and that there are important, constructive dialogues to be had at the moment. We sincerely hope to play a small role in that by bringing you this conversation with Princeton professor Omar Wasow, one of the most renowned scholars today studying issues related to protest movements, race, and politics.

Omar Wasow is an Assistant Professor in Princeton’s Department of Politics. His research focuses on race and politics, protest movements and statistical methods. Before joining the academy, Omar served as a regular on-air technology analyst and was the co-founder of BlackPlanet.com, a social network he helped grow to over three million active users. In 2003, he helped found a high performing K-8 charter school in Brooklyn. He is a Henry Crown Fellow at the Aspen Institute. He received a PhD from Harvard University and a BA from Stanford University.

When we interviewed the famous and controversial Princeton ethics philosopher Peter Singer, he brought up an interesting study by economist Paul Frijters that claims the current set of economic lockdowns are causing 70 times more life years lost than Covid-19 otherwise would had we done nothing. It was surprising to hear such a perspective, since there has been almost unanimous consensus amongst the economics community that the lockdowns are the preferred policy prescription – how did Paul Frijters arrive at this calculation? How justified is his view? And what are the moral-ethical implications of the current measures and his alternative proposals? We reached out, and Prof. Frijters kindly agreed to have this brutally honest conversation with us.

Prof. Frijters has written a series of controversial blog posts on https://clubtroppo.com.au/, topics ranging from how politicians were forced into “crowd-think” and made the unscientific decision of economic lockdown, to why quickly giving everyone Covid to build up herd immunity would be the wisest policy right now. In this interview, we dive deep into those moral-ethical debates and discuss how sensible policy measures can arise out of scientifically rigorous economic thinking. This is one of the most fascinating interviews that Tiger has conducted, and Prof. Frijters’s diagnosis for the current academic environment and social discourse will surely stimulate you in unexpected ways.

Prof. Frijters is currently a Professor in Wellbeing Economics at the LSE. He specializes in applied micro-econometrics, including labor, happiness, and health economics, including measurement and how we all can help the wellbeing of others. He is particularly active with models of cost-effectiveness and how wellbeing can become the driving focus of the nation state bureaucracy.

There has been so much hype about contact tracing technology and how it will be the key to reopening the country. Google and Apple, for example, are building a system to track contact between people who might spread the disease. The idea is simple: since Bluetooth is constantly scanning for other devices, your phone can use wireless signals to see who you’ve been near. Somebody who gets a positive diagnosis can tell the app, which will inform everyone else who has been in proximity to alert them about risks of possible transmission.

So basically, by using Bluetooth technology, our phones can exchange information on who you’ve been in contact with, and if you’ve been in the proximity of someone with Covid, your phone can alert you. This theoretically does away people’s worry about mass surveillance because no location or personal data are actually being recorded by the contact-tracing app – only bluetooth signals. But can this app live up to its promises?

One study suggests that if contact tracers successfully detected 90% of symptomatic cases and reached 90% of their contacts it could reduce transmissions by more than 45%. But this will be difficult in regions still grappling with lots of new infections. Also, if not everyone in a given community uses the app, the efficacy will be significantly reduced. False positives and false negatives will also be significant challenges, and if the app falsely notifies people of their status, it could let the public lose faith in the technology and trust in public health officials.

This interview is an excerpt from our last interview with Mr. Bruce Schneier – public-interest technologist and author of "Click Here to Kill Everybody" – and he explains why contact tracing technology is "dumb" and why we would need to resort to the old-fashioned testing and tracing if we were to go back to normal.

Bruce Schneier is a public-interest technologist and the author of over one dozen books – including his latest, "Click Here to Kill Everybody." He has also written hundreds of articles, essays, and academic papers. His influential newsletter "Crypto-Gram" and his blog "Schneier on Security" are read by over 250,000 people. He is a fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School; a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, AccessNow, and the Tor Project.

Bruce Schneier is a public-interest technologist, and his latest book "Click Here to Kill Everybody" seeks to explore risk and security questions in today's hyper-connected world with smart thermostats, "Internet of Things" home devices, self-driving cars, and other "mini computers" that are easily hackable and pose grave security threats.

In this interview, Mr. Schneier explains why tech today is fundamentally different as it’s no longer the same mechanical or electromechanical device but rather all hackable computers; why the "surveillance capitalism" business model of big tech companies in fact encourages security flaws; how open source and decentralization technology can go a long way helping address the issues; and his vision for a secure “Internet+” future and some of the sensible and realistic policies that we can implement...

We also touch on the current COVID-19 crisis and the contact tracing technology that is gaining increasing attention. Mr. Schneier calls it a "dumb idea" and explains why between false positives and our current lack of testing capacity, contact tracing technology does little to address the real issue. A brilliant contrarian, Mr. Schneier provides convincing arguments for antitrust measures against unethical tech business models and harsh critiques on the tech policymaking environment today.

In addition to over a dozen of published books, Mr. Schneier has also written hundreds of articles, essays, and academic papers. His influential newsletter "Crypto-Gram" and his blog "Schneier on Security" are read by over 250,000 people. He is a fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School; a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, AccessNow, and the Tor Project.

Many studies have come out suggesting a disproportionate burden of illness and death among racial and ethnic minority groups during this Covid-19 crisis. And certainly one cannot attribute this phenomenon simply to the virus itself, but much due to the underlying structural fractures of the American society in its treatment of racial and ethnic minorities for years and decades.

In this interview, Dr. Ellora Derenoncourt of UC Berkley and Princeton provides a detailed historical analysis on racial and economic inequality since the days of the Great Migration and discusses possible post-Covid policy measures to address those critical concerns. Her fascinating research on the Great Migration shows that the beautiful idea of "moving to opportunity" for black families no longer holds true, as the Great Migration cities have typically responded to the influx of black migrants with increasing segregation and spending on policing. The dynamic response from local residents and governments paint a gloomy picture on whether migration can actually lead to better outcomes for black households.

We also dive deep into another strand of her research – the effect of federal minimum wage on the black-white earnings gap. Because many minorities work retail jobs, the increase in minimum wage might simply encourage employers to adopt automation and replace the workers. Therefore, the adoption of minimum wage may further incentivize companies to automate away jobs and increase the racial earnings gap.

Lastly, Ellora talks about how WWII is analogous to our current crisis, as consumer production was also slowed to benefit the war effort then, similar to the current economic freeze. What policy prescriptions should we yield from this analysis? Is it safe to expect a post-pandemic boom similar to that of the postwar era? Is this analogy complicated by the fact that there is no war effort toward which we are redirecting economic output that could serve to stimulate the economy? We discuss how the government can incorporate racial and social considerations when enacting fiscal policies and the wider impacts of our decisions today on inequality.

Ellora Derenoncourt is an incoming assistant professor in the Department of Economics and the Goldman School of Public Policy at University of California, Berkeley. Her research interests lie in labor economics, economic history, and inequality.

What can we learn about all the misinformation about Covid-19? Are they mostly incorrect but uncorrelated health tips, or are there specific narratives behind those misinformation that seek to lay groundwork for the post-pandemic public discourse? Are they simply "fake news" spread around by well-meaning citizens, or perpetrated by state actors and organizations?...

In this episode, Prof. Jacob Shapiro, Director of the Empirical Studies of Conflict Project, discusses what his team and Microsoft have been learning about all the Covid-19 related fake news on the Internet. Meanwhile, in a recent op-ed titled "Coronavirus: Don't forget about the poor kids," Prof. Shapiro addresses some of the most urgent education policy questions during the pandemic, the debates around fairness of digital learning, and how we need to focus on the real problems in this crisis and look ahead for groundbreaking policy solutions.

We also touch on topics from bioterrorism (how unlikely it is to design Covid in a lab) to impacts of the economic shutdown on developing nations (how Pakistan's agricultural harvest will soon suffer). It is a conversation that spans multiple disciplines and dimensions, but all for the purpose of shedding light on some truly brilliant ideas that you probably didn't think of before!

Jacob N. Shapiro is Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and directs the Empirical Studies of Conflict Project, a multi-university consortium that compiles and analyzes micro-level data on politically motivated violence in countries around the world. His research covers conflict, economic development, and security policy. He is author of "The Terrorist’s Dilemma: Managing Violent Covert Organizations" and co-author of "Small Wars, Big Data: The Information Revolution in Modern Conflict." His research has been published in broad range of academic and policy journals as well as a number of edited volumes. He has conducted field research and large-scale policy evaluations in Afghanistan, Colombia, India, and Pakistan.

"Jim Simons is the greatest money maker in modern financial history." Since 1988, Renaissance Technologies' flagship Medallion hedge fund founded by Simons has generated average annual returns of 66 percent, racking up trading profits of more than $100 billion. No one in the investment world comes close. Warren Buf­fett, George Soros, Peter Lynch, Steve Cohen, and Ray Dalio all fall short of Simons.

How did Jim Simons achieve this feat? Was it that easy for a math researcher at Princeton turned professor at Stony Brook to eventually become a legendary quant investor? In recently published bestseller "The Man Who Solved the Market," WSJ special writer Gregory Zuckerman documented how Simons launched the quant investing revolution, his personal and academic struggles along the way, why it's hard to "beat the market" and even harder to gain insights on the secretive quant hedge fund world.

In this interview with Mr. Zuckerman, we ask him how the rise of quant trading impacts the finance world, whether algorithm-driven trading adds volatility to the markets, whether traditional value investing would eventually be rendered obsolete or inferior, the social impact of quant investing and the ultimate vision of traders like Simons. We also discuss Mr. Zuckerman's investigative writing process as he gained unparalleled access to Simons and the former and current employees of RenTech and other quant finance firms. At the end of the interview, Tiger and Princeton math major Michael Psenka goes in detail explaining the mechanism of quant trading and the meaning of complex terms such as "random walk," "Brownian motion," and "stochastic calculus..."

Gregory Zuckerman is the author of "The Greatest Trade Ever" and "The Frackers," and is a Special Writer at the Wall Street Journal. At the Journal, Zuckerman writes about financial firms, personalities and trades, as well as hedge funds and other investing and business topics. He's a three-time winner of the Gerald Loeb award, the highest honor in business journalism. Zuckerman also appears regularly on CNBC, Fox Business and other networks and radio stations around the globe.

Keith E. Whittington is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University. He is the author of several important books on constitutional theory, including "Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court," and "Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History." He has published widely on American constitutional theory and development, federalism, judicial politics, and the presidency.

Prof. Whittington argued in a recent op-ed titled “Can You Be a Libertarian in a Pandemic” that there are aspects of Libertarianism that are still valid even during a pandemic. In this interview, Prof. Whittington discusses the meaning and implications of Libertarianism in the Covid context; why more autonomy should be given to states, communities, and even individuals in deciding the appropriate response; whether we will see an inevitable expansion of government power after Covid; whether the Libertarian ethos might actually make it structurally, organizationally, and philosophically unprepared for crises such as this; and his pessimism for the future of our political environment...

Alp Basaran is a Congressional candidate for the NJ-09 district. If elected, he would be the 5th Muslim American, 3rd formerly undocumented, and 1st Turkish American Congressman in U.S. history. In this episodes, Alp discusses his values and main policy proposals – universal healthcare, free education, immigration amnesty, and fair economy for all. Why does he believe that those would be the most needed solutions to the current set of societal problems? How does he justify the potential economic costs of his plans? And how would he build the political coalition to back those progressive policies?

Alp and Tiger go deep in discussing contemporary politics and the rise of progressive Democrats in recent years. Why did Bernie fail to inspire "millions of young voters" to turn out for him, and why did Warren fail to unite the centrist and progressive Democrats as promised? How can progressive Democrats bring forth sensible policies and make legislation happen in reality, rather than merely contributing to the shift of the overtone window of political discourse? How should progressive Democrats treat and seek to convince the majority of the voters who disagree with them?

Lastly, Alp also gives a frontline view on what it's like to run a campaign during the Covid-19 pandemic. Are Zoom town-halls effective? How can political candidates think of new ways to connect with voters?

To learn more about Alp's campaign, you may visit https://alpbasaran.com/.

Arthur Caplan is founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU School of Medicine. He is a pioneer in designing public health policies, from founding the National Marrow Donor Program to creating the U.S. system of organ donation and distribution. Dr. Caplan has been busily advising public health officials on the Covid-19 crisis and educating the public through media outlets like the Time Magazine, NYTimes, the Atlantic, etc. He kindly took some time off of his busy schedule to talk to us about the situation on the frontline of Covid care – how doctors are rationing medical resources and making difficult ethical decisions for life and death.

What is the situation like on the frontline right now? Are doctors frequently forced to make triage decisions, or is reality not as bad as the philosophical debate?

Given the scarcity of resources, what should the specific standards be when choosing whom to give care? Should people with chronic conditions, mental illnesses, criminal records, and fatal diseases have the same opportunity to be considered for treatment?

Should there be an ethicist on staff or a rules-based algorithm that can help doctors make decisions? Or does the burden necessarily have to fall on the practitioners (doctors)?

How will this crisis cause more permanent alterations in medical practice? Though triaging and rationing have always existed in situations like organ donation, we’re in a unique situation today that even medical workers now have to face rationing with their equipment. What fundamental lessons should the medical community take away from this crisis?

Are there any promising drugs, treatments, or vaccines on the horizon? Why is it crucial to follow through the necessary trials before releasing anything to the public?

How can we get back to normal? Is testing is only and most important way forward both from a public policy and medical standpoint?

And many other fascinating insights from Dr. Caplan…

We sincerely thank Dr. Caplan and all the medical workers on the frontline for working tirelessly for the well-being of our communities. This interview is part of Policy Punchline’s ongoing coverage of the Covid-19 crisis. We’re updating 2-3 episodes per week, bringing you the most frontier ideas on the crisis, and you may find our other episodes on policypunchline.com/covid19.

You may learn more about Dr. Caplan’s work through his Twitter @ArthurCaplan or his website: https://med.nyu.edu/faculty/arthur-l-caplan.

Here are some of Dr. Caplan recent writings:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/928537

https://time.com/5819831/coronavirus-testing-back-to-work/

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/social-distance-ration-doctors-care/609229/