Gene Epstein, who hosted the Soho Forum debate between Justin Wolfers and me, sent Justin and me the voting results this afternoon. Recall that the debate resolution read: The US economy should be liberated from the governments’ lockdowns right away.
I defended the resolution; Justin opposed.
Here are the results:
That was a bigger win than I had expected. I thought Justin would gain from the undecideds but he didn’t.
I wrote Justin and Gene the following:
Dear Gene and Justin,
Wow! Of course, that’s not ultimately how I judge a debate. I thought I won on points and not on KO, but I thought it would be closer than that.Thanks.Best,David
Justin wrote back (and gave me permission to quote him):
David:
It’s a great win, and I’m more than happy to concede to the better debater.Congratulations!As I said at the start of the debate — at some point in time even I will concede that we need to re-open the economy. It appears that our audience was convinced that point might be earlier than I had been willing to concede.You were, of course, a terrific and kind debate partner, and having admired your work for years, it was fun to finally meet. So at the end of this, I feel like I lost a debate, but made a friend, and I’m pretty happy with that tradeoff.Warmly,Justin
Dear Justin,
Thanks. You’re so gracious.I did even better because I both won the debate and gained a friend. 🙂Best,David
READER COMMENTS
KevinDC
Apr 28 2020 at 9:56pm
Congratulations on your performance David!
Of note, the fact that you had more support for your side of the issue actually makes your win even more impressive. Robin Hanson once recalled that in debate formats like Intelligence Squared and others where victory is determined by shifting the most votes, the side with less support at the start usually has the advantage. The reason is if you’re defending a proposition that’s not widely held, the odds are good you’ll have some arguments which will be novel to the audience and makes you seem more persuasive. The person defending the conventional wisdom, however, is unlikely to have anything novel to say and will seem less convincing as a result. So, extra kudos to you for that!
David Henderson
Apr 28 2020 at 10:44pm
Thanks, Kevin.
Yes, I said to a friend beforehand that if I started 2 to 1 and he shifted 6% of my votes and I shifted 8% of his, he would win.
Daniel Klein
Apr 29 2020 at 2:26am
Congrats to you David and to Justin Wolfers. The debate was extremely instructive. Thanks to you both.
Dylan
Apr 29 2020 at 8:14am
Congrats David on the win. I had to leave before there was mention of voting, but I think I’ve shifted from being mostly in Justin’s camp to undecided, so congrats on that as well.
I would like to get your thoughts on a Chicago poll of economists that shows 80% agree with the statement that “Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk.”
Since I don’t think either you or Justin really engaged with the idea that lockdowns will lead to lesser economic damage than no lockdowns.
John Alcorn
Apr 29 2020 at 9:03am
Dylan,
You directed your question to David Henderson. May I jump in with a pointer? See a new, non-technical overview by U. of Chicago economists, Casey Mulligan, Kevin Murphy, and Robert Topel, “Some basic economics of Covid-19 policy: A look at the trade-offs we face in regulating behavior during the pandemic.”
The authors explain that lockdowns have vastly greater fixed costs than (a) a regime of smart, targeted testing or (b) measures to isolate vulnerable populations (eldercare facilities and persons with medical conditions that place them at risk). Therefore, lockdowns make sense only if (1) prevalence of infection already is high or (2) the polity lacks a smart testing regime and measures to protect the most vulnerable.
Polities that lag in smart testing and in shielding the most vulnerable demographics are courting two successive waves of lockdown; one when prevalence is low, another when the pandemic spreads more broadly.
John Alcorn
Apr 29 2020 at 9:11am
I should clarify:
The authors argue that lockdown can be efficient when prevalence of infection is high, if the case load substantially exceeds hospital capacity or if unchecked rapid spread would increase prevalence far beyond the threshold of herd immunity.
Dylan
Apr 29 2020 at 11:59am
Thanks John. I’m about halfway through the piece, and it has been a useful and interesting read so far. Got work to do for the next few hours, so probably won’t get back to in until tonight to get to their conclusions, but wanted to say thanks for the link while I was thinking about it.
John Alcorn
Apr 29 2020 at 9:47am
Another pointer:
See Bryan Caplan’s latest EconLog blogpost, “State Priorities, not State ‘Capacity’.” Polities that prioritize (a) smart testing, (b) shielding eldercare facilities and protecting at-risk persons, and/or (c) excellent public-health communication and medical readiness then can rely on voluntary social distancing instead of broad lockdowns.
Sweden has (c), and is prioritizing improvement in (a) and (b).
David Seltzer
Apr 29 2020 at 4:56pm
Congrats to both. Politicians, if only, could learn from both of you. Courteous and done without personal rancor. Well done sir!
Matthias Görgens
May 5 2020 at 12:15am
Alas, politicans ain’t stupid or evil. They just have different incentives.
Comments are closed.