Are Processed Food and Environmental Contaminants the Main Cause of the Rise of Obesity?

Josh Hausman pointed me to a fascinating series on the slimemoldtimemold.com blog on explanations for the rise of obesity. The overall title for the series is “A Chemical Hunger.” In this post here, I’ll react to the first three slimemoldtimemold.com posts in the “A Chemical Hunger” series.

I hope you’ll read the slimemoldtimemold.com posts themselves, but let me summarize them to set up my reactions.

The 1st post presents a series of mysteries about the rise in obesity. In brief:

  1. We are a lot fatter than people in the 1890s, but its unclear our diet and exercise are all that much different.

  2. The rise in obesity accelerated from 1980 on, but many of the proposed causes slowed down after 1980 or went in reverse after 1980.

  3. Obesity keeps going up and up and up with no sign of a pause.

  4. As far as carbs, fat and protein, or good and bad carbs, fat and protein go, almost any supposedly bad diet has some group of hunter-gatherers going to the extreme on it. But these hunter-gatherers don’t get fat while living in a traditional way.

  5. Lab animals and while animals are getting fatter, not just humans.

  6. Highly processed food makes lab animals fat in a way that can’t be accounted for by its carbs, fat and protein content or by its caloric content.

  7. People at high altitudes have lower rates of obesity.

  8. There are many, many different ways of dieting. None of the many things that people commonly try are very successful at helping people lose weight.

The 2d post in the “A Chemical Hunger” series argues against several common theories.

  • Calories In/Calories out is not very helpful; it seems clear there is some regulatory mechanism that makes the effective amount of calories in and calories out very different from what one might think based on one’s conscious choices. Eating huge amounts leads to surprisingly little weight gain. Exercising a lot leads to surprisingly little weight loss.

  • Fat never had much affect on obesity. And sugar consumption by some measures has been declining since 2000 with little apparent effect in slowing the rise of obesity.

  • No special diet by itself seems to lead to all that much weight loss compared to the overall increase in obesity that has taken place. And the modest effects that are seen from some special diets often reverse themselves within a year.

The 3d post advances a theory of chemical contamination—both in the environment and within highly processed foods. I’ll summarize the argument. To begin with, we know medication can have big effects on weight. So the idea that chemicals could be part of the explanation is plausible. (By the way, I wrote about insulin-related medications having that kind of effect in “Evidence that High Insulin Levels Lead to Weight Gain.” But that isn’t the only kind of medication or other chemical that can cause weight gain or loss.) Then the heart of the argument is that chemical contaminants can explain the mysteries laid out in the first post:

  1. There are a lot of chemical contaminants now that weren’t there in 1890 or before.

  2. It is quite possible that some chemicals in the environment or in highly-processed foods have become much more prevalent since 1980.

  3. Short of a big outcry about some chemical, it could easily be getting worse as each year passes in the 2020s.

  4. Hunter-gatherers, whatever they eat—as long as it isn’t highly-processed modern food—are far away from the worst sources of chemical contaminants.

  5. Wild animals and lab animals are exposed to environmental chemical contaminants.

  6. Some lab animals are fed highly-processed foods.

  7. Environmental contaminants would get washed downstream, so that they would hit people lower down in watersheds more. This could help explain why people at high altitudes have less obesity.

  8. Most diets don’t cut out all highly-processed food. And even people on a whole-food diet are exposed to environmental contaminants.

One important mechanism through which environmental contaminants and chemicals in highly-processed food might affect obesity is by disturbing the balance of bacteria in the gut. Because we are only barely beginning to understand the effects of the gut microbiome, it is hard to rule anything out in this regard, and many things are plausible, if unproven. But some environmental and food-additive contaminants may have more direct effects. (Here I include as “food additives” things that are “natural” but put in with much different proportions than in typical whole foods and turn out to be deleterious.)

Reactions:

I have often point out in my diet and health posts that (as highly-processed food is currently formulated), going off sugar requires going off almost all highly-processed food as well. That is one way in which going off sugar is different from just reducing the amount of sugar one consumes. Reducing sugar can easily happen by substituting into highly-processed foods with less sugar but with other bad stuff.

To the extent that highly-processed food leads to more obesity by being especially tasty (“palatable”), as an empirical fact, getting that tastiness usually involves adding sugar (or one of the worse nonsugar sweeteners—see “Which Nonsugar Sweeteners are OK? An Insulin-Index Perspective”). So going off sugar also greatly reduces the danger of eating too much because of addictive tastiness if that is your theory of the rise in obesity, following Stephen Guyenet (who is often quoted in “A Chemical Hunger” posts).

“slimemoldtimemold” persuades me that it is hard to explain the facts of obesity without some important contribution from bad chemicals in the environment and in highly processed food. Wild animals getting fatter and the correlation of obesity with altitude are some of the most telling arguments on that score.

Many of the other arguments are in the vein of saying “There isn’t any other explanation, so it must be chemicals.” I definitely think that is part of the explanation. But there is another factor that could potentially explain the facts: changes in the timing of eating.

When I was a kid in the 1960’s, we weren’t allowed to snack much. Most of the eating was confined to three meals a day. Later on in my life, I heard like most other people about a claim that spreading one’s food out throughout the day would help you lose weight. I think the evidence for this was always weak, and not relevant to what people actually did: add in snacks throughout the day without holding the total amount of food constant at all. As an illustrative calculation, if breakfast starts at 7:30 AM and dinner ends at 6:30 PM, that is an 11-hour eating window. On the other hand, if you sleep 8 hours and eat right after waking and right before going to bed, that is a 16-hour eating window—a big increase.

At this point, I don’t know of any easy data set on changes in the timing of eating. That means there is an important factor in obesity—eating all the time instead of in a short eating window—that we don’t have a good handle on historically. It is plausible that the length of the eating window has gone up over time. It is also possible that it went up a lot since 1980. But we don’t know. It would be great for someone to figure out a creative way to get some data on this. For example, detailed-enough time-diary data might help. Time-use scientists may not have focused the attention of the survey respondents on whether they were eating or not during an activity as much as would be good, but it might be possible to learn something. Until reading these “A Chemical Hunger” posts, I have thought mostly in terms of trying to identify changes in the timing of eating from 1890 or so to now, but it looks like changes in the timing of eating since 1980 are especially important for thinking about the rise in obesity in the last 30 years. And that is a period when some time-diary data exist.

(For all of the hunter-gatherers but the Kitavans, regardless of the daily eating window, there are likely to be periods of the year, or random moments with very little food. That enforced fasting could have a big effect on chronic diseases and weight.)

Suppose for a moment, though, that all of the observed rise in obesity is due to chemicals. Avoiding highly-processed food is the obvious first step to avoid part of that. Supporting research on chemicals that could affect obesity is also an obvious things to do. You could even think of moving to Colorado, as, fortuitously, my wife and I did, to take advantage of the altitude effect. But for most of you, all of those things put together aren’t going to get you to a good weight any time soon. Fortunately, a cure doesn’t always have to come through undoing the original cause. It is also possible to simply counteract one force with another force. To repeat what I have said many times in my diet and health posts, fasting (eating nothing, while drinking water) is a surefire way to lose weight. Enough fasting and you can counteract the upward pull of environmental chemicals you can’t fully avoid. And fasting is much easier when you are eating low on the insulin index when you are eating. (See “Forget Calorie Counting; It's the Insulin Index, Stupid.”) Making fasting easier or harder is the most important way that what you eat matters. I think I have been consistent in saying that the direct effects of what you eat on your weight are modest, if you don’t bring fasting into the mix.

I want to learn much more on the effects of environmental chemicals and chemicals in highly-processed food on obesity. Please put relevant links in the comments or tweet them to me. I think the rest of the “A Chemical Hunger” series goes there. I’ll blog about what I learn.

I have often thought that the area of diet and health and of understanding obesity is an area where a billion dollars from a philanthropist could finance research that could improve social welfare by the equivalent of a trillion dollars. That trillion dollars isn’t at all easy to monetize without facing temptations that, succumbed to, might destroy any possibility of doing that kind of good, but if approached philanthropically, big improvements in people’s lives are available from figuring out how to use improvements in when and what we eat and in our chemical environment to prevent a substantial fraction of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and other diseases.

The 21st-Century Malaise of Males

While attention has been focused on the dominance of high-end males in our society, low-end males have have been falling behind. Let me quote a few statistics from Douglas Belkin’s September 6, 2021 Wall Street Journal article “A Generation of American Men Give Up on College” (bullets added to separate passages):

  • At the close of the 2020-21 academic year, women made up 59.5% of college students, an all-time high, and men 40.5%, according to enrollment data from the National Student Clearinghouse, a nonprofit research group.

  • After six years of college, 65% of women in the U.S. who started a four-year university in 2012 received diplomas by 2018 compared with 59% of men during the same period, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

  • In the next few years, two women will earn a college degree for every man, if the trend continues, said Douglas Shapiro, executive director of the research center at the National Student Clearinghouse.

  • Women increased their lead over men in college applications for the 2021-22 school year—3,805,978 to 2,815,810—by nearly a percentage point compared with the previous academic year, according to Common Application, a nonprofit that transmits applications to more than 900 schools.

Part of this tilt of men away from college may be that higher education has gone off the rails in important ways, especially in serving young men. On that, see “False Advertising for College is Pretty Much the Norm” and “The Coming Transformation of Education: Degrees Won’t Matter Anymore, Skills Will.

Part of the trouble may be that straightforward ways of helping young men are not being taken. Douglas Belkin writes in ““A Generation of American Men Give Up on College”:

No college wants to tackle the issue under the glare of gender politics, said Ms. Delahunty, the enrollment consultant. The conventional view on campuses, she said, is that “men make more money, men hold higher positions, why should we give them a little shove from high school to college?”

I find this an unfortunate attitude. I tweeted this reaction:

But I consider men’s tilt away from college as a symptom of something bigger. As a society, we are failing in our raising of something like a third of our young men. Jordan Peterson reports that when he gives a talk telling young men that life is tough but that by effort they can make their lives better, they are often grateful, saying they hadn’t heard that message before. How could we be failing to get that message across to all of our young men!

It is true that when looking at others, one should be very much aware of how luck, including the accident of what family was born into, affects their lives. But it doesn’t do much good to dwell on the accident of what family one was born into and other dimensions of luck in one’s own life! Everyone, everyone, needs to be taught that effort can better their situation in life.

Noah Smith and I addressed this principle in relation to math in “There's One Key Difference Between Kids Who Excel at Math and Those Who Don't.” (I followed that up with “How to Turn Every Child into a 'Math Person'.”) But the principle is much more general: effort has a major influence on performance.

Awareness of the difficulties others operate under and this principle of personal responsibility can coexist. Throwing out the principle of personal responsibility for fear it will interfere with an awareness of the difficulties others operate under is a terrible mistake. We need to help others and we each need to help ourselves.

It is a pity when basic principles such as personal responsibility get enmeshed in politics in a way that causes them to be intentionally neglected. Perhaps a key to rehabilitating the principle of personal responsibility politically is to realize that it should never be used to scold others or blame others but only to help others diagnose how they are messing up their own lives.

We debate on the margins about exactly how strong the incentives should be for people to get their lives together instead of messing them up. But everything within the scope of the current political debate would still leave someone miserable if they don’t take responsibility for their own life and much better off if they do take responsibility. After all, on top of the after-tax-and-transfer economic consequences of managing one’s life better or worse, there are the dating and relationship consequences of how well one manages one’s life and one’s character. And letting oneself be drawn into pathologies such as drug addiction (legal or illegal) can lead to deep misery. It is doing young people a grave disservice if we downplay the difference they can make by means of effort in bettering life and character.

The time has come to begin worrying more about young men. They are in trouble. This doesn’t have to take away from efforts to help women. At a moment of crisis like this, we can do what it takes to help both men and women with the somewhat distinct issues they face.

Don’t Miss These Posts Related to Positive Mental Health and Maintaining One’s Moral Compass:

Life Lessons from Math: Sequencing and Pacing Projects—Joseph Kimball and Miles Kimball

Joseph Kimball

Joseph Kimball

In the last year I have written 3 blog posts on one theme:

I was motivated just as much by the practical lessons I was learning myself as by the usual blogging motivation of communicating a cool idea. Projects that only really start having a payoff flow after they are completed are very common, so it matters.

Here is what I feel I learned from writing those 3 posts:

  • Projects that only start paying off when they are completed should be done at a relatively quick pace, only reined in when the speed with which cost increases with the pace becomes relatively high (technically, that means pushing up the pace until the elasticity of flow cost with respect to pace becomes substantial).

  • If there are several projects of this type to be pursued in sequence, the pace of the projects sequenced first should be even faster, since a lot is waiting on them.

  • Unless you have a special justification to do otherwise, focus on only one project of this type at a time. One project that is done pays off better than many half-finished projects!

  • For the most part, start with the project that has the greatest flow benefit relative to its size.

  • When two projects have similar ratios of flow benefit to size, start with the one that has the greater flow benefit. (For somewhat subtle mathematical reasons, the ability to adjust one’s pace from one project to the next makes the size somewhat less important.)

My brother Joseph found these three blog posts intriguing. With his permission, let me share what he wrote about the life lessons he drew from these 3 posts. Below are Joseph’s words:

Executive summary: Do one project at a time in your set of projects, do that one as fast as you can, and choose that first project as the one which has the biggest benefit to size-of-job ratio and the biggest benefit to time-to-complete ratio.

In Miles’s post How Fast Should a Project Be Completed? where the project won’t give benefits until it’s complete, the conclusion was to complete the project quickly (as fast as possible without getting excessive).  His assumption about learning languages is that he’ll need to learn quite a bit (about 10,000 words in addition to a reasonable grasp of the grammar) to have functional comprehension for reading (with conversational ability as a nice but not necessary bonus if that happens too).

The math in that post boils down to saying that as long as the cost of doing the project at a particular speed plus the cost of delaying the completion of the project is greater than the cost of doing the project at that speed, then there’s space (elasticity) to do the project faster.  At some point the cost of doing the project faster may become unrealistic, even if you haven’t hit the limit of the equation.  But the greater the cost of delay for finishing the project, the greater the speed to finish should be.

If you’re doing a project that has numbers attached, such as construction (where there are monetary costs for all the pieces, additional costs for speeding up individual pieces, and contract costs for going beyond a specific deadline), it can be fairly straightforward (in the theoretical sense) to plug in the numbers to Miles’ equations and come up with actual numbers for how fast is optimal for that project.  If your project is amorphous, such as learning a language, the equations are still relevant, but become fuzzier and more subjective.  But even with fuzzy and subjective numbers the conclusion is to do the project as quickly as your circumstances allow.

In the Scrum method of project management [which originated as an element of Agile software development], the team does “sprints” to complete specific tasks towards a larger project.  Part of that idea is to have a quick turnaround of a specific small chunk of the project that can be completed, slotted into the larger project, and celebrated.  Then the team moves to the next sprint.

In Miles’s post “Sequencing of Projects,” the conclusion was to complete the first project in the sequence as quickly as possible, so the whole sequence gets done more quickly.  This is true regardless of the order you do the projects in but is even more powerful if you can find the optimal order. 

The graph at the beginning of the post [also shown just above] shows the benefits of the project sequence on the y axis (up), and the time it takes to complete the project sequence on the x axis (right).The curve goes to a limit of infinity at each axis showing the extremes that are mathematically possible (though unrealistic).  Each project has a benefit from completing it and a time it takes to complete.  You can compute the cost of any project as the rectangle defined by its benefit and the time it takes.  If you can shorten the time it takes, the benefit will increase from completing the project.

Shortening a project will increase the cost to complete it, and the limit of the function goes to infinity.  Since we are mortal infinite effort is beyond us, so there’s a limit on how much effort we can put into any project.  This is particularly true if this isn’t the only project we have going on (which is very normal for us mortals).

Looking at the other arm of the limit, we could theoretically get the same amount of benefit by pushing the time to complete the project toward infinity.  However, since we’re mortal there’s a hard limit on how far we can realistically push a project toward this arm.  Again, since this is likely not the only project in our life, we need to be cognizant of fitting the other projects into our mortal timeline.  There are a number of “projects” that would fit toward this arm of the project graph though such as: daily or periodic health and safety (brushing teeth, yearly physical, putting on your seat belt, checking tire pressure in your vehicle, etc.); keeping a daily journal/diary; periodic check-ins with your support group (significant other, family, friends, etc.).  These types of project are never really “completed” but only terminated at the end of our mortal life.  This sort of “never completed” project is beyond the scope of what Miles was contemplating in his article but does follow from examining the graph. 

I think Miles’s idea that learning a language is kind of all-or-nothing is not a good one.  An all-or-nothing project would be more like constructing a building, where you can’t occupy the building until the city inspector has signed off on it.  Thus, the building is useless at 99% complete.  Language learning seems to me to be more of an elongated S graph with utility on the y axis and vocabulary on the x axis (ignoring grammar in this example).  So you get very little utility until you have a good core of vocabulary (at the lower inflection point), then the utility rises pretty quickly until you get to that “10,000 word” level which encompasses all the words in common use (the upper inflection point), then utility increase gets smaller sharply as you add specialty words.

The elongated S graph would also apply to things like sports, where you really can’t do it until you have a base level of knowledge and skill (the lower inflection point), but then you get a lot more out of it as you increase your skill until you hit the upper inflection point.  Beyond that upper inflection point you get Olympic or top-level professional performance.  An example pertinent to me would be martial arts where a “black belt” rank (or equivalent in whichever art you’re studying) is the lower inflection point, and a “master” rank might be the upper inflection point.

Back to Miles’s concept of learning languages though, once you’ve reached that upper inflection point, it’s more a matter of maintaining that level by periodic practice and gradually learning the specialty words you need.  At this point the level of effort you’ll be putting into that language can be reduced to maintenance level and you can begin the next project (learning the next language). If his goal is to learn three languages, then getting that first language to maintenance level as quickly as possible will allow the next language learning to begin sooner.  The benefits of having the first language under your belt can start accruing while you work on the next one.

While doing projects such as learning languages can be done in parallel, you’re not going to get to that upper inflection point where you start getting big benefits for any of the projects until much further in the future since you’re splitting the time you’re working on any one project.  Also, there’s the possibility of “cross-contamination” by which I mean messing up your work on one or more of the projects due to the incorrect application of effort on one into another.  An example of cross-contamination in my life was one year in high school where I took both German and French.  Both teachers hated this since I’d mix the German into the French class and vice versa.  Doing the projects in parallel increases the delay dramatically thus increasing the total cost of delay in getting the benefits.

As a tangent, let me suggest that one of the benefits or completing one project first (to at least the lower inflection point) is that it will enhance the serendipitous connections between projects.  So, if you have enough grasp on the first project, connections can become apparent in the second project as congruent points arise.  An example in my life is that I attained black belt in Shaolin Kempo (the art I currently study) more than a decade ago.  Shortly after that I took classes in historical European martial arts (HEMA) for a while.  I was able to compare and contrast techniques between the arts as I continued to advance in each.  This led to an increase in my understanding of both arts because I had enough knowledge of one to make those kinds of connections.

The mantra of “complete the first project, then move to the next” has some exceptions.  If we come to a point in project A where we’re waiting for someone else, or some event to occur that’s external to the project, then we can put aside project A for project B until that waiting state resolves.  Examples of waiting for an external event might be weather, delivery of a part, another person’s completion of an element of the project you need to integrate into the whole, etc.  If we’re waiting for inspiration to occur related to project A (letting your subconscious process what you’ve worked on so far), then putting it aside for project B may be a good move.  In some cases during longer projects you may find your mental/emotional cost for continuing project A has risen dramatically, and this may prompt a shift to project B until that excess cost state for project A has resolved (if it doesn’t resolve in what you consider an appropriate time you may want to work with a mental health professional). 

In Miles’s third post on this general topic “Sequencing of Projects, Continued,” he gives equations that help us determine which project to do first.  The conclusion is that we should choose to be done first the job which has the biggest benefit to size-of-job ratio and the biggest benefit to time-to-complete ratio.

If you have a moderately sized job that’ll give a big benefit when complete, that’s a good candidate for doing first.  Similarly, if you have a job that’ll give a big benefit compared to the time to complete it, that’s a good candidate for doing first.

Brushing teeth takes about two minutes if done thoroughly.  Immediate benefits are the feeling of clean teeth, and the sense of accomplishment at having completed the task.  Long term benefits include less time in the dentist’s chair and lower lifetime dental care costs.  The comparison of size of job (two minutes per day) to benefits (many hours, thousands of dollars, and possibly significant pain eliminated over the lifetime) suggests this task should be high on the list of projects for your day.

Exercise is a project that has the type of elongated S curve I described earlier.  The benefit of a small amount of exercise – 5-10 minutes per day, which can be as simple as walking around the block and swinging your arms a bit – is big over a lifetime according to the research I’ve seen.  The benefit of extensive exercise – 30-60 minutes of medium to high effort– is significant but has a much smaller benefit to time ratio.  This suggests that a few minutes of moderate exercise should be high on the list of projects for your day, and that more extensive exercise can be further down on your project list.

Both the benefit to size-of job and benefit to time-to-complete ratios should be declining over the series of projects.

Don’t Miss These Posts Related to Positive Mental Health and Maintaining One’s Moral Compass:

Can a Fasting-Induced Changing-of-the-Guard for Immune Cells Help Treat Auto-Immune Diseases?

Evolution could assume many things during the millions of years of human evolution. One was that with the challenges of getting food and avoiding predators and dealing with rivals of their own and related species, hominins would not be sedentary. The other was that hominins would go through substantial periods of time with little or no food. (These assumptions are also good ones for most other animals as well.) As a result of these assumptions, human bodies malfunction when they don’t have some minimum of physical activity. Human bodies also malfunction when they don’t get substantial periods of time with no food.

In particular, there is growing evidence that periods of time with little or no food are the times when our bodies take apart defective and otherwise low-quality proteins—and to some extent defective and otherwise low-quality cells—and use them for spare parts. That quality control protocol may not happen if you always eat three meals a day.

A new study gets quite specific about one dimension of this process, with a detailed study of mice and a confirmatory, though less detailed study of humans. From Fiona MacDonald’s Science Alert article “Fasting Diet Has Been Shown to Ease Multiple Sclerosis Symptoms in Early Trial” comes this quotation:

"During the fasting-mimicking diet, cortisone is produced and that initiates a killing of autoimmune cells," said lead researcher Valter Longo from the University of South California. "This process also leads to the production of new healthy cells."

That part of the description of results gives hope that fasting might help with other autoimmune diseases as well. But there was also one effect more specific to treating multiple sclerosis. Let me add emphasis in bold italics:

"On the one hand, this fasting-mimicking diet kills bad immune cells," said Longo. "Then, after the mice return to the normal diet, the good immune cells but also the myelin-producing cells are generated, allowing a percentage of mice to reach a disease-free state."

Myelin is the protective sheathing around the long axons in nerves, that also helps make particular nerves transmit signals more readily. Problems with myelin producing cells are a big part of multiple sclerosis.

Serious clinical trials should be conducted on the effects of fasting on all the major autoimmune diseases. In addition, for those who have an autoimmune disease and don’t want to wait for the results of those clinical trials, it could be reasonable to decide that fasting is safe enough that it is worth doing an experiments of one’s own.

Autoimmune diseases have been listed among “diseases of civilization.” Our modern dietary practices—including when and how often we eat as well as what we eat—along with our sedentary lives are key suspects for all of the diseases of civilization. Hence, it is worth experimenting with a combination of exercise and periodic fasting as a home remedy for autoimmune diseases. It might or might not work, but the benefit if it does work is likely to be substantial, while the cost if it doesn’t work shouldn’t be that bad.

Let me end on an even more speculative note. Though we don’t yet understand long Covid very well, it is possible that for some people it has an important autoimmune component. After all, many of the people who die of Covid in its acute phase die because of an overreaction of the immune system. It seems possible that long Covid sometimes involves a less extreme overreaction of the immune system. If so, rebooting the immune system through a serious fast might help. Again, this might or might not work, but the mechanism is plausible, the cost is modest and the benefit if it does work is substantial. So it might be worth a try.

Job Posting for a Full-Time Predoctoral Research Assistant

We are posting two positions, one to start as soon as possible, another to start Summer 2022:

The Federalist Papers #38—James Madison Analyzes the Proposed Constitution Using the Principle of Opportunity Cost: What is the Alternative to the Consensus of the Constitutional Convention?

In the Federalist Papers #38, James Madison implicitly uses the principle of opportunity cost to argue for the proposed constitution. On page 12 of their Principles of Economics, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers define opportunity cost this way:

The opportunity cost of something is the next best alternative you have to give up.

They add:

The true cost of something is what you have to give up to get it.

James Madison uses the principle of opportunity cost in two ways. First, for those who think of the Articles of Confederation as the next best alternative to the proposed constitution, he points out that the Articles of Confederation would either (a) remain too weak to get an adequate job of governing done or (b) be attributed powers as extensive as the proposed constitution, but with fewer checks and balances.

Second, if it isn’t the Articles of Confederation, he asks for a coherent statement of what the next best alternative to the proposed constitution is. He points out that on almost any dimension, some think further in that dimension would be better while others think less far would be better. While in the Federalist Papers #37, James Madison argues in effect that “The best is the mortal enemy of the good” in relation to the proposed constitution, in the Federalist Papers #38, he argues that the ideal that is better than the proposed constitution—and could possibly be agreed upon—is hard to pin down.

On the Articles of Confederation, the heart of James Madison’s argument is this:

… the Confederation is chargeable with the still greater folly of declaring certain powers in the federal government to be absolutely necessary, and at the same time rendering them absolutely nugatory; and, in the next place, that if the Union is to continue, and no better government be substituted, effective powers must either be granted to, or assumed by, the existing Congress …

James Madison then gives as an excellent example of necessity leading to the assumption of extra powers: the Continental Congress exercising power over new territories in the West:

It is now no longer a point of speculation and hope, that the Western territory is a mine of vast wealth to the United States; … Congress have assumed the administration of this stock. They have begun to render it productive. Congress have undertaken to do more: they have proceeded to form new States, to erect temporary governments, to appoint officers for them, and to prescribe the conditions on which such States shall be admitted into the Confederacy. All this has been done; and done without the least color of constitutional authority. Yet no blame has been whispered; no alarm has been sounded.

On other alternatives to the proposed constitution, James Madison contrasts the consensus of the constitutional convention—which he argues is unprecedented in history—to the total lack of consensus on another alternative. Let me rendering James Madison’s examples of the variegated objections to the constitution into bullet points, otherwise quoting directly:

  • This one tells us that the proposed Constitution ought to be rejected, because it is not a confederation of the States, but a government over individuals.

  • Another admits that it ought to be a government over individuals to a certain extent, but by no means to the extent proposed.

  • A third does not object to the government over individuals, or to the extent proposed, but to the want of a bill of rights.

  • A fourth concurs in the absolute necessity of a bill of rights, but contends that it ought to be declaratory, not of the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the States in their political capacity.

  • A fifth is of opinion that a bill of rights of any sort would be superfluous and misplaced, and that the plan would be unexceptionable but for the fatal power of regulating the times and places of election.

  • An objector in a large State exclaims loudly against the unreasonable equality of representation in the Senate.

  • An objector in a small State is equally loud against the dangerous inequality in the House of Representatives.

  • From this quarter, we are alarmed with the amazing expense, from the number of persons who are to administer the new government.

  • From another quarter, and sometimes from the same quarter, on another occasion, the cry is that the Congress will be but a shadow of a representation, and that the government would be far less objectionable if the number and the expense were doubled.

  • A patriot in a State that does not import or export, discerns insuperable objections against the power of direct taxation.

  • The patriotic adversary in a State of great exports and imports, is not less dissatisfied that the whole burden of taxes may be thrown on consumption.

  • This politician discovers in the Constitution a direct and irresistible tendency to monarchy;

  • that is equally sure it will end in aristocracy.

  • Another is puzzled to say which of these shapes it will ultimately assume, but sees clearly it must be one or other of them;

  • whilst a fourth is not wanting, who with no less confidence affirms that the Constitution is so far from having a bias towards either of these dangers, that the weight on that side will not be sufficient to keep it upright and firm against its opposite propensities.

  • With another class of adversaries to the Constitution the language is that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments are intermixed in such a manner as to contradict all the ideas of regular government and all the requisite precautions in favor of liberty.

  • In the eyes of one the junction of the Senate with the President in the responsible function of appointing to offices, instead of vesting this executive power in the Executive alone, is the vicious part of the organization.

  • To another, the exclusion of the House of Representatives, whose numbers alone could be a due security against corruption and partiality in the exercise of such a power, is equally obnoxious.

  • With another, the admission of the President into any share of a power which ever must be a dangerous engine in the hands of the executive magistrate, is an unpardonable violation of the maxims of republican jealousy.

  • No part of the arrangement, according to some, is more inadmissible than the trial of impeachments by the Senate, which is alternately a member both of the legislative and executive departments, when this power so evidently belonged to the judiciary department.

  • "We concur fully," reply others, "in the objection to this part of the plan, but we can never agree that a reference of impeachments to the judiciary authority would be an amendment of the error. Our principal dislike to the organization arises from the extensive powers already lodged in that department."

  • Even among the zealous patrons of a council of state the most irreconcilable variance is discovered concerning the mode in which it ought to be constituted. The demand of one gentleman is, that the council should consist of a small number to be appointed by the most numerous branch of the legislature.

  • Another would prefer a larger number, and considers it as a fundamental condition that the appointment should be made by the President himself.

James Madison’s arguments in the Federalist Papers #38 are a good example of how the principle of opportunity cost doesn’t always make a proposed choice look worse. Sometimes it makes the proposed choice look better in comparison because the next best alternative, when clearly seen, can be seen to have serious bad points.

I’ll end by quoting James Madison’s own explicit explanation of the opportunity cost principle:

It is a matter both of wonder and regret, that those who raise so many objections against the new Constitution should never call to mind the defects of that which is to be exchanged for it. It is not necessary that the former should be perfect; it is sufficient that the latter is more imperfect. No man would refuse to give brass for silver or gold, because the latter had some alloy in it. No man would refuse to quit a shattered and tottering habitation for a firm and commodious building, because the latter had not a porch to it, or because some of the rooms might be a little larger or smaller, or the ceilings a little higher or lower than his fancy would have planned them.

FEDERALIST NO. 38

The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed

From the New York Packet
Tuesday, January 15, 1788.

Author: James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

IT IS not a little remarkable that in every case reported by ancient history, in which government has been established with deliberation and consent, the task of framing it has not been committed to an assembly of men, but has been performed by some individual citizen of preeminent wisdom and approved integrity.

Minos, we learn, was the primitive founder of the government of Crete, as Zaleucus was of that of the Locrians. Theseus first, and after him Draco and Solon, instituted the government of Athens. Lycurgus was the lawgiver of Sparta. The foundation of the original government of Rome was laid by Romulus, and the work completed by two of his elective successors, Numa and Tullius Hostilius. On the abolition of royalty the consular administration was substituted by Brutus, who stepped forward with a project for such a reform, which, he alleged, had been prepared by Tullius Hostilius, and to which his address obtained the assent and ratification of the senate and people. This remark is applicable to confederate governments also. Amphictyon, we are told, was the author of that which bore his name. The Achaean league received its first birth from Achaeus, and its second from Aratus.

What degree of agency these reputed lawgivers might have in their respective establishments, or how far they might be clothed with the legitimate authority of the people, cannot in every instance be ascertained. In some, however, the proceeding was strictly regular. Draco appears to have been intrusted by the people of Athens with indefinite powers to reform its government and laws. And Solon, according to Plutarch, was in a manner compelled, by the universal suffrage of his fellow-citizens, to take upon him the sole and absolute power of new-modeling the constitution. The proceedings under Lycurgus were less regular; but as far as the advocates for a regular reform could prevail, they all turned their eyes towards the single efforts of that celebrated patriot and sage, instead of seeking to bring about a revolution by the intervention of a deliberative body of citizens.

Whence could it have proceeded, that a people, jealous as the Greeks were of their liberty, should so far abandon the rules of caution as to place their destiny in the hands of a single citizen? Whence could it have proceeded, that the Athenians, a people who would not suffer an army to be commanded by fewer than ten generals, and who required no other proof of danger to their liberties than the illustrious merit of a fellow-citizen, should consider one illustrious citizen as a more eligible depositary of the fortunes of themselves and their posterity, than a select body of citizens, from whose common deliberations more wisdom, as well as more safety, might have been expected? These questions cannot be fully answered, without supposing that the fears of discord and disunion among a number of counsellors exceeded the apprehension of treachery or incapacity in a single individual. History informs us, likewise, of the difficulties with which these celebrated reformers had to contend, as well as the expedients which they were obliged to employ in order to carry their reforms into effect. Solon, who seems to have indulged a more temporizing policy, confessed that he had not given to his countrymen the government best suited to their happiness, but most tolerable to their prejudices. And Lycurgus, more true to his object, was under the necessity of mixing a portion of violence with the authority of superstition, and of securing his final success by a voluntary renunciation, first of his country, and then of his life. If these lessons teach us, on one hand, to admire the improvement made by America on the ancient mode of preparing and establishing regular plans of government, they serve not less, on the other, to admonish us of the hazards and difficulties incident to such experiments, and of the great imprudence of unnecessarily multiplying them.

Is it an unreasonable conjecture, that the errors which may be contained in the plan of the convention are such as have resulted rather from the defect of antecedent experience on this complicated and difficult subject, than from a want of accuracy or care in the investigation of it; and, consequently such as will not be ascertained until an actual trial shall have pointed them out? This conjecture is rendered probable, not only by many considerations of a general nature, but by the particular case of the Articles of Confederation. It is observable that among the numerous objections and amendments suggested by the several States, when these articles were submitted for their ratification, not one is found which alludes to the great and radical error which on actual trial has discovered itself. And if we except the observations which New Jersey was led to make, rather by her local situation, than by her peculiar foresight, it may be questioned whether a single suggestion was of sufficient moment to justify a revision of the system. There is abundant reason, nevertheless, to suppose that immaterial as these objections were, they would have been adhered to with a very dangerous inflexibility, in some States, had not a zeal for their opinions and supposed interests been stifled by the more powerful sentiment of selfpreservation. One State, we may remember, persisted for several years in refusing her concurrence, although the enemy remained the whole period at our gates, or rather in the very bowels of our country. Nor was her pliancy in the end effected by a less motive, than the fear of being chargeable with protracting the public calamities, and endangering the event of the contest. Every candid reader will make the proper reflections on these important facts.

A patient who finds his disorder daily growing worse, and that an efficacious remedy can no longer be delayed without extreme danger, after coolly revolving his situation, and the characters of different physicians, selects and calls in such of them as he judges most capable of administering relief, and best entitled to his confidence. The physicians attend; the case of the patient is carefully examined; a consultation is held; they are unanimously agreed that the symptoms are critical, but that the case, with proper and timely relief, is so far from being desperate, that it may be made to issue in an improvement of his constitution. They are equally unanimous in prescribing the remedy, by which this happy effect is to be produced. The prescription is no sooner made known, however, than a number of persons interpose, and, without denying the reality or danger of the disorder, assure the patient that the prescription will be poison to his constitution, and forbid him, under pain of certain death, to make use of it. Might not the patient reasonably demand, before he ventured to follow this advice, that the authors of it should at least agree among themselves on some other remedy to be substituted? And if he found them differing as much from one another as from his first counsellors, would he not act prudently in trying the experiment unanimously recommended by the latter, rather than be hearkening to those who could neither deny the necessity of a speedy remedy, nor agree in proposing one?

Such a patient and in such a situation is America at this moment. She has been sensible of her malady. She has obtained a regular and unanimous advice from men of her own deliberate choice. And she is warned by others against following this advice under pain of the most fatal consequences. Do the monitors deny the reality of her danger? No. Do they deny the necessity of some speedy and powerful remedy? No. Are they agreed, are any two of them agreed, in their objections to the remedy proposed, or in the proper one to be substituted? Let them speak for themselves. This one tells us that the proposed Constitution ought to be rejected, because it is not a confederation of the States, but a government over individuals. Another admits that it ought to be a government over individuals to a certain extent, but by no means to the extent proposed. A third does not object to the government over individuals, or to the extent proposed, but to the want of a bill of rights. A fourth concurs in the absolute necessity of a bill of rights, but contends that it ought to be declaratory, not of the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the States in their political capacity. A fifth is of opinion that a bill of rights of any sort would be superfluous and misplaced, and that the plan would be unexceptionable but for the fatal power of regulating the times and places of election. An objector in a large State exclaims loudly against the unreasonable equality of representation in the Senate. An objector in a small State is equally loud against the dangerous inequality in the House of Representatives. From this quarter, we are alarmed with the amazing expense, from the number of persons who are to administer the new government. From another quarter, and sometimes from the same quarter, on another occasion, the cry is that the Congress will be but a shadow of a representation, and that the government would be far less objectionable if the number and the expense were doubled. A patriot in a State that does not import or export, discerns insuperable objections against the power of direct taxation. The patriotic adversary in a State of great exports and imports, is not less dissatisfied that the whole burden of taxes may be thrown on consumption. This politician discovers in the Constitution a direct and irresistible tendency to monarchy; that is equally sure it will end in aristocracy. Another is puzzled to say which of these shapes it will ultimately assume, but sees clearly it must be one or other of them; whilst a fourth is not wanting, who with no less confidence affirms that the Constitution is so far from having a bias towards either of these dangers, that the weight on that side will not be sufficient to keep it upright and firm against its opposite propensities. With another class of adversaries to the Constitution the language is that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments are intermixed in such a manner as to contradict all the ideas of regular government and all the requisite precautions in favor of liberty. Whilst this objection circulates in vague and general expressions, there are but a few who lend their sanction to it. Let each one come forward with his particular explanation, and scarce any two are exactly agreed upon the subject. In the eyes of one the junction of the Senate with the President in the responsible function of appointing to offices, instead of vesting this executive power in the Executive alone, is the vicious part of the organization. To another, the exclusion of the House of Representatives, whose numbers alone could be a due security against corruption and partiality in the exercise of such a power, is equally obnoxious. With another, the admission of the President into any share of a power which ever must be a dangerous engine in the hands of the executive magistrate, is an unpardonable violation of the maxims of republican jealousy. No part of the arrangement, according to some, is more inadmissible than the trial of impeachments by the Senate, which is alternately a member both of the legislative and executive departments, when this power so evidently belonged to the judiciary department. "We concur fully," reply others, "in the objection to this part of the plan, but we can never agree that a reference of impeachments to the judiciary authority would be an amendment of the error. Our principal dislike to the organization arises from the extensive powers already lodged in that department." Even among the zealous patrons of a council of state the most irreconcilable variance is discovered concerning the mode in which it ought to be constituted. The demand of one gentleman is, that the council should consist of a small number to be appointed by the most numerous branch of the legislature. Another would prefer a larger number, and considers it as a fundamental condition that the appointment should be made by the President himself.

As it can give no umbrage to the writers against the plan of the federal Constitution, let us suppose, that as they are the most zealous, so they are also the most sagacious, of those who think the late convention were unequal to the task assigned them, and that a wiser and better plan might and ought to be substituted. Let us further suppose that their country should concur, both in this favorable opinion of their merits, and in their unfavorable opinion of the convention; and should accordingly proceed to form them into a second convention, with full powers, and for the express purpose of revising and remoulding the work of the first. Were the experiment to be seriously made, though it required some effort to view it seriously even in fiction, I leave it to be decided by the sample of opinions just exhibited, whether, with all their enmity to their predecessors, they would, in any one point, depart so widely from their example, as in the discord and ferment that would mark their own deliberations; and whether the Constitution, now before the public, would not stand as fair a chance for immortality, as Lycurgus gave to that of Sparta, by making its change to depend on his own return from exile and death, if it were to be immediately adopted, and were to continue in force, not until a BETTER, but until ANOTHER should be agreed upon by this new assembly of lawgivers.

It is a matter both of wonder and regret, that those who raise so many objections against the new Constitution should never call to mind the defects of that which is to be exchanged for it. It is not necessary that the former should be perfect; it is sufficient that the latter is more imperfect. No man would refuse to give brass for silver or gold, because the latter had some alloy in it. No man would refuse to quit a shattered and tottering habitation for a firm and commodious building, because the latter had not a porch to it, or because some of the rooms might be a little larger or smaller, or the ceilings a little higher or lower than his fancy would have planned them. But waiving illustrations of this sort, is it not manifest that most of the capital objections urged against the new system lie with tenfold weight against the existing Confederation? Is an indefinite power to raise money dangerous in the hands of the federal government? The present Congress can make requisitions to any amount they please, and the States are constitutionally bound to furnish them; they can emit bills of credit as long as they will pay for the paper; they can borrow, both abroad and at home, as long as a shilling will be lent. Is an indefinite power to raise troops dangerous? The Confederation gives to Congress that power also; and they have already begun to make use of it. Is it improper and unsafe to intermix the different powers of government in the same body of men? Congress, a single body of men, are the sole depositary of all the federal powers. Is it particularly dangerous to give the keys of the treasury, and the command of the army, into the same hands? The Confederation places them both in the hands of Congress. Is a bill of rights essential to liberty? The Confederation has no bill of rights. Is it an objection against the new Constitution, that it empowers the Senate, with the concurrence of the Executive, to make treaties which are to be the laws of the land? The existing Congress, without any such control, can make treaties which they themselves have declared, and most of the States have recognized, to be the supreme law of the land. Is the importation of slaves permitted by the new Constitution for twenty years? By the old it is permitted forever.

I shall be told, that however dangerous this mixture of powers may be in theory, it is rendered harmless by the dependence of Congress on the State for the means of carrying them into practice; that however large the mass of powers may be, it is in fact a lifeless mass. Then, say I, in the first place, that the Confederation is chargeable with the still greater folly of declaring certain powers in the federal government to be absolutely necessary, and at the same time rendering them absolutely nugatory; and, in the next place, that if the Union is to continue, and no better government be substituted, effective powers must either be granted to, or assumed by, the existing Congress; in either of which events, the contrast just stated will hold good. But this is not all. Out of this lifeless mass has already grown an excrescent power, which tends to realize all the dangers that can be apprehended from a defective construction of the supreme government of the Union. It is now no longer a point of speculation and hope, that the Western territory is a mine of vast wealth to the United States; and although it is not of such a nature as to extricate them from their present distresses, or for some time to come, to yield any regular supplies for the public expenses, yet must it hereafter be able, under proper management, both to effect a gradual discharge of the domestic debt, and to furnish, for a certain period, liberal tributes to the federal treasury. A very large proportion of this fund has been already surrendered by individual States; and it may with reason be expected that the remaining States will not persist in withholding similar proofs of their equity and generosity. We may calculate, therefore, that a rich and fertile country, of an area equal to the inhabited extent of the United States, will soon become a national stock. Congress have assumed the administration of this stock. They have begun to render it productive. Congress have undertaken to do more: they have proceeded to form new States, to erect temporary governments, to appoint officers for them, and to prescribe the conditions on which such States shall be admitted into the Confederacy. All this has been done; and done without the least color of constitutional authority. Yet no blame has been whispered; no alarm has been sounded. A GREAT and INDEPENDENT fund of revenue is passing into the hands of a SINGLE BODY of men, who can RAISE TROOPS to an INDEFINITE NUMBER, and appropriate money to their support for an INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME. And yet there are men, who have not only been silent spectators of this prospect, but who are advocates for the system which exhibits it; and, at the same time, urge against the new system the objections which we have heard. Would they not act with more consistency, in urging the establishment of the latter, as no less necessary to guard the Union against the future powers and resources of a body constructed like the existing Congress, than to save it from the dangers threatened by the present impotency of that Assembly?

I mean not, by any thing here said, to throw censure on the measures which have been pursued by Congress. I am sensible they could not have done otherwise. The public interest, the necessity of the case, imposed upon them the task of overleaping their constitutional limits. But is not the fact an alarming proof of the danger resulting from a government which does not possess regular powers commensurate to its objects? A dissolution or usurpation is the dreadful dilemma to which it is continually exposed.

PUBLIUS.

Links to my other posts on The Federalist Papers so far:

On 'Digital Currencies Pave Way for Deeply Negative Interest Rates' by James Mackintosh

Even though the monetary policy talk right now is all about when the Fed will reduce asset purchases and then raise interest rates, the development of central bank digital currency has brought negative interest rate policy into the news. In his September 8, 2021 Wall Street Journal article, James Mackintosh writes that “Digital Currencies Pave Way for Deeply Negative Interest Rates.”

James defines central bank digital currencies this way:

… central bank-issued money usable by you and me, just as bank notes are. It might (or might not) pay interest, but it is different to money in an ordinary bank account, which is created by the commercial bank; the existing central-bank digital money, known as reserves, are used only to settle debts between banks and certain other institutions, not available for ordinary use.

James proceeds with a common misconception: that getting rid of paper currency is the only way to get paper currency out of the way of deep negative interest rates:

The main monetary power of the digital dollar comes from the abolition of bank notes. If people can’t hoard physical money, it becomes much easier to cut interest rates far below zero; otherwise the zero rate on bank notes stuffed under the mattress looks attractive. And if interest rates can go far below zero, monetary policy is suddenly much more powerful and better suited to tackle deflation.

…

The main limit is that deeply negative rates would encourage people to switch to bank notes to “earn” zero on their savings, instead of losing money. There are costs to hoarding large amounts of physical money, including storage and insurance against fire or theft, which allows slightly negative rates. But go deep enough, and negative rates would be applied to an ever-shrinking pool of savings, undermining their efficacy and draining the banks.

I’ve written a lot—the most important pieces coauthored with Ruchir Agarwal—about how to keep paper currency around, but modify paper currency policy in ways that get paper currency out of the way of deep negative rates. See my bibliographic post “How and Why to Eliminate the Zero Lower Bound: A Reader’s Guide.”

In addition to the paper currency problem, there are two other problems for negative interest rate policy: the bank profits problem, which is also easy to solve (see “Responding to Negative Coverage of Negative Rates in the Financial Times”), and the political problem, which is more difficult. James has this to say about the political problem:

Deeply negative rates won’t come straight away. Initially, central-bank digital currencies will almost certainly be designed to behave as much like ordinary bank notes as possible, to make their adoption easy and minimize disruption, while use of physical cash will be allowed to wither away. But those close to the development agree that monetary caution is unlikely to last.

On the other hand:

… what once seemed to be an impossibly extreme monetary policy can quickly become the norm.

James argues that central bank digital currency will reduce trouble from the paper currency problem and from psychological attachment to paper currency, and that the development of central bank digital currency is well under way:

How long it takes is up for debate, but some countries have already moved beyond the experimental stage, and policy makers are feeling the pressure from crypto developers, especially so-called stablecoins tied to the value of ordinary currency.

Even though several central banks have gone to negative rates and have already braved substantial political flak, fears of the paper currency problem and the bank profits problem have kept central banks from going beyond mild negative rates. Confidence in solutions to the paper currency problem and the bank profits problem—which I have argued at length is a well-justified confidence—could lead to use of much deeper rates. As James writes:

The ECB has a rate of -0.5%, the Bank of Japan -0.1% and the Swiss National Bank -0.75%. But none think they can go below -1%.

…

The monetary impact of removing, or at least reducing, this effective lower bound, as economists call it, is profound. Instead of turning to new and still unproven tools like the bond-buying of quantitative easing, central banks would be able to keep cutting rates when a crisis hit. And they would cut a long way …

What does all of this mean for investors—and in particular for yields on 30-year bonds whose term might include a negative interest rate period? James makes the good point that, while holding the size of positive rates fixed, negative rates would reduce average short-term rates and so lower the 30-year rate, that the size of positive rates wouldn’t stay fixed. When the economy does better, interest rates tend to be higher:

If negative rates worked, it might not mean a lower average over time. Instead, it might mean higher average inflation, and similar or even higher rates, as the economy could quickly be jerked out of the rut of secular stagnation, and rates and inflation return to normal.

Quite importantly, that means that negative interest rate policy is good for savers. By definition, it will reduce the interest rates they get at some points in time, but it can raise the average interest rate they get over time.

But what does James mean by his proviso “If negative rates worked”? There is, these days a strange notion abroad in the land that interest rate cuts don’t stimulate the economy. There is also another strange notion abroad in the land that stimulating the economy—even stimulating the economy a lot—isn’t likely to cause extra inflation. Both of these notions are false. Interest rate cuts do stimulate the economy and inflation does gradually rise when the economy is overstimulated. These are far from the only things that affect the GDP and inflation, but they do affect them in extremely important ways.

On why interest rate cuts are going to stimulate the economy, see “How the Nature of the Transmission Mechanism from Rate Cuts Guarantees that Negative Rates have Unlimited Firepower,” which is really about the power of any type of interest rate cut, even in the positive region.

Right now the pandemic is making it hard to read what is happening to long-run inflation tendencies, but we might well be headed toward an experiment after the worst of the pandemic is over with an overstimulated economy. So we might be headed for another data point backing up the idea that an overstimulated economy leads to gradually rising underlying inflation, where “underlying” means beyond transitory factors.

In any case, it matters whether you believe that interest rate cuts stimulate the economy. James writes:

Making a decision comes down to how you view monetary policy. If you think it doesn’t really work as stimulus anyway, then negative rates would provide little to no extra support; a Japanified economy with even more negative rates might just have lower bond yields, and still no inflation.

If you agree with the central banks that interest rates are a powerful tool for reflating the economy, then digital money removes the asymmetry that prevents rates being used to tackle deflation. That should remove much of the risk of persistent deflation, justifying higher long-term bond yields.

But there is one other big factor that could affect long-term Treasury-bond rates: the effect negative interest rate policy could have on the inflation targets that central banks set. I write about that in “The Costs and Benefits of Repealing the Zero Lower Bound...and Then Lowering the Long-Run Inflation Target.” The main reason that major central banks have an inflation target above zero is that higher inflation with the same interest rate can get some of the same stimulative effects as a lower interest rate with the same inflation. If you can use deep negative rates, there is no longer the need to use inflation as a substitute for negative interest rates.

My prediction is that if central banks become comfortable with negative interest rate policy, then inflation targets will tend to come down gradually over time. That will in turn tend to reduce the average level of interest rates. Those who have locked in a stream of coupons with a 30-year Treasury bond will be sitting on something very valuable if inflation and so available interest rates come down.

I am glad to see talk of negative interest rate policy in the news. Some of the political cost of negative interest rate policy is because it seems strange and unfamiliar. The more we talk about it, the more familiar it will seem, and the less people will irrationally fear negative interest rates—or to believe fallacious arguments against negative interest rates from those who militate against negative rates out of narrow self-interest. And anything that reduces the political cost of negative interest rates is a good thing because negative interest rates can let us avoid a repeat of the Great Recession. On that, see “America's Big Monetary Policy Mistake: How Negative Interest Rates Could Have Stopped the Great Recession in Its Tracks.”

Don't Think Fat vs. Carbs vs. Protein; It's Good vs. Bad Fat, Carbs and Protein

Anything that tears people away from sugar is likely to be a dietary improvement. But lowfat vs. lowcarb, or how much protein you eat is not the key to health and weight loss. Whether you are eating good or bad fat, good or bad carbs and good or bad protein—along with when you eat—are much more powerful in affecting health and weight loss. One of the better dietary randomized controlled trials made that point. See “Why a Low-Insulin-Index Diet Isn't Exactly a 'Lowcarb' Diet.”

Good vs. Bad Fats. Distinguishing good from bad fats is the easiest: avoid transfats. These mainly appear in highly processed food, so avoiding processed food should take care of it, but that includes avoiding processed oils that say they are “hydrogenated.” Stick with oils that are the same chemically as when they came from a plant or animal.

I should say that some people think saturated fats are bad and the monounsaturated fats are the healthiest. There is certainly no harm in emphasizing monounsaturated fats in, say, olive oil and avocadoes.

Good vs. Bad Carbs. The bad carbs are sugar and easily digestible starches such as those in potatoes or rice. The number one key to avoiding bad carbs is to go off sugar. I have tips for going off sugar in “Letting Go of Sugar.” As a great ancillary benefit, if you go off sugar, you will be avoiding almost all processed foods, which almost all have sugar plus other bad things.

While sugar is the big bad among carbs, some starches can be digested into sugar quite quickly. So I advise going off sugar, bread, rice and potatoes.

What are the good carbs? You may not even think of them as carbs, but technically they are: nonstarchy vegetables. Here is a list of nonstarchy vegetables from Wikipedia:

What about fruit? Well, fruit juice, like sugary soft drinks, are like mainlining sugar. Whole fruits also have sugar, but at least they buffer the sugar with fiber. In principle, fruit can be quite healthy, but you would ideally want heirloom varieties with less sugar in them. See “Nutritionally, Not All Apple Varieties Are Alike.” The bottom line on whole fruit is that (a) it isn’t a freebie, (b) you should choose less sugary varieties of fruit and (c) if the only sugar you are getting is from whole fruit you are doing a lot better than most people. “Forget Calorie Counting; It's the Insulin Index, Stupid” rates various fruits according to how bad their insulin kick is.

Good vs. Bad Proteins. I’m sure there is more to be said about good vs. bad proteins than this, but a simple rule of thumb is that animal protein is likely to aid and abet cancer, while plant protein is less dangerous in this respect. You shouldn’t overdo any kind of protein. Protein has such a good, overhyped reputation that you might be led to the mistake of overdoing protein. You can see many links about anti-cancer eating and about issues with meat and milk in particular in “Miles Kimball on Diet and Health: A Reader's Guide.” One to start with is “Meat Is Amazingly Nutritious—But Is It Amazingly Nutritious for Cancer Cells, Too?” Let me be clear that the problem with meat and milk is not the fat in them; the fat is fine. (See “Whole Milk Is Healthy; Skim Milk Less So” on this for milk.) The problem meat and milk both have is the animal protein in them. Milk also has some other distinct issues that can be addressed by getting the right kind of milk. (Technically, this is an issue of exceptionally bad protein vs. typical animal protein issue.) On that, see:

When to Eat. On when to eat, a good place to start is “Stop Counting Calories; It's the Clock that Counts.” Then I have a lot of links related to fasting in “Miles Kimball on Diet and Health: A Reader's Guide.”

Nonsugar Sweeteners. In addition to what actual food you eat, it matters which nonsugar sweeteners are in the products you consume. On that, see “Which Nonsugar Sweeteners are OK? An Insulin-Index Perspective.”

The insulin-index perspective is very valuable much more generally. The post I mentioned above, ““Forget Calorie Counting; It's the Insulin Index, Stupid,” is the place to start to wrap your head around that perspective.

Mormonism Has More Important Things to Preach than the Purported Evils of Gay Marriage

There are many, many good things about Mormonism. Its anti-gay-marriage stance is not one of them. Mormon apostle Jeffrey Holland’s recent speech at BYU indicates a strikingly high priority on an anti-gay-marriage message. (I don’t think this says much at all about Jeffrey Holland as an individual Mormon Church leader. He may well have been assigned by more senior Mormon Church leaders to give the anti-gay-marriage message that he did at BYU.)

Views differ, and religiously-based anti-gay-marriage views should be given some respect even by those like me who viscerally disagree with those views. But to me it seems a gross distortion (or a gross devolution) of Mormonism to let those anti-gay-marriage views overshadow other key teachings of Mormonism. Beyond supernaturalist views about the atonement of Jesus Christ and about the ability of any sincere seeker to get distinct inspiration from God that I think most Mormons would agree are much more important than an anti-gay-marriage message, Mormonism is one of the key reservoirs of belief in personal responsibility these days—that by dint of effort, one can make one’s own life better and contribute to making the world a better place.

Jordan Peterson tells the story of giving a talk about personal responsibility to students at Harvard—who had to be quite accomplished to get admitted—and having many come up afterward to tell him how meaningful that message was to them and how no one had ever given them that message of personal responsibility like that. I got that message of personal responsibility growing up in Mormonism. I am grateful for that. This is the kind of message that Mormonism should be telling the world, going up against the tide that emphasizes injuries and rights without sufficiently balancing that emphasis by also talking about responsibility and personal agency.

Here are some of the passages from Jeffrey Holland’s talk at BYU’s 2021 University Conference that I think overemphasize the anti-gay-marriage message. I add bullets to separate different passages:

  • Then Elder Oaks said challengingly, “I would like to hear a little more musket fire from this temple of learning.” He said this in a way that could have applied to a host of topics in various departments, but the one he specifically mentioned was the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

  • We hope it isn’t a surprise to you that your Trustees are not deaf or blind to the feelings that swirl around marriage and the whole same-sex topic on campus. I and many of my Brethren have spent more time and shed more tears on this subject than we could ever adequately convey to you this morning, or any morning. We have spent hours discussing what the doctrine of the Church can and cannot provide the individuals and families struggling over this difficult issue. So, it is with scar tissue of our own that we are trying to avoid — and hope all will try to avoid — language, symbols, and situations that are more divisive than unifying at the very time we want to show love for all of God’s children.

  • In that spirit, let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters. …

    … we have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people.

  • … students and the parents of students who are confused about what so much recent flag-waving and parade-holding on this issue means. Beloved friends, this kind of confusion and conflict ought not to be. … show empathy and understanding for everyone while maintaining loyalty to prophetic leadership and devotion to revealed doctrine. … we do all look forward to the day when we can “beat our swords into plowshares, and [our] spears into pruning hooks,” and at least on this subject, “learn war [no] more.” … I have focused on this same-sex topic this morning more than I would have liked, I pray you will see it as emblematic of a lot of issues our students and community face in this complex, contemporary world of ours.

Jeffrey Holland suggests it has been hard for Mormon Church leaders to find a good way to deal with the issue of gay marriage. To quote again:

I and many of my Brethren have spent more time and shed more tears on this subject than we could ever adequately convey to you this morning, or any morning. We have spent hours discussing what the doctrine of the Church can and cannot provide the individuals and families struggling over this difficult issue.

Bringing gays who are not willing to deny their gayness or remain totally celibate into full fellowship in the Mormon Church would indeed require changes of a magnitude that would require what Mormon Church leaders considered a major revelation from God (as extending the priesthood and other aspects of full fellowship to Blacks did in the 1970s). But an immediate big step up in the welcome gays feel in the Mormon Church is well within current doctrine: instruct local bishops that they are the primary ones to get inspiration from God about how to help the gay members in their congregations.

There is a step further that which might be within current doctrine (though obviously not within current policy). One reasonable interpretation of the Mormon doctrine of marriage is that marriage in a Mormon temple is the only real marriage from a religious point of view. Getting married in some other way is actually a no-no. However, a marriage legal according to the law of the land is sufficient to make a sex act within that relationship not a violation of God’s law. And the Church’s anti-divorce view extends to divorce from civil, non-temple marriages. It would reduce a lot of suffering if this attitude were taken toward gay marriage. Like any marriage not in the temple (which has no provision for gay marriage), a gay marriage could remain a no-no. But though the marriage itself was a violation, sex within such a legal marriage would not be a sin under this policy. And, it would be even better if the Mormon Church’s discouragement of divorce or breakup of civil, non-temple marriages extended to gay marriages. To me, divorce is a terrible thing (though sometimes all of an individual’s options in a given situation are terrible). Which will the Church treat as worse, divorce or gay marriage?

It is very hard for me to see the saving power of an anti-gay-marriage message.

But I don’t want the other part of my plea in this blog post to be missed. Even if the Mormon Church decides to press its anti-gay-marriage message just as vigorously as it is setting out to do, I think it should make much greater efforts to take its message of personal responsibility to the world, as Jordan Peterson is doing. That message of responsibility and personal agency does have saving power! It can transform people’s lives in a way everyone beholding the change can see is a big step up.

Don't miss these posts on Mormonism:

Also, don’t miss these Unitarian-Universalist sermons by Miles:

Other Posts on Religion:

(By self-identification, I left Mormonism for Unitarian Universalism in 2000, at the age of 40. I have had the good fortune to be a lay preacher in Unitarian Universalism. I have posted many of my Unitarian-Universalist sermons on this blog. There are more that I need to clean up and post.)

Chris Kimball Reacts to 'The Supreme Court Confronts the Principles of Multivariable Calculus in Extending Employment Protections to Gay and Transgender Employees'

My brother Chris is the most frequent contributor of guest posts to my blog. You can see links to the others at the bottom of this post. (Many of these guest posts are about Mormonism.) Chris got a bachelor’s degree in applied math, went to law school, and became a top flight tax lawyer. So I was curious about his reaction to my post “The Supreme Court Confronts the Principles of Multivariable Calculus in Extending Employment Protections to Gay and Transgender Employees.” I thought what he replied to me email query would be of interests to others as well. To understand his comments, read my post “The Supreme Court Confronts the Principles of Multivariable Calculus in Extending Employment Protections to Gay and Transgender Employees” first. Here is what he said:

1. I think the meaning of "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a relatively hard question. I'm not satisfied the Supreme Court got it right. Much as I think we should have protection for sex and gender minorities, there is a risk that the Supreme Court is legislating here. The fact that our Congress finds it so difficult to do perfectly reasonable things is not a good excuse for legislation by courts, in my opinion, for the long run.

2. Complexities in but-for analyses are well understood. At least, they were well understood in my law school in the early 1980s. The University of Chicago Law School was at the forefront of law and economics, including applying mathematical concepts to judicial decision making, so I can't really say what the overall market is like. But I do know top litigators. My partners argue these cases before the Supreme Court. They are more than capable of making cogent arguments about coordinate systems, and I remember there is precedent for arguing and understanding the complexities of a but-for analysis.

3. Personally I would like to use the language of calculus and finite differences. However, I think the general state of mathematical literacy is too low for that proposal to get traction. My just barely informed judgment is that there is room for improvement in the way we make and interpret the arguments, including in the language used, but I would not go all the way to the language of calculus and finite differences.

4. I think/I guess/I believe there have been advances in my lifetime and there are more yet to be made, that have the nature of mathematics and probability and decision theory and economics rendered in precise but common English. That's not where I spend my time these days, but I have in the past (writing about the use of option pricing models, for one notable example).