Some Links, 9/8/2025

Glenn Reynolds on popular discontent with immigration; Matt Yglesias on same; Yascha Mounk on the university bundle; Steve Newman on agentic AI

Glenn Reynolds writes,

One would expect, in light of longstanding public opposition to mass immigration — particularly by low-skilled third worlders — that politicians would eschew such a policy. In fact, they’ve gone pedal to the metal on it. And they’ve basically acknowledged the depth of the opposition by going to such extraordinary lengths to suppress not only the opposition ,but even the expression of opposing views, or even of traditional patriotism.

…Having decided, conveniently, that anyone opposed to their agenda is racist and evil, they’ve found it easy to ignore the public’s reluctance to be robbed and raped.

Matt Yglesias writes,

A recent paper by Laurenz Guenther of the University of Toulouse breaks with that pattern by taking seriously the idea that populist parties, at least in Europe, are simply responding to voter demand.

In particular, he finds that on most issues, including economic policy and abortion, the distribution of opinions in the mass public and among European members of parliament (M.P.s) are basically the same. Voters disagree with each other and so do parliamentarians, but the overall distribution of opinions is similar if you compare voters and elected officials.

But this is not true of immigration and a couple of other cultural issues. On those questions, incumbent M.P.s are significantly to the left of the population average.

Yglesias treats anti-immigration and anti-crime sentiments as the views of a large minority, while Reynolds sees them as the views of the majority. They would agree that elites are not helping themselves by taking a pro-immigrant stance. But Yglesias is rooting for the elites to stay on top by being nicer to the people who oppose immigration, while Reynolds is rooting against the elites.

Yascha Mounk writes,

One of the strangest things about an American university education is that it bundles a whole lot of different things together. If you want to take a course in high-level mathematics or listen to the lectures of an accomplished historian of Ming China, you must also buy membership in one of the country’s most lavish gyms; purchase all-you-can-eat meals at breakfast, lunch, and dinner; rent a room in a student dorm even if your parents happen to live a few miles down the road; pay an army of administrators whose jobs range from organizing parties to hiring puppies for you to pet during finals; subsidize student clubs that are devoted to such varied activities as playing Dungeons & Dragons or blind-tasting exclusive wines; and help to pay the lavish salaries of football and waterpolo coaches.

It is only strange if you think that college is for students who are capable and motivated to learn. Mounk claims,

If students could attend Harvard or Rice without having to purchase the world’s most exclusive and extended all-in-vacation package, it would be much more affordable to attend these institutions.

He suggests giving a student the option that I might call Spartan U, at a lower price.

The second price—let’s call it the I’m Here to Learn option—would be based solely on the cost of providing a stellar education. It would allow students to complete their undergraduate education, including access to lectures and seminars and laboratories, but exclude the other amenities which have come to be such a big part of the university experience. Students would themselves be responsible for securing housing, for feeding themselves, and for figuring out their leisure activities.

Economists see bundling as a strategy for price discrimination, and I like to say that price discrimination explains everything. When a business is dominated by overhead cost, as is the case with higher education, you have to try price discrimination. The most obvious example in this case is financial aid policy. But bundling also serves that purpose.

Joe the Animal values the parties at $30,000 and the classes at $25,000. Arnold the Nerd values the classes at $30,000 and the parties at $25,000. If you separate the parties from the classes, then you can only charge $30,000 to each, because Joe takes only the parties while Arnold takes only the classes. But if you bundle, and you charge $50,000 (or even $55,000). Joe and Arnold take the bundle and you get more revenue.

Steve Newman writes,

with each advance in AI, new hurdles become apparent; when one missing aspect of “intelligence” is filled in, we find ourselves bumping up against another gap. When I speculated about GPT-5 last year, it didn’t occur to me to question whether it would know how to set priorities, because the models of the time weren’t even capable enough for that to be a limiting factor.

…In April 2024, it seemed like agentic AI was going to be the next big thing. The ensuing 16 months have brought enormous progress on many fronts, but very little progress on real-world agency. With projects like AI Village shining a light on the profound weakness of current AI agents, I think robust real-world capability is still years away.

Prediction about AI is hard. Especially about the future. Interestingly, Zvi Mowshowitz, an outspoken AI doomer, is one of those who seems to have a very aggressive timeline embedded in his view.

substacks referenced above:

@

Unbundle the University

@

Saving Democracy

@

A boring theory of the populist right