Astral Codex Ten

Noah Smith

25 min read

Noah Smith

Article

Noah Smith is a recurring person in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 15 times across 15 issues between June 14, 2021 and February 11, 2026. The archive places it in contexts such as “Noah Smith asks whether Jews are really disproportionately successful”; “supported by lots of people whose opinions I trust, like Noah Smith”; “Noah Smith responded to my post on Jewish achievement”. It most often appears alongside US, China, Germany.

Metadata

  • Category: People
  • Mention count: 15
  • Issue count: 15
  • First seen: June 14, 2021
  • Last seen: February 11, 2026

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

Contra Smith On Jewish Selective Immigration
June 14, 2021 · Original source
Noah Smith asks whether Jews are really disproportionately successful.
Inline links: asks whether Jews are really disproportionately successful
Open Thread 178
June 28, 2021 · Original source
1. Noah Smith responded to my post on Jewish achievement. I'll look over it more closely later and maybe have more of a response, but for now you can read it here.
Inline links: read it here
Book Review: How Asia Works
June 28, 2021 · Original source
But overall I think the book's thesis is at least compelling, and I understand it's supported by lots of people whose opinions I trust, like Noah Smith and Bill Gates. Pseudoerasmus, my usual go-to source for economic history opinions, doesn't give a specific opinion of this book but seems to think a lot of its points are at least plausible.
Inline links: Noah Smith, Bill Gates, Pseudoerasmus
Highlights From The Comments On "How Asia Works"
July 01, 2021 · Original source
Noah Smith is overall a big fan of How Asia Works, but took this review as an opportunity to write about What Studwell Gets Wrong. His first point:
Inline links: What Studwell Gets Wrong
Links For July
July 23, 2021 · Original source
21: Probably inspired by the recent assassination of the Haitian president, there’s been some interesting recent discussion on divergence between Haiti and the Dominican Republic - same GDP per capita until ~1960, but now Dominican Republic is about 8x higher. Start with Noah Smith here, then Tyler Cowen here, then Lurking_Chronicler_2 here. One reason people find this question so interesting is that it feels like it should be possible to pinpoint the difference to policy-like-variables alone - since Haiti and the DR were doing so similarly for so long, it doesn’t seem like culture or genetics should play a role. I’m not sure this is really that airtight - one of Noah’s commenters points out that even when Haiti and DR had identical GDPperCs, DR life expectancy was ten years longer, so maybe there are hidden depths. It’s tempting to attribute all of Haiti’s terrible second-half-of-the-20th-century to the Duvaliers, but it’s still a minor mystery why DR has done so much better than the rest of Latin America. Tyler Cowen offhandedly mentions really good use of special economic zones. I’d like to learn more about that - some of the people who are always talking about Shenzhen and Dubai should write about it sometime.
Inline links: Noah Smith here, Tyler Cowen here, Lurking_Chronicler_2 here, DR life expectancy was ten years longer
Links For August
August 18, 2021 · Original source
11: Noah Smith on why China is smashing its tech industry (where “tech” means “consumer software”). The two leading theories seem to be “the government is concerned that tech could become an alternate power center and wants to kill it” and “the government thinks it’s better to have a normal industrial economy that manufactures products, instead of whatever sort of app-and-social-network-based monstrosity we seem to be getting here in the US, and it’s gambling that it can prevent this transition without also stopping the beneficial type of techno-economic growth”. The second theory is at least a little sympathetic, but I can’t help but be reminded of some of the discussion of how planned economies are great at catchup growth and terrible at frontier growth because the government can’t pick winners or losers very well without knowing what it’s going for (see eg here and here) - I guess China isn’t very concerned about this.
Inline links: why China is smashing its tech industry, here, here
MM: Omicron Variant
November 29, 2021 · Original source
Noah Smith has a good summary of the Omicron evidence here, including a lot of quotes from experts. But experts say a lot of stuff like “well, it could be bad, but we can’t be sure”, plus sometimes they disagree. This sounds like a job for prediction markets!
Inline links: here
Does Georgism Work? Part 1: Is Land Really A Big Deal?
December 09, 2021 · Original source
Krugman and other skeptics don't believe you can raise enough with LVT alone to fund a modern state. Noah Smith, on the other hand, claims that Land is Underrated as a Source of Wealth. Regardless of who's right, LVT doesn't need to replace all other taxes to still be worth doing, as long as it can raise a significant enough chunk. So how much can it raise? Let's do the math and find out.
Inline links: Land is Underrated as a Source of Wealth
Dictator Book Club: Xi Jinping
April 06, 2022 · Original source
H/T Noah Smith Xi’s signature foreign policy move is the Belt And Road Initiative, a bunch of infrastructure megaprojects intended to link China to the rest of the world (and to bribe other countries into being on China’s side). It has certainly created a mind-boggling amount of infrastructure, but some Western analysts are skeptical.
Inline links: Noah Smith
I dwelt on some of Xi’s failures or questionable decisions in that last section, because I was impressed by Noah Smith’s article What If Xi Jinping Just Isn’t That Competent? With the incredible economic rise of China over the past few decades, it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking their leadership must be geniuses, or at least have managed something that merely democratic countries never could.
Inline links: What If Xi Jinping Just Isn’t That Competent?
Book Review: The Man From The Future
July 13, 2022 · Original source
MacRae’s thesis is that, of the millions of Jews in Eastern Europe, the upper classes disproportionately migrated to Budapest, and the lower classes to New York. This fits with my findings in Contra Smith On Selective Jewish Immigration, where I argued that (contra Noah Smith’s claim that US Jewish achievement might be due to selective immigration) everyone at the time agreed that it was mostly the poorest and least successful Eastern European Jews who came to the US. From a paper I quoted there, describing a first-generation Jewish-American immigrant:
Inline links: Contra Smith On Selective Jewish Immigration, a paper
23
May 23, 2023 · Original source
He says it was a PR stunt to raise awareness of the Federal Reserve’s bad policy and an impending financial collapse. This seems in keeping with everything else Balaji has ever known/done/believed, so sure. Noah Smith says:
Inline links: Noah Smith says
Links for May 2024
May 29, 2024 · Original source
38: Noah Smith: Why So Many Of Us Were Wrong About Missile Defense. I appreciated this post, because I also remember reading stuff c. 2010 and getting the impression that all the smart people knew missile defense couldn’t work; defense contractors bamboozled uneducated voters and cynical Congressmen to get free money for their vaporware. But the recent Iran-Israel skirmish showed it worked great! What went wrong for the media and the smart-person-consensus?
Inline links: Why So Many Of Us Were Wrong About Missile Defense
39: And another Noah Smith: Latin America is beating inequality. Not dramatically - the top 10% income share has gone from about 42% to about 35% over the past two decades - but a little. Smith credits two things: first, economic growth, which creates a middle class. And second, education, which might be an interesting counterargument to the various cases against education (if you could prove it wasn’t signaling) or to Freddie deBoer’s argument that education can’t beat inequality.
Inline links: Latin America is beating inequality, argument that education can’t beat inequality
Vibecession: Much More Than You Wanted To Know
December 04, 2025 · Original source
Just as our previous graphs imply, Millennials and Zoomers earn significantly more than Boomers did at the same age, even in inflation-adjusted dollars. So, the economists conclude, maybe it really is just vibes. We know of other cases where the public believes things are worsening even as they get better: crime rates are the classic example. But most people judge crime rates by what they hear on TV. Vanishing economic opportunity is much more personal. Can people really be wrong about something so close to their own lives? Fine, You’ve Proven The Contradiction We Already Knew About, Get To The Point Where You Solve It. We start by looking at other people’s proposed solutions. (Briefly) Declining Real Wages The term “vibecession” most strictly refers to the period 2023 - 2024 when economic indicators were up, but consumer sentiment was down. During that period, Noah Smith popularized a paper by Darren Grant arguing that this corresponded to a brief decline in real wages, even though stocks and other indicators kept rising: During COVID, the government instituted various relief programs which temporarily gave people lots of money (the spike). This caused some inflation, which temporarily lowered real (ie inflation-adjusted) wages. Then inflation calmed down and real wages started rising again - thus Noah’s post title, “The End Of The Vibecession?” With the benefit of two more years of data, we see that Noah and Darren were right about the trend: Wages never jumped back to the point where they would be if the pandemic had never happened, but they’re back to growing as fast as ever. So this could explain the mini-vibecession of 2023-2024. Still, I claim there is a broader vibecession. Young people felt closed out from opportunities before 2023, and they still feel that way. Since only the 2023-2024 period saw falling real wages, this can’t be the full explanation. The Housing Theory Of Everything John Burn-Murdoch, after examining some of these same data, agrees that wages can’t be the full story. He writes: Are millennials wrong to complain? I fear not. The per capita measure is a beautifully simple rejoinder, but it misses one crucial detail. Wealth accumulation — just like income — matters primarily to millennials today as a means to home ownership, especially as we move into an era of high interest rates. If we deflate wealth by the index of house prices instead of the CPI, millennials’ assets only go about half as far as boomers’ once did. We’re left with a smaller millennial deficit than the original chart implied, but a deficit nonetheless. The YIMBYs at Works In Progress go further, and present The Housing Theory Of Everything (or at least of everything bad): Try listing every problem the Western world has at the moment. Along with Covid, you might include slow growth, climate change, poor health, financial instability, economic inequality, and falling fertility. These longer-term trends contribute to a sense of malaise that many of us feel about our societies. They may seem loosely related, but there is one big thing that makes them all worse. That thing is a shortage of housing: too few homes being built where people want to live. And if we fix those shortages, we will help to solve many of the other, seemingly unrelated problems that we face as well. Here is the Case-Shiller index, the standard measure of US home prices. I’ve started it in 1985 to match our other graphs: If I were designing an index to present the case that capitalism had not failed, I would have avoided naming it “Case Shiller”. During this time, average home price has approximately doubled. Might this only reflect falling interest rates? That is, suppose people can only afford a certain level of monthly mortgage payment. When interest rates are high, that mortgage payment would correspond to a cheap house; when they are low, that same person willing to spend that same amount could buy a more expensive house. To really work with this, we need average mortgage payment over time. Kevin Drum has this up to 2020: …but it matters a lot whether this that spike at the end is a temporary pandemic effect or a permanent regime change. I’ve tried to calculate an updated version from FRED data: Average monthly payment in 1985 dollars. Going to tell my bank I’m paying my mortgage in 1985 dollars from now on. This matches Drum’s data enough to build confidence, and it shows that the post-pandemic spike has lasted. Mortgage payments are almost twice as high as in the 2010s. The COVID housing spike was partly a function of lockdown locking people in their houses (meaning that having a nice house was more important), and partly a function of the government cutting mortgage rates to alleviate lockdown-related economic distress. But why did it last even after COVID lockdowns ended? Partly because the homebuyers who bought houses during COVID will never move again, because that would mean giving up their great mortgages.
Inline links: Noah Smith popularized, paper by Darren Grant, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!OODv!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5c0da39e-5e13-4656-8b07-7e375e2acc6c_1318x450.webp, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!6flf!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1ba053b8-edf0-4cf4-aee6-8e83e31bf9ac_1337x553.png, He writes, The Housing Theory Of Everything, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!zP-R!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F27507c77-dfcc-49a2-8060-61faf8c8df9a_1403x402.png, has this, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!W2g8!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F2d40e6a9-cfaa-40e8-94e6-97cf0d07f7c3_1265x632.webp, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!7GyC!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fc556be94-624f-48be-99fb-9918b91324a5_752x485.png
Highlights From The Comments On Vibecession
December 31, 2025 · Original source
Obviously nothing real changes the exact second a new president is inaugurated, so people must be using questions about the economy to express their overall happiness about the state of the world. Alex asks whether increasing political polarization could make this worse. Both parties’ extreme factions share a tendency to treat the country as controlled by a hegemonic conspiracy of their enemies - the woke coastal elite Soros cosmopolitan establishment, or the neoliberal fat cat Koch Brothers tech oligarch blob. Does this mean everyone is getting some multiple of the “other party’s president is in power” effect all the time? 3: Discourse Downstream Of The Mike Green $140K Poverty Line Post … Shovacklerod writes: Scott have you read Mike Green’s viral post on this? His main argument is that the poverty line is miscalculated, but in context of declining middle class sentiments— The more interesting thesis is that there exists a “valley of death” where two parents in the workforce need a combined ~$140k salary otherwise the cumulative “participation costs” of a fast modern society (for example a phone plan or child care) make year-over-year capital accumulation near impossible. I haven’t, but other commenters suggest reading responses, including Noah Smith’s The $140,000 Poverty Line Is Very Silly, Jeremy Horpedahl’s The Poverty Line Is Not $140,000, and Tyler Cowen’s The Myth Of The $140,000 Poverty Line. Most of these focus on Green’s explicit errors - for example, he gets most of his cost-of-living numbers from Essex, NJ, an especially rich county, then compares them to average earnings. Correct half a dozen things like this, and the real poverty line is probably somewhere between $35K - $60K. The percent of Americans below this line continues to decline every year, as it has for decades. Green finally pseudo-apologized, lambasting the “mockery machine” of the “cognitive elite” but admitting that his post “was never intended to go viral and was written for my existing audience that tends to be pretty understanding that I don’t do this for a living, but rather as PART of my living” Still, many people took Green’s article as a starting point to contribute to the Vibecession discourse, so let’s go over the ones that touch on our topic in more detail. Lincicome titles his response The $140,000 Poverty Line Is Wrong, So Why Does It Feel Right?, and blames Baumol’s cost disease: As the Financial Times’ John-Burns Murdoch just detailed, Americans’ overall cost of living has improved over time, but certain highly visible and socially desirable services have become more expensive. That’s not a conspiracy against the middle class but instead just Baumol at work: “[A]s countries develop economically, the same productivity growth that drives down the cost of tradeable goods causes the cost of in-person services to balloon. Wages in sectors like healthcare and education that require intensive face-to-face labour, and have slow (if any) productivity growth, are forced upwards in order to attract workers who would otherwise opt for high-paying work in more productive sectors. The result is that even if people keep consuming the exact same basket of goods and services, as living standards in their country increase they will find more and more of their spending is going on essential services.” Sectors where productivity grows slowly and prices outpace inflation—health care, education, child care, personal services, housing (construction), etc.—happen to be the same ones that middle-class families notice most and that signal social status. As we’ve all gotten richer, moreover, these services have transitioned from luxuries to expectations. Throw in the hedonic treadmill and the fact that you can’t price-shop schools or hospitals the way you can TVs, and public alarm is all but inevitable. I’m suspicious of including “housing (construction)” on this list - couldn’t you use the same argument to reclassify any manufactured good as a service good? - but the rest of these are well-taken. Still, did Baumol or the other economists who first discussed the effect in the 1960s predict it would make people feel like things were outright worse, as opposed to just getting better less than would be expected from raw productivity numbers? Seems strange. Also, hasn’t the Baumol effect been basically constant since at least the Industrial Revolution? And isn’t the Vibecession only 5 - 20 years old? Matt Bruenig has his own response to Green, Why Do People Feel Like They’re Falling Behind? He bases his argument around this graph: …which is just making the common-sense point that, as society shifts from one-income to two-income families, the husband’s share of family income drops from ~100% to ~50%. So, Bruenig argues, if everyone is trying to keep up with the Joneses, and the Joneses are a dual-earner family, then this single working man has gone from making 100% of his comparison point, to making only 50%. This is a cool potential cognitive bias, but is anyone really making this mistake? Vibecession complaints hardly seem limited to men in traditional one-earner households wondering why they’re not making as much as the neighbors whose wife is a fancy lawyer. My impression is that they include both two-earner families who still feel like they’re falling behind, and (most of all) young singles who are comparing themselves to their young single friends where this issue never comes up in the first place. Matt Yglesias uses a similar strategy in You Can Afford A Tradlife. This is what they took from you. They never should have passed the ‘Make It Illegal To Wear Hair Gel And Marry A White Woman Act' back in 1959! He argues that the reason most wives work these days isn’t because we’re poorer (and they have to work to survive), but because we’re richer (and so wives can make so much money working outside the home that the opportunity cost is too high to pass up). A single earner could still support a family on a 1950s lifestyle. It would just feel like a failure, because we don’t realize how much worse than 1950s lifestyle was compared to our current conditions. The article’s paywalled, but you can get a pretty good sense of the argument from these paragraphs. After determining that the median man makes about $80,000/year, he writes: Let’s say our $80,000-a-year man is living in the Jacksonville area. The Department of Housing and Urban Development calculates what are called Fair Market Rents for each American metro — this means the 40th percentile rent for a home with any given set of characteristics. They say F.M.R. for a three-bedroom home in the Jacksonville area is $2,163. That comes out to about 30 percent of Mr. Median’s annual income. Can you really get a place to live for that little? Here’s a lovely three-bedroom home in the East Arlington neighborhood for $2,020 a month, and it’s zoned for an elementary school with a 10-out-of-10 ranking from GreatSchools. It’s true that 1,617 square feet is on the small side for, say, a family of five in the contemporary United States. But the average size of a new single family home was 1,289 square feet in 1960 and 1,500 square feet in 1970. Two of your kids are going to need to share a bedroom, but that’s how people lived back in the day. There’s more to life than housing, of course, but I started there because that’s the largest item in a household budget. Durable goods like furniture, cars, and appliances have all become better and more affordable since the mid-1960s. That’s partially offset by rising prices for things like college tuition, child care, and health care. But in the 1960s, most young people didn’t go to college. The way health insurance works, you only need one worker in your family to get a job-based health plan. And of course, with your wife serving as a full-time homemaker, you don’t need to worry about child care expenses. The big thing is that, with a larger family, you literally have a bunch of mouths to feed. But the model here is to replicate how people actually lived in the mid-1960s, which is that they dined out much less frequently and also spent a much larger share of their total income on food. When I try to retrace this, it seems possible, but barely. I imagined doing this in Sacramento, to be near family. Suppose I make $80K pretax = $6.6K/month pretax = $5K per month posttax. A cheap 3-bedroom house on a nice-enough block is $2200 mortgage, assume $3K after property taxes etc. A cheap new car is $350/month. Food can be arbitrarily low if you’re willing to eat rice all the time, but let’s say $250/month. CoveredCalifornia offered my family of four healthcare for $600/month. So top four expenses take $4200/month of the $5000/month pretax income. I don’t know; seems tough. I would like to see a more thorough breakdown of an average 2026 vs. 1956 man’s likely budget. There are also some areas where it’s harder to separate genuine declines from rising expectations. Most people in the 1950s didn’t have health insurance. Was that because they accepted lower levels of health, or because medical care was cheaper, and easy enough to afford out-of-pocket? Probably some very complicated combination of both. And it might be impossible to get certain kinds of 1950s medical care today, i.e. a bed in a cheap low-quality shared hospital room. (some of the best discussion around this came from the response to Elizabeth Warren’s The Two-Income Trap, see eg Matt Bruenig here) Still, I find this tangential to the main point. Yes, a few conservatives complain that it’s hard to have a single-income family. But most vibecession complaints come from singles or dual-earner households! 4: What About Other Countries? … Dionysus writes: Did you know that China also has a vibecession? If even China can’t regulate social media heavily enough to prevent this phenomenon, how can any liberal society possibly hope to? The link goes to an NYT article, which includes quotes like: Using apps like RedNote and Douyin, people are reviving memories of the 2000s and the early 2010s with photos of daring outfits, upbeat songs and vintage TV commercials, all of which, in different ways, evoke a time in China that pulsed with optimism. “The music back then throbbed with exuberance, brimming with the sense that the future could only get brighter,” a middle-aged man said in a RedNote video. “Today’s lyrics begin with lines like, ‘We’re trying our best to survive.’” And The boom-time beauty meme is the latest expression of a Gen Z counterculture born of disillusionment, the recognition that they may be the first generation in half a century unlikely to surpass their parents’ standard of living, no matter how hard they try. Over the past five years, this quiet resistance has taken many forms. It began with “lying flat,” a refusal to join the rat race. Some chose to pursue the “run philosophy,” or emigrating in search of freedom and brighter prospects. Others declared themselves the “last generation,” vowing not to have children. Still others embraced “let it rot,” giving up on difficult goals rather than battling for uncertain rewards. To show they could care less about career prospects, many took to wearing “gross outfits” at work. This is especially crazy in China, where GDP per capita is now ten times what it was back during the “Boom Years” that everyone reminisces about. This might be the smoking gun that people’s economic beliefs are totally unmoored from how rich they are. The Chinese story has an obvious moral: people care about growth rate more than level. But even this doesn’t work for America - our Vibecession doesn’t correspond to a period of unusually low growth. machine_spirit writes: It’s interesting to compare it to Europe as the control group. Unlike the US, whose economy muddled through just fine during the last decade, we are currently experiencing a massive economic decline that could soon turn into a full-blown collapse. And yet, outside of debates about immigration or foreign policy especially regarding Ukraine you don’t really hear the same level of rancour about ‘things being bad’ in the local media. I’m surprised to hear this. I hear many economic complaints from Europeans, but I suppose this passes through my own American filter bubble which is incentivized to talk about economic hardship for its own American reasons. Golden Feather writes: I am an Italian currently living in the US. My main guesses would be: Right-wing parties control a supermajority of TV and print media. They have also been in the govt most of the time, which means they control the state TV and have an interest in presenting things as rosey. The much older population makes the internet less relevant for public sentiment. Even in the few years where they were at the opposition, they mostly focused on immigration and crime to rile up popular sentiment, I guess because the population is older, their voters even moreso, so they care more about that than about the economy
Inline links: writes, The $140,000 Poverty Line Is Very Silly, The Poverty Line Is Not $140,000, The Myth Of The $140,000 Poverty Line, The $140,000 Poverty Line Is Wrong, So Why Does It Feel Right?, Baumol’s cost disease, detailed, Why Do People Feel Like They’re Falling Behind?, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!E2rN!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff94f8851-17f5-4a98-b1f8-349f568d23bb_1024x800.png, You Can Afford A Tradlife, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!ljt5!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1b1176e8-f932-430a-b7e1-c699a5ecf15c_581x479.png, They say, lovely three-bedroom home in the East Arlington neighborhood for $2,020 a month, average size of a new single family home was 1,289 square feet in 1960 and 1,500 square feet in 1970, how people actually lived in the mid-1960s, dined out much less frequently, see eg Matt Bruenig here, writes, China also has a vibecession?, lying flat, run philosophy, gross outfits, writes, writes
Political Backflow From Europe
February 11, 2026 · Original source
In Understanding America’s New Right, Noah Smith asks why American conservatives are so interested in European affairs, and especially in their immigration policy. He answers that conservative ideology centers around the idea of Western civilization (this is kind of him: a more paranoid analyst might make a similar argument around white identitarianism). Since Europe is the home of Western civilization, it’s especially galling for it to be ravaged by immigration or whatever.
Inline links: Understanding America’s New Right