About Non-Tribal Economics

David AndrukonisThe Author

I value asset-backed securities and build bank forecasting models with the consulting firm RiskSpan. I was previously co-founder and CEO of a university fundraising startup, AlumniFidelity, which was acquired by Overture Technologies in 2015.

I have written three papers on valuation, forecasting and credit analysis in the RMA Journal:

Core Principles

Non-Tribal Economics is a personal outlet to advocate principles I value in the context of economic and public policy and policy discussions.

  1. Non-Tribalism. Is Policy X good for farmers? Is it good for unions? For homeowners? For seniors? For savers? These particulars are irrelevant at Non-Tribal Economics. The focus here is the utilitarian goal of maximizing aggregate well-being. Is Trade Deal Y good for America? Is it good for China? For Mexico? For Thailand? These questions, too, are of no individual importance. The goal at Non-Tribal Economics is to maximize global welfare.
  2. Simplicity, Clarity, and Measurability. The complexity of government can make it hard to know the answers to a voter’s questions. For example, how much help does the poorest American receive from the government? Suppose I believe the total dollar value of all forms of aid to the poorest American should be $25K per year (I could have picked any number). Without knowing what this level of aid is today, how can I know if I should vote for the candidate who would raise it or lower it? Non-Tribal Economics advocates steps to clarify the net impacts of various government policies.
  3. Belief Revision. I will attempt to change my mind on topics at the pace of, and in the direction of, the evidence. “Flip-flopping” gets a bad reputation among politicians and public thinkers, but if a change of mind is driven by good data or argument, it should be highly esteemed. It is a rare cognitive triumph — against an army of biases — to revise a previously held view.
  4. Steel Manning (Added August 5, 2016): Whereas a straw man is a weak and easily defeated version of an opposing argument, a steel man is the strongest imaginable  formation of the opposing viewpoint. If I can’t find fault with the best, most persuasive version of an opposing viewpoint, on what basis can I say I disagree with it? An honest argument for Policy A over Policy B, therefore, must engage the best articulation of the strongest arguments for Policy B. Non-Tribal Economics will engage in steel manning, not straw manning.
  5. The Moral Balance Sheet and Moral Benchmarking (Added August 25, 2016): It is common to read gripping reports about the negative aspects of one particular company, policy, or country, without any accompanying discussion of the positive aspects of the same entity or the positive and negative aspects of the competing entity. A report might expose the despicable PR tactics of Company X, prompting readers to boycott. A comprehensive report might have mentioned that Company X also employs and serves thousands of people who might otherwise go unemployed and underserved, not to mention the fact that the competition, Company Y, employs even more despicable PR tactics and offers fewer redeeming traits. To insist on considering both the pros and cons of an entity is to insist on reviewing the moral balance sheet, and allows one to consider the net effect of an entity on society. To then compare this net effect to that of an alternative entity is what I call moral benchmarking. We can’t make thorough choices without considering the moral balance sheet and the moral benchmark.

Email me at david.andrukonis@gmail.com.

—David Andrukonis, CFA