The End of Politics as Normal

Last month the New Republic ran a piece where the author basically said that the best way to punish the GOP for what they've done is to pack the supreme court by expanding the numbers.

That should give a lot of people cause for pause. As much as President Trump isn't my cup of tea, sometimes it's permissible to hold hands with the devil. If Democrats really take such an approach -- and we'll have a pretty good idea of just how vindictive they will be if they take the House in the midterms, then Republicans like myself just won't feel comfortable jumping ship except under the most extreme of circumstances.

Is that really the sort of incentive the Democrats want to create? There's a good chance we'll find out.

The Gardener and the Carpenter: Explore/Exploit

According to economists, life is full of trade offs. One of those trade offs is between exploring and exploiting. Exploring things allows you to discover new ideas, to acquire knowledge, to get your hands messy. Exploiting knowledge lets you pay the bills.

Childhood is an opportunity for children to engage in protracted exploration without worrying about paying the bills.

This links in with the idea of evolv-ability. Certain species have evolved in such a way as to increase variability. Humans are one such species. Epigenetics plays an important role in how each child develops. Inputs from the environment determine which genes are expressed. Furthermore, some research suggests that some individuals are more sensitive to their environment than others.

There are daffodils and orchids Daffodils flourish in most environments. Orchids only flourish in particular environments.

Finally, brain plasticity. The brain is more plastic in the younger years, allowing children to adapt to new needs and environments. To slowly remake society to meet the needs of a coming age. As we age, plasticity decreases as we shift from exploring to exploiting.

At Reggio, instead of speaking about special needs, they speak of special rights. Simply put, we're not equal. If education is about allowing children to flourish, that means providing for those students that need more support -- both support those with learning disabilities and those that are gifted.

Children are not blank slates. They come with the same default settings. Our education system needs to stop treating them as if they do.

Finally, as a society, we have shifted away from exploration to exploitation. Just look at the budget. The vast chunk of our spending is non-discretionary. In the past, government spending was high in war years and lean in peace time. That is no longer the case. Has there been a side effect? Has our rate of technological innovation changed? Probably not. Indeed, if anything, people probably assume that the rate of technological innovation has increased by a lot.

However, there was an EconTalk a while back that said the something like general utility innovations come around once every 100 or so. Something to look up in the future/

Note to readers: this blog is going to be taking one more and more of a common book feel. I want to record readings and sources for future use. I want to also use it as an exercise in recall. This will mean more content, but that content will probably be less interesting or polished. Anyways, that's where things are heading here. You've been warned.   

The Walls of Israel

This morning, on the commute in to work, I dipped into The Walls of Israel. I picked the book not so much for the topic but because of the author. It might not be particularly P.C. but growing up my mother inculcated in me the idea that France and French values were a force for good in the world. And Indochine alway held a particular fascination for her.

Of course, as a child of the 60s, and as someone who identified primarily as an American, her defense of French values wasn't without some ambivalence. Still, while some American boys grew up on the Alamo, for me nothing could quite compare to Dien Bien Phu.

The Walls of Israel is a heartfelt portrait of the Israeli Army, back when it was still undefeated. Reading about the Israeli insistence on the importance of the human element it warfare, one can't help but wonder if America has made a horrible mistake. In a desperate effort to control spending, the military services have prioritized weapons over people.

When I first came to China, flying into Beijing from Inchon, I thought war was impossible but China was the only game in town. The world is now, I genuinely believe, more dangerous than it was a decade ago. A war is, I think, inevitable. The only question is where. Reading The Walls of Israel makes me wonder about the price we'll end up paying when the war finally comes.   

Reading The Gardener and the Carpenter by Alison Gopnik

I'm reading Alison Gopnik's latest, The Gardener and the Carpenter, which is an interesting look at "parenting" and its supposed experts. Unlike many Americans, I have a lot of experience working with children, I've been doing it for eight years. In the course of that work, I've come across other teacher that consider themselves experts. And I've come across teachers that make no claim at expertize, but instead depend on experience.

Gopnik rightly takes aim at the so-called experts. As a psychologist and philosopher, she knows more about the science of child development than most. Even then, she's no font of divine wisdom. Her own pet theory, theory theory, is hardly settled.

In any case, Gopnik suggests we allow two metaphors guide our thinking about parenting: the Gardener and the Carpenter. The carpenter doesn't like mess or unpredictability. He measures everything twice, works to a plan, builds with a particular function in mind. Indeed, Gopnik doesn't say this, but the carpenter is more like an engineer. He factors in a large factor of ignorance. Both arts and math. Not just one. Books and sports. Ballet and lacrosse. Why by bilingual when you can be trilingual?

I confess. I sympathize with such parents. Take languages for instance. If my wife and I are fortunate enough to have children, I'd like them to be at least semi-confident heritage speakers in all the languages their grandparents speak. That means four different dialects of Chinese--which are better thought of as separate languages, English, and French. Plus, I'd like them to know Latin.

We want to preserve our traditions. This urge is one of the things that make us human. But it's a tall order.

Gardeners, on the other hand, might lay out their garden with a certain plan in mind, but they leave a lot of room for chance and randomness. They know sometimes nature has a way of producing the best effects. Indeed, some gardeners claim to just broadcast their seeds and see what happens.

Gopnik doesn't want us to take such an extreme laissez-faire approach, but she certainly leans on the side of gardeners, not carpenters, which is a position I sympathize with.

I look forward to reading the rest of the book.

Newspapers vs. Magazines

Maybe things are usually hectic under President Trump. Truth be told, they probably are, but I can't be sure. People often chide their fellow citizens for not reading newspapers often enough. Other people say that newspapers stay afloat by peddling nonevents.

I more sympathetic to the second school of thought; I think newspapers pad. Instead of writing one article on the trade tariffs, they write four. Cable news is guilty of the same thing. Hour after hour of shows, all covering the same events, with only slightly different viewpoints.

Why am I ranting about newspapers? Well, I recently took out a trial subscription to the New York Times. I wish I hadn't. Frankly, it sucks away a lot of time from reading more interesting things, books and magazines.

Generally, I find, that I like weekly magazines the most. If I was pressed to name a magazine I truly enjoyed, I'd name The Spectator. I always --  well, almost always -- enjoy reading Taki in High Life. Sometimes he does make you wonder, but I think that's a good think; at least he's being genuine.

David Brooks had a column in the New York Times, talking about how columns used to be the works of individuals, with their idiosyncrasies. Now columnists have become party representatives. If Taki represents any party other than himself -- and maybe Steve Bannon -- I'm not sure what it is. The Same goes for the writers of Low Life and Real Life.

I've been trying out different magazines now for the last month or so. I've yet to find one half as amusing as The Spectator. Columnists that write as individuals make all the difference.

Morning Browse: Congestion Charges

New York is looking at introducing a congestion charge for part of the city. London and Stockholm already use congestion charges to decrease traffic in certain areas, but New York would be the first city to introduce such a system in the United States.

The U.S. does use congestion charges on its toll roads. The purpose is to keep the traffic on toll road flowing at a certain minimum rate. To roads in Northern Virginia aim for an average speed of 65 m.p.h..

The proposals have been attacked by some, saying that congestion charges and toll roads create a separate infrastructure for the haves and leaves the have-nots in traffic. This objection, however, misses the point. The fees raised from congestion charges are used to maintain all infrastructure, not just toll roads.

It reminds me of the economics of airplane tickets. Simply put, if it were few a few people flying in first class, airlines wouldn't be making money on a lot of flights. First class makes transatlantic flights economically feasible.

China also makes extensive use of toll roads for highways. One of the nice perks of a holiday is that sometimes the government does a deal and reduces the tolls, which sort of defeats the purpose. Anyways, thanks for reading.

Recently, things have been busy at work, so I'll be putting out just one or two posts a day.

Evening Browse: Monks, Christian Zionists, and Sarkozy

The New York Times did a piece on a Trappist monastery in South Carolina. If memory serves, at its height it had fifty brothers. Today it has around 10. To try and bolster its numbers, it is introducing month long and year long "vows", even allowing nonreligious individuals to take part in the program. The program sort of reminds me of Neal Stephenson's book Anathem, where people take vows for 1 year, ten years one-hundred years or even longer. It is an interesting read.

Abbeys are close to my heart. I did my undergraduate degree at a Benedictine abbey. It was an interesting experience. That said, I do wish I'd taken part more in the monastic side of things. I've been meaning to read the Benedict Option for a while now. One way to save communities like this Trappist monastery is making them more family friendly -- like a Christian kibbutz.

Sarkozy has been charged. He was picked up for questioning yesterday. He's accused of accepting 50 million Euro's worth of campaign money from Libya. If you want to get an idea for how the French legal system operates, I suggest Engrenages. It is sort of like a French version of The Wire.

Refugees and Immigrants

The New Republic and the Atlantic  both have interesting stories about immigration and refugees. The story in the New Republic is about extra-continentals, which are basically immigrants the Middle East and Asia that fly into Brazil -- visas are easy to get -- and then hike their way to Mexico. Once in Mexico, the Mexican government gives them around a week or so to try and make it across the border into America. Why are the coming from so far away? Well the number of extra-continentals crossing into the U.S. has been increasing since 2010, but a lot of the immigrants say they're doing this because it's too hard to gain status in Germany.

Over at the Atlantic they show us how Germany is attempting to screen their refugees. Simply put, they think a lot of applicants for asylum are trying to game the system.

Anyways, read together, I think the articles provide an interesting perspective.

French Consular Official Accused of Arms Trafficking in Israel

Romain Franck, a French official working as a driver at the French Consulate in Jerusalem, has been accused of trafficking arms into the Gaza Strip.

Mr. Franck, 23 years old, was on a year long contract, designed to give young people an opportunity to work overseas.

According to Shin Beth, the Israel Military Intelligence Service, Mr. Franck was motivated by money, not political belief.

More at Paris Match and RFI.

Russians Pushing Cambridge Analytica Story

According to the German Marshall Fund, Russian trolls are pushing the Cambridge Analytica story for all its worth. The German Marshall Fund's Securing Democracy program conducts a real-time analysis of 600 accounts linked to Russian influencing operations.

Here's the stories these accounts are pushing at the moment.

Does this mean the story is fake? Of course not! This is a serious story that merits attention. Do read up on it.

Trust but verify.

25% of @MassAGO Followers are Fake

As I mention in a previous post, when investigating the #CambridgeAnalytica, I noticed that a lot of @MassAGO's followers weren't active. Here is some follow up:

Twitter Audit says 25% of @MassAGO's followers are fake.

According to Twitter, at least 5% of Twitter users are bots. And roughly 15% of users involved in political discussions are bots. So it looks like her numbers are a little higher than usual. Anyways, all of this is still preliminary.

If you know a better way of doing this, please let me know.

Observatory of Social Media: Cambridge Analytica

Looks like the Cambridge Analytica story is gaining traction. Here is some data from the Observatory of Social Media.

This is what people are tweeting about when they tweet about Cambridge Analytica. Mostly Facebook. Bannon also is on there. Trumprussia and impeachtrump. This was just tweets for the last few days. You can explore the graph here.

There has been a huge up tick in tweets about #cambridgeanalytica. 

These are the people that are tweeting about it. Examine the graph here.

Finally, who are these people? Using Botometer, we can see if these accounts or bots or not. One of the weaknesses of this approach is that organizational accounts often have quite high scores.

Anyways, a lot of the users don't have high bot scores, but some do. Like MassAGO, which is the official account of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey. So I decided to go through her followers looking for bots. Why? Because the data above was a bit boring. She was one of the more interesting hits. Here is a list of followers with a bot score 60% or higher. There are also interesting examples of followers with no tweets. Has she paid a service to inflate her follower numbers? I'll save that for another time. Here are the first 30 potential bots discovered. 

In coming posts, I will attempt to examine some of these users in more detail.

Thoughts on Xi and Trump

This week Xi was officially renamed President of the People's Republic, hardly surprising. I'm not sure people really care. I know some netizens do, but the average man on the street probably doesn't. I don't really get a chance to hear the views of common people all that often. A few years ago, on slow train to Chengdu, I had a conversation with two men, roughly my own age. They admired Putin greatly. They liked strong leaders. And they found Obama somewhat lacking.

We were told, after Obama's election, that his apotheosis would restore faith in the American system. Hardly. The image might be inspiring to some, but America's pathetic attempt at virtue signaling is drowned out by the images pumped out by Hollywood and the media. Indeed, the Atlantic has an interesting piece, explaining why a lot of Trump's Chinese supporters like him. Quite a few of them studied in the U.S. where they found themselves caught in the middle of our culture war, and they didn't like it one bit.

I sometimes wonder why Xi is doing it? Does he hope to turn the Chinese State into his private property -- in the manner of an African dictator? According to selectorate theory, motivation is assumed. Every leader, whether they lead a democracy or a tyranny, wants to remain in power. They do so by bribing the people that matter.

In a country with a large selectorate, leaders are forced to bribe the selectorate with public goods: infrastructure, schools, health care. In a country with a small selectorate, it's cheaper to bribe the selectorate with private goods: women, private jets, Swiss bank accounts.

So how is Xi staying in power? Is he bribing people with private goods or public goods? And what about Trump?

With Trump, the bribes are clearly public so far: tax cuts, infrastructure spending, increased defense spending. For example, I don't much care about infrastructure spending or tax cuts. Living overseas, I don't use the infrastructure and I don't pay taxes unless my income exceeds a certain level. But being the son of an arms manufacturer, I'm all for increased defense spending. I think it happens to be sound policy, but I have to admit, I'm not a disinterested observer.

One thing Xi has done is increased pensions. This seems to suggest that Xi is relying on bribing people with public goods, but is he. Pensions are interesting. Corporate employees pay part of their income into pension funds, 8%. Government employees don't pay anything into the pension funds. In other words, the pension scheme can be seen as redistributing money from private sector employees to public sector employees.

Ask yourself this, who is more likely to be part of the Chinese selectorate? A mid-level civil servant or a mid-level wage worker in the private sector? I'd know who I'd bother bribing.

Which brings me back to Trump. Liberals like to portray Trump's attack on officials as an attack on the rule of law. But in fact what his attacks are indicative of is this: in America the electorate is still the selectorate; his power isn't dependent on some cabal of civil servants.

A Hollow Navy

When the Cold War ended. the U.S. Navy consisted of 594 ships. By 9/11 the U.S. Navy consisted of only 316 ships. According to the Naval Fleet Register, the U.S. Navy consists of 282 ships, of which 242 are active in commission. Despite the shrinking size of the U.S. Navy, it is being called upon to deploy more frequently than ever before. 

Since the cold war, the Navy has been cut in half, but the number of ships deployed overseas has remained almost unchanged: 100. That means less time for crews to train and more wear and tear on the ships themselves. In 2014 the average sailor spent 108 hours a week standing duty. Is it any wonder that the Navy has started wreaking ships into things? 

I think not.

Seablindness, judging by the sample, is an excellent book that tackles this important subject and more. I look forward to reading it in the coming weeks.

A New Variation of the Stealing the Election Meme

Democrats love to claim we stole the election. The Supreme Court stole it for Bush. The Electoral College stole it for Trump. The Russians stole it for Trump. Now Cambridge Analytica stole it from Trump. Republicans don't play fair.

The New York Times and the Observer have published articles claiming that Cambridge Analytica, via a subcontractor, stole the personal data of roughly a quarter of America's registered voters. They then used this data, harvested via Facebook, to deliver individually tailored ad campaigns. More from Reuters.

This all happened before Trump. And it appears Cambridge Analytica had already settled everything with Facebook. This originally happened in 2015. And Facebook was satisfied with how the issue was resolved. Now people are claiming Cambridge Analytica lied about deleting the data. And Facebook have banned them from the site.

I imagine this will be spun into the newest conspiracy theory of the left. It sounds plausible and it touches a raw nerve, unlike Russia. It's the sort of scandal Millennials can understand. I guess it will only take a few days to see if this thing has legs. 

Thoughts on Food: A Kantian Diet?

Read an interesting article in the Atlantic today. It was an excerpt from The Wizard and the Prophet by Charles C. Mann, depicting the life and work of Norman Borlaug and William Vogt. William Vogt's in his book The Road to Survival introduced the concept of carrying capacity, arguing that with the aide of modern technology man was exceeding the carrying capacity of the natural environment. Norman Borlaug was one of those technologists helping man live in excess. He helped develop dwarf wheat among other things.

Growing up, one of my friends was heavily influenced by William Vogt and the work of his disciples. He was, in many ways, a conservative. He ate lower on the food chain, foregoing meat, dairy, and eggs and advocated others do so, but he wasn't militant about it -- except when calling out the hypocrisy of liberals.

I often think of him when confronted by so called liberals stuffing their face with whatever the latest fad demands. They talk about how everyone should give of carbohydrates or the like. Billions of people couldn't afford to do so, and if they could, we'd all suffer. I know it's strange to object to a diet on the grounds of Kantian ethics, but I do.

Despite all that, I have always been more on the side of Borlaug. If it weren't for the Haber-Bosch process for artificially fixing nitrogen, three billion people would die. The only possible way to sustain our current population is to embrace technological change and development. Switching from wheat to potatoes or cassava isn't going to do it.

In any case, I've been toying with the idea of limiting my expenses to $42 a week, which is the weekly unemployment benefit it Puerto Rico. I don't think it would be all that challenging at all in China. In point of fact, I've been living off 200 RMB, roughly $32, a week for the last two weeks now. This week I'm toying with the idea of halving that amount to $16. Evidently, 80% of mankind lives on less than $10 a day, and something like half the world lives on $3 a day.

I'll be eating a lot of potatoes if I decide to follow through. I suppose I ought to -- it being Lent and all.
    

Democratic Infighting vs. The Trojan Lamb

If the Democrats pick up 24 seat, Republicans lose the house. In a midterm election, the president's party -- that's us -- usually loses seats. There's different theories explaining why this happens but we'll just say it has to do with turnout. More people vote in presidential elections. Also, people tend to be a little bit more motivated by negative emotions. So people with a grievance are more likely to show.

In the special election in Pennsylvania. the Democrats got their act together and ran a socially conservative candidate, thereby successfully cherry-picking the district, which was considered safe. So safe the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided to redistrict the state, practically on its own initiative, apparently applying a criterion --partisan balance-- which has never been applied before.

The Democrats barely won, but they did. So the question on everyone's mind is, can the Democrats do it again? Neo-neocon thinks they can. She believes a bunch of Democrats will run as social conservatives -- or at least moderates -- and then switch tunes upon achieving office. Yes, that could happen, and might happen in some district, but I don't think it can be a widespread phenomena. 

Progressives are already angry at few social conservatives that do remain in the Democratic Party. So angry that they're challenging them, and outside organizations are funding the challengers. I think we're going to see more of this. The Democratic primaries will force candidates to lean left. In the general election, when they lean back towards the center, they'll catch flak from both sides.

Being a Trojan Lamb is hard, especially when some of the Greeks are doing their utmost to burn you to the ground.  

Defense on the Cheap: Off-Shore Balancing

According to many, the United States is an off-shore balancer. It plays regional powers off one another, preventing any one power becoming a regional hegemon. America dislikes regional hegemons, believing them to be the only powers capable of successfully challenging American sea power.

American proponents of Off-shore balancing generally believe that only hegemons arising in Northeast Asia, the Persian Gulf, or Western Europe pose a threat to American power. This is why we spend so much of our time worrying about China's influence in Northeast Asia, Russia's influence in Western Europe, and the growing influence of Iran in the Persian Gulf. 

The United States is planning to spend $686 billion on the DoD in FY 2019. Furthermore, the Department of Energy is performing life extension work on 5 types of nuclear warheads, and developing Columbia-class nuclear reactors for the Navy.

As mentioned a few days ago, the Air Force is short 2,000 pilots, most of those unfilled billets being for fighter pilots. 

China is increasing it's military budget, shrinking our relative advantage. Iran is applying increase pressure, and the DPRK has threatened to test its nuclear warheads in the atmosphere. 

In other words, it hardly seems like the time to cut defense spending. What we need to do, however, is keep defense spending from increasing. This means focusing on essentials: Northeast Asia and the Persian Gulf. Europe needs to pull more of its own weight. Yes, Russia is quite frightening--which is all the more reason why Europe ought to be spending more on it's own defense. 

We need to make the Pivot to Asia more than just a rhetorical shield for American absenteeism. The best way for America to save money is by embracing a strategy and stop winging it.

After ISIS: Dealing with Foreign Fighters

I've been reading through the testimony of Gen. Votel, Commander of Central Command, before the Senate Armed Forces Committee. Lots of things on his plate. Amazing success fighting ISIS. As a consequence, we need to deal with foreign fighters being captured.

According to Gen. Votel's written statement (page 21):

A significant challenge we face as we complete the defeat of ISIS is the repatriation of hundreds of foreign fighters to their home countries. The SDF and ISF are both holding several hundred fighters from a number of different countries in prisons or temporary detention facilities, with no clear process for prosecution or repatriation. The longer these fighters remain in detention together, the greater danger they pose as they form new connections, share lessons learned, and prepare to re-establish networks upon their release or escape. This urgent problem requires a concerted international effort involving law enforcement, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic agreements.

A little while ago, Rory Stewart, a junior minister in Britain, said that the best solution was to give no quarter, to do our utmost to kill them on the battlefield. He said that in October. He received a lot of flak for his remark.

Gavin Williamson, the British defence secretary, has also expressed similar views. As I mentioned in a previous post, according to the Spectator, more Muslim Britons have flocked to ISIS's standard than serve in the British Armed Forces.

What are we going to do about this? The longer we wait, the more dangerous these foreign fighters become.

Corruption in the Middle East at all time high

 According to a statement by General Joseph L. Votel, Commander of U.S. Central Command, 90% of countries in the Middle East receive a failing grade from Transparency International Corruption Index and corruption is at an all time high.

Global Security lists 22 countries as falling within Central Command's area of responsibility. Here they are in ranked order. From most corrupt to least:

Syria (178)
Afghanistan (177)
Yemen (175)
Iraq (169)
Turkmenistan (167)
Tajikistan (161)
Uzbekistan (157)
Lebanon (143)
Kyrgyzstan (135)
Iran (130)
Kazakhstan (122)
Djibouti (122)
Pakistan (117)
Egypt (117)
Bahrain (103)
Kuwait (85)
Oman (68)
Jordan (59)
Saudi Arabia (57)
Seychelles (36)
Qatar (29)
United Arab Emirates (21)
   

Pennsylvania Special Election: Money and Ideology

The Democrats have won by a few hundred votes. We won't know the final count for I guess a week. FiveThirtyEight says we should be worried. Fine. Let's worry.

But let's look at some figures. Conor Lamb spent $3,031,838 to Saccone's $613,357. The average victor of a midterm election spends $1.6 million. In 2016 Tim Murphy spent $1.1 million. So Conor Lamb won by spending double the money that normally gets spent.

Can the Democrats replicate that sort of spending on a national level?

At the moment, it appears that Democrats have a slight lead in the money game. Republican candidates have raised $200 million. Democrats have raised $224.5 million. In the last midterm, Republican candidates raised around $86 million more than Democrats.

Finally, why should I worry? Conor Lamb is a DINO. If that's what Democrats have to do to win, becoming more conservative, fine by me.

Strong Response

May's response was a strong one. Corbyn is on the record, or at least his representatives are, suggesting the Russians might not be responsible. I can understand why he might think that, but really?

Very strange situation. Russian state assets have been frozen. 23 Russian diplomats will be expelled. More sanctions will be announced later in the day. High level contact will be curtailed.

Russia, I think, is testing the limits, trying to apply maximum pressure on the Europeans. They want to push back on NATO expansion. They also, I think, want to show China that they're a valuable partner with capabilities they lack.

China and Russia are not natural allies. As Russia's population continues to shrink, China will be tempted to throw its weight around. Russia needs to show China that they can punch above its weight.

This is what happens when America abandons a policy of selective engagement. The Obama Administration's failure to lead is why we're dealing the messes overseas that we're dealing with. Let's not forget that.

Morning Browse: Youtube, a Mysterious Death, and Yes Means Yes

Youtube will be displaying information from Wikipedia next to videos promoting conspiracy theories. Fine, I suppose. Trouble is who gets to decide what counts as a conspiracy theory? Surely the onus is on the person consuming the information to evaluate it. Google is opening itself up to criticism down the line. If they don't put Wikipedia information up next to a video, should we consider that a tacit endorsement on their part? Of course not, but some people will take it that way.

Russia has announced that it has no intention of complying with the United Kingdom's request for further information. As if to make that point abundantly clear, a Russian exile has died in London in mysterious circumstances.

Some feminists have come up with a new slogan: Yes means Yes. Otherwise known as Enthusiastic Consent. If a woman doesn't enthusiastically consent to sex verbally, she hasn't given consent. 

Evening Browse: Air Force Imploding, Israeli Algorithms, Tellerson, and Russia

War on the Rocks is just a great blog, which I will be adding to my regular round. I used to read it but stopped for some reason. I have no idea why I stopped. They have a great series discussing how the Air Force has essentially been gutted. Simply put, the Air Force doesn't have enough planes, the planes it does have are too old, and it's 2,000 fighter pilots short. The higher ups in the Air Force made so questionable decisions. Please consider reading the series.

I watched part of a interview with Michael Lewis today. He's the author of Liar's Poker, Moneyball, and The Big Short. I really enjoy his books, but I haven't gotten around to reading Flashboys or The Undoing Project, until today. In the interview, Michael Lewis mentioned how the Israeli army tasked Danny Kahneman with the task of developing an algorithm for assessing potential officers. Intrigued, I decided to dig into the book to find out more.

I've always been interested in this sort of thing. I've read quite a few comparative studies of the American Officer Corps and the German Officer Corps. I confess, I haven't read much about the IDF. I have The Walls of Israel and a few other books on my Kindle, but I haven't really dived into them yet.

As a young officer, Kahneman found himself as the only actual psychologist working in the IDF's Psychological Unit. One of his tasks was assessing officer candidates. They were given a team task, and then observed as they attempted to overcome the challenge, and Kahneman used the challenge to observe personality and make predictions. He felt very confident in his predictions, but he compared his predictions to actual outcomes and realized his predictions were worthless.

So he tried to come up with a better way. In the end he designed an interview that assessed recruits on: pride, punctuality, sense of duty, sociability, and capacity for independent thought. Interviewers rated each of these factors on a 1 to 5 scale, based on the examples the interviewees provided. They were then added together to produce he Kahneman score. Something the Israeli military still uses to this day.

I suppose there must be a bit more to it than that. The order the questions is important, and the questions were designed so it wasn't clear what sort of information the interviewer was trying to gather.

Tellerson has been fired. Pompeo will replace him. I guess this explains why Tellerson and the White Houses were sending mixed messages about the attack on Sergei Shapoval.

The United Kingdom has issued an ultimatum to Russia. Explain the nerve agent attack by midnight or expect a retaliation. Russia has countered by saying, let us examine the nerve agent. Britain has refused their request. It is approximately 3 p.m. at time of publication. 

Substitute Goods: Children and Pensions?

A few days ago, I wrote up a little piece discussing the ineffectiveness of China's Two-Child Policy. Today I want to discuss the economics involved at a micro-level. Why do couples decide to have children?

Children represent an investment, and like any investment, it involves a trade-off. Money spent on children is money that can't be spent on other things. Those things can be fancy meals or shoes or they can be things like life insurance or an annuity. The main economic reason for having children is that they're an asset able to support their parents in old age. Such support, however, is not guaranteed.

Children can be ungrateful. Even if they do prosper, you've no guarantee they'll do the right thing and provide for you in your dotage. Furthermore, there's no guarantee they will succeed in life. Indeed, they might not make it very far in life at all.

For example, say you live in a society where children provide for their elderly parents. If they don't, society will ostracize them. In such a society, when a couple are deciding how many children to have, they only have to think about one two things: how likely is a child to make a good living (enough to support us in comfort), and how likely is it for a child to survive.

Furthermore, let's suppose parents are willing to accept some risk. They don't demand a 100% guarantee. They require something more like a 90% guarantee.

If the answer is they're guaranteed to make a good living and they're guaranteed to survive to a ripe old age, then it makes sense to have one child.

But suppose only 50% of children make something of themselves in the world. In that case, it makes more sense to have an heir and a spare, to diversify your portfolio as it were.

Why do birthrates decline in developed economies? Maybe the reason is that they provide old age pensions, which make it unnecessary for couples to invest in children. Interesting idea. Hard to test. So let's see if there is at least a correlation. If there is, then maybe this merits some further examination.

According to the CIA, these are the countries/dependencies with the lowest birthrates:

Monaco
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Andorra
Japan
Puerto Rico
Slovakia
South Korea
Taiwan
Greece
San Marino
Macau
Italy
Singapore
Germany
Bulgaria
Bosnia
Croatia
Romania
Hong Kong
Portugal 

Ok, how does that compare to the social insurance provision? How to measure? Good question. Let's start with the ranking put out by Global Age Watch. Here are the top twenty countries to grow old in:

Switzerland
Norway
Sweden
Germany
Canada
Netherlands
Iceland
Japan
United States
United Kingdom
Denmark
New Zealand
Austria
Finland
Ireland
France
Australia
Israel
Luxembourg
Panama

The only overlap in those two sets is Japan and Germany. So let's see if there's a correlation between high birthrates and the worst countries to grow old in,

Top Twenty Countries/dependencies by birthrate:

Angola
Niger
Mali
Uganda
Zambia
Burundi
Brukina Faso
Malawi
Somolia
Liberia
Mozambique
Afghanistan
Nigeria
Ethiopia
Sierra Leone
Tanzania
Chad
South Sudan
Cameroon
Guinea

And now for worst countries to grow old in:

Afghanistan
Malawi
Mozambique
West Bank and Gaza
Pakistan
Tanzania
Zambia
Rwanda
Uganda
Iraq
Nigeria
Jordan
Morocco
Lao PDR
Honduras
Ghana
Cambodia
Greece
South Africa
Republic of Moldova

In both those sets are: Uganda, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Tanzania. Which is a bit better. Besides, the data so far is a bit plausible. After all, we don't just have children so we have someone to provide for us in old age. There are certain intrinsic joys to raising children.

But there is one anomaly: Greece. Greece is one of the worst countries to grow old in but it also has one of the lowest birthrates. Anyways, something to think about. Thanks for reading!

Morning Browse: Reapers, Nerve Gas, and Taxes

The MQ-1 Predator has been retired from service. All Air Force Squadrons have now switched over to the MQ-9 Reaper. War on the Rocks has a good piece tracing the history of MQ-1 Predator and its evolving capability. In short, UAVs have transitioned from being merely intelligence gathering platforms to true hunter-killers.

Given the unwillingness of American society to sustain heavy casualties, such a capability will become increasingly important. Instead of people whining about this, we should just accept and adapt.

Over in Britain, the Prime Minister has stated that the Russians was highly likely to be behind the attack on Sergei Skripal. Either Russia lost control over the nerve agent used or authorized its use. Truly shocking. Russian diplomats should be PNG'd. The United States also agrees with this assessment.

Finally, I happened across some interesting figures, showing who pays taxes and where that money goes. Progressive taxation is often justified on the grounds of taking from the rich to give to the poor. But look at government transfers. It is the worst off Americans that receive the least benefit from the state. It is the middle class that receives the most benefit. Source.

  

Slate Star Codex: On Taxes

So I've started diving in on Slate Star Codex, an interesting blog, that covers mostly topics relating to politics, rationality, and psychology.

I've been told it has a bit of a reactionary tint, and that Slate Star Codex is dangerous because the author is a clever man, but writes on subjects he has no particular expertize in. So I thought I might poke through his archives and see what I think.

I wouldn't claim I'm an expert, but I do have degrees in international political theory and another in philosophy, specifically philosophy of science. and given my family background, I also have a lot of exposure to military issues and China. Anyways...

In one of his posts, Scott compares the GOP's Tax Bill to other "expensive" things. Analyzing a tax cut in such terms, however, is just fundamentally wrong. Tax bills change tax rates, not tax revenues. We won't know the true cost of the tax bill until it's implemented. The figures he works with are estimates.

You might say I'm sea-lawyering, but I'm not. These estimates are difficult to make. But the author commits a even deeper error.

The writer is committing a category-mistakes, which betrays his view of states and their relation to citizens. Tax cuts like the GOP Tax Bill and the Bush Tax cuts and things like the Apollo program and the Obama Stimulus are different types of things. It's misleading to compare them in terms of cost. We see this when we examine the figures more closely.

The numbers are just different. For the Apollo program, he just takes the budget figures. But that's not the true cost. It doesn't take into account the economic impact. But for the the GOP Tax Bill,  he does attempt to take into account economic impact.

In short, he's comparing the accounting costs of some government proposals to the economic costs of other government proposals proposals.

Finally, he's just wrong. Is it a great proposal? Probably not. Is it a terrible proposal that will trigger a crisis? No. The bill doesn't just benefits corporations. Even Krugman doesn't believe that.

Morning Browse: Trump Moderates, Hong Kong By-elections, and

President Trump has backed down from his more grandiose gun control proposals. Instead he is backing more modest reform to background checks, grants for training armed teachers, and administrative action to ban bump stocks.

By-elections results for the Hong Kong Legislative Council came in on Monday. Pro-democracy candidates took 2 of the 4 seats being contested. The by-elections were triggered by six pro-democracy candidates refusing to swear the oath of office proposed by Beijing. Turnout was down. The LegCo consists of 35 geographical constituencies and 35 functional constituencies.

In Japan, Prime Minister Abe is coming under increasing pressure over charges of cronyism. Abe has said he will resign if the allegations are proved. 80% of Japanese believe the scandal has been mishandled.

PMQ: Mansplaining in the House

Housing dominated this week's session. The Prime Minister has taken personal charge of this issue. It's tricky. Planning permission for some developments haven taken as long as 20 years. A lot of this is up to how efficiently local authorities process planning requests.

Saudi Arabia was another major topic of conversation. The Saudi Crown Prince was visiting, in-route to Washington. The attack on Sergei Skripal was mentioned. And rough sleeping once more popped up.

The Prime Minister gets a good jab in at Corbyn almost right out of the gate.

I listened to PMQ this week without headphones. My wife, who has sometimes listened in before, said she could never imagine Xi being able to do anything of the sort, and my mother said she thought it would be a challenge even for most American presidents. I have to say, I agree. 

Evening Browse: Flake vs.Trump, Spectator USA, and Horror in the Twin Cities

Senator Jeff Flake has said he thinks someone should primary President Trump. It shouldn't come as a surprise that he thinks he's the man for the job. I think it's a bit early to be so vehemently opposed to the man. Yes, he's crass, and quite annoying at times, but suppose North Korea does pan out. What then? I believe President Trump will eventually trip up. But I hope he doesn't. These people really are thin skinned -- I suppose every generation has had its fair share of snowflakes.

The Spectator is launching an American edition -- or at least a website. It looks good, and I look forward to reading it regularly.

A story has been unfolding in Minnesota these last few weeks. Two twin girls were severely abused and raped by their father. There we a lot of warning signs, but nothing was done to protect these two young women. The neighbors are saying, we called the police, we called child protective services, and they did nothing. I think this incident, however, isn't just an indictment of government but of community.

     

Trash or Treasure: Collusion by Luke Harding

A few weeks ago, I downloaded a sample of Collusion, which I mistakenly thought might shed some light on Christopher Steele and his dossier. Luke Harding, however, write nonfiction like a bad novelist. Mr Harding, I do not give a damn about what you, your editor, and Christopher Steele had to drink during your first meeting.

Nor do I particularly care for your thoughts on the feasibility of pole vaulting into the Queen's private gardens. And I certainly don't give a damn about the decor or Mr Steele's office, the pub across the way, or Stalin's bunker. What I want are important facts, not trivia. But trivia is all you give.

I have to confess, I have immense sympathy for Steele. Cambridge. Cambridge Union President. Grandson of a miner. But none of that changes a thing. Sympathetic people, clever people, get duped all the time. Especially, when they're being sold a story they want to believe.

If there was a meaningful case to make, Mr Harding, you should have led with hard evidence. Instead you engage in sophistry. Your chosen method of persuasion is by appealing to Mr Steele's character. In short, this book is all ethos and no logos.

Verdict: Trash
   

Steve Bannon at Die Weltwoche

Not much happened that was newsworthy during the night. Tariff implementation continues to develop. Trump will get his Veteran's Day parade. Bannon continues his European tour, addressing the Front National in France. 

Earlier this week, Bannon gave a talk in Switzerland, which was organized by Die Weltwoche. I recommend watching it. 

Lots of interesting ideas, and definitely a different perspective. Thanks for reading. 

Evening Browse: Wirathu, Tillerson, and Xi

Acts of genocide, to borrow a term of art created by the Clinton administration, may be occurring in Myanmar. I find the continuing usage of this terminology disheartening. Genocide is genocide. Wirathu, a Buddhist monk, has recently emerged from a year long gag order. In his first sermon after the gag order was lifted, Wirathu, referring to himself in the third person said, "If Wirathu creates conflict, Mandalay would become ash." Sounds like a threat to me.

Tillerson, on an official trip to Kenya has fallen ill. It has been unseasonably wet in Kenya these last few weeks. Or perhaps the North Korean breakthrough has left him exhausted.

China is claiming the American breakthrough on North Korea is their doing. Hardly. In fact, I suspect China must be anxious, pondering what will happen after Kim and Trump conclude their chinwag. Going forward, we have to realize that China's interests and our own are not perfectly aligned. I know it's a ludicrous thought, but imagine if this is Trump's Nixon moment. If he opened up North Korea, if we poured in a massive investment package. China would be less than pleased.

Subway Sketch: Authoritarianism on the cheap

Five cellphones stand between me and the compartment door. It's rush hour, and the compartment is packed. The doors slide open, time and time again, and the people standing out on the platform look in and decide to wait. In a few stops, however, I'll have no choice. I'll have to run the gauntlet.

Until then I bide my time, reading this week's Spectator. I have to say, whenever I read book reviews in the Spectator I feel a tad guilty. I really ought to be reading more, making time for the classics, making the most of the Spectator's advice. Instead, intransigent, I continue scouting on my own accord, trying to discover some gems hidden in the muck.

But that's not what today's sketch is about.

In the morning, on my way to the subway station, I watched as Chengguan (City Management) made their rounds. They were checking storefronts, making sure they weren't spilling out onto the pavement -- as shop owners the world over are prone to do. At every shop, one of the Chengguan stops, pulls out his smart phone, and snaps a picture. They've been doing this for years; it's a thankless job.

In America police departments probably still issue special cameras for this sort of thing. China does it on the cheap. Bring your own tools of oppression, comrade.

A curious detail you might overlook is how the chengguan take their pictures. The one snapping shots waits until his partner is in frame. Then and only then does he snap away. Some chengguan somewhere, I suppose, must have got creative, taking a bunch of snaps of storefronts and doctoring the timestamps and submitting them whenever they claimed to make their rounds.

At the station all our bags are x-rayed, and some of us get worked over with wands. Every ticket entrance down to the platform has an x-ray machines and four security guards. Inside the station, somewhere, a police officer prowls, spot checking IDs. They never check foreigners for passports. They never check women. And they never check the elderly. Instead they limit their spot checks to young men. It seems to work.

The devices the police use to perform these checks are a little bulkier than the typical cellphone but not quite the size of a graphing calculator. In a few years, no doubt, such devices will be relics, and the police will just use their smart phones. Progress of a kind.

Down on the platform, a subway worker stands watch, making sure nothing goes amiss. Nothing does. Balloons are banned, but this rule is breached more often than I like.

On the way back home, I imagine what would happen if the trains kept running but the turnstiles stopped turning. It would take only a few trains, ten minutes worth, before we'd have a huge problem. The station is crowded as it is at the best of times. If a sudden blockage developed, some unfortunate would find themselves crushed.

I suppose that's what I get for living in the suburbs. Yes, rent is cheaper, and we have much more house than before, but rush hour is truly something special.

Maybe I should leave earlier.

Morning Browse: Guardians, Security Clearances, and Soros's Slovaks

In Florida Gov. Scott has signed increased gun restrictions into law 23 days after the deadly shooting at Parkland. The law imposes a 21-year-old minimum age requirement,  three day waiting period, and a ban on bump stocks. Other measures include a ban on bump stocks, a guardian programs which deputizes and arms some school employees, and $400 million for mental health care.

62% of Florida voters support a ban on assault weapons -- whatever those are. Would be a rather leading question: Do you support or oppose banning murder rifles? Would the results from such a poll be newsworthy?

Democrats on the House's Oversight and Government Reform Committee are demanding that the White House turn over documents relating to White House security clearances. The committee became interested in the question of White House security clearances after the Rob Porter incident. Evidently, he was working on a temporary clearance.

Protests are growing in Slovakia, where the Prime Minister is mixed up in the murder of a journalist. The Prime Minister, Robert Fico, and the President, Andrea Kiska, aren't the best of friends. Rico is insinuating that the protests are the result of a conspiracy between President Kiska and Geroge Soros. 

Government and Russian forces continue to destroy all resistance in Syria, civilians be damned. I am reading about such things, but I'm not writing about it. I haven't the heart for it. 

Evening Browse: Segregation, Armed Teachers, Divestment, Obama, and More Tariffs

Students at the University of Minnesota are petitioning to rename the student union building. The building is named after Lotus D. Coffman, who kept the university segregated during his tenure as president. Given the current climate and momentum of things, Leftists will doubtless rename the student union building after the president that reintroduces segregated dorms, i.e. safe housing. 

Florida is set to pass its largest budget ever, set at $86 billion. The legislature will vote on Sunday. If passed, Gov. Scott will have 15 days to sign it into law. Florida is a balanced budget state, meaning the government cannot operate at a deficit. $97 million has been allocated for hiring additional school resource officers. And $67 million allocated for firearms training for teachers. 

Lawmakers in Ohio might be considering a bill requiring Ohio to divest from Russia. At present the state's pension fund has at least $2 million invested in Gazprom. That will show Putin, rumored to be among the richest men alive.

According to the New York Times, Obama might be coming to Netflix with a series of his very own. Trump started in reality television and became a politician. I suppose Obama is going about it the other way around. Frankly, I'm not sure which is worse.

Republicans in Pennsylvania are challenging the state's redistricting, accusing the Democrat controlled state Supreme Court of gerrymandering. The case will be heard by three federal judges. Republicans are seeking an injunction to prevent the redistricting from being implemented until after the midterms. State Republicans have also petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court.

Europeans are crying out one voice, Exempt us from your tariffs or suffer our wrath! Bring it. I suppose it's that sort of sentiment that gets you in a trade war. The EU is giving us 90 days to sort out an exemption.     

Bank Reform: Goodbye Dodd-Frank or more of the same?

The Senate is working on bank reform. Under Dodd-Frank Act, banks are required to meet certain capital requirements and regulatory requirements if their assets total more than $50 billion. The propose change applies those capital and regulatory requirements only to banks that have assets totaling more than $250 billion or foreign banks with global assets totaling more than $100 billion.

Lately, I've been spending my evenings reading Walter Bagehot's Lombard Street. It is a very insightful book, which is of some relevance to the topic on hand. In the book, Bagehot claims that if it weren't government intervention or interference, banks would keep larger capital reserves.

Banks, he explains, have an incentive to lend as much money as possible. If they don't they give up making any interest on it. Banks only keep enough money on hand for handling day-to-day operations. They also keep a reserve fund, which is used try and keep a bank's doors open during a run. In Bagehot's day, most smaller banks deposited their reserve funds with the Bank of England. Today most banks deposit their reserve funds with the Federal Reserve.

Capital requirements are something different. A bank trades with both its own money, raised from shareholders, but also with borrowed money, raised from lenders. Why? Because it allows banks to increase their profits. Take a hypothetical. Arch-Con Banking Corps, knows a lender that will give it money at 5%. It also knows another a borrower that will give it 8% for money. Arch-Con borrows the money. Re-lends it. Everything works out. Arch-Con pockets 3%.

Not a bad way to make a bit of money. A capital requirement, however, is a requirement like, for every $1 raised from shareholders, you may only borrow $10. Needless to say, as a hypothetical bank, I'm not keen on such an idea. Why? Well for a start, I don't think government has any place telling me I can't borrow as much money as I damn well please.

Secondly, it's not like money raised from shareholders is free. I have to pay a dividend on it. Take Lloyds, a bank I happily owned shares in until Gordon Brown cornered our chairmen at a drinks party and talked him into being patriotic. It pays its shareholders a dividend of 4.54%. But if I want to borrow the same amount of money, I only have to pay the LIBOR, which for one year is currently, 2.5%.

Let's look at the example above. I have two "lenders" one lends at 2.5% one lends at 4.54%. I have a borrower that will pay 8%. Obviously, because I want to maximize profits, I want to use the lender that gives me money at 2.5%, not 4.54%, The government forces me, however, to use a certain amount of money from my shareholders.

If the deal goes a little south, my shareholders lose out. If the deal goes really south, my shareholders and lenders still lose out.

All this is window dressing, however, if the government is too afraid to let banks fail. And banks can still fail. All it takes is for banks to get creative about risk, for regulators to grow numb and not notice this creativity, and they'll be off to the races.

If you want good banks, you have to let bad banks fail.

Morning Browse: Tariffs, Twitter, Traitors and More Tariffs

Tariffs on steel and aluminum have been imposed at 25% and 10% respectively. Canada and Mexico have been exempted, and their exemption has been linked to the ongoing NAFTA renegotiation. China may respond by targeting US soybeans. The EU is feeling petulant and has a whole arsenal at their disposal. Trump has threatened additional tariffs on European cars if the EU does attempt retaliatory sanctions.

A U.S. judge opines that it might be unconstitutional for President Trump to block people on his Twitter account, claiming that it would violate free speech. Whatever happened to freedom of association? I seem to remember that being somewhere in the constitution. It seems that muting a user, on the other hand, is undoubtedly constitutional.

Last month Oakland's mayor, Libby Schaff, took to the air, warning illegal immigrants that ICE was coming. According to the head of ICE, 800 illegal immigrants managed to remain at large because of Schaff's actions. The President said her actions were a disgrace.

Meanwhile in Virginia, Paul Manafort plead not-guilty. He stands accused of conspiracy of conspiracy to commit money laundering, failing to register as a foreign agent, bank fraud, and filing false tax returns.

In the course of writing the Morning Browse, Elon Musk has come out on Twitter, asking for Trump to impose, essentially, reciprocal tariffs on Chinese cars. Tesla, a car company owned by Musk, has been attempting to open a plant in China. China, however, demands that the plant be a joint venture. Musk, determined to protect his intellectual property, has refused to cave. At present, Tesla sells cars manufactured in the US into the China market, paying a 25% tariff. Cars manufactured in China and sold into the US market are only subject to a 2.5% tariff. 

In two minutes, South Korea will be making an important announcement, likely concerning planned talks with North Korea.

Two-Child Policy Not Working

The Chinese government is desperate to increase the birthrate, but it's just not working. Why? Simply put, economic development and birthrates seemed to be inversely related. As Chinese people become richer, more and more of them are postponing having children to pursue jobs or other opportunities, like graduate study.

Also, speaking from personal experience, I know quite a few women resent the government flip flopping. Just a few years ago, they were coerced into getting abortions. Now they can't go to a Buddhist temple without seeing posters denouncing abortion.

Why does the government want to increase the birthrate? For the same reason Ponzi schemes are always looking for fresh victims. In short, China's pension system. In coming years, government will be forced to reallocate more government money to funding these pensions, as China's population gray. As a result, it will be forced to divert money away from economic development.

To try about combat this looming crisis, the government introduced a Two-Child Policy in 2016. THe birthrate did increase, but not enough. According to a survey conducted by the All-China Women's Federation, more than half of Chinese couples had no interest in having a second child. Simply put, children are expensive to raise in China, especially if you want to educate them properly. Even public schools aren't free. Most charge tuition fees. This isn't exactly kosher, but most schools do it.

A delegate to this year's Two-Sessions meeting in Beijing has suggested instituting a Three-Child Policy. Good luck with that, comrade.

Retaliatory Tariffs

According to Reuters, the EU is considering retaliatory tariffs against the United States, targeting Harley Davidson motorcycles, Levi jeans, and Kentucky bourbon. Trump has stated that he will respond to retaliatory tariffs in kind. I sympathize with his position.

The EU tariffs target products produced in states or congressional districts that send prominent politicians to Washington. Harley Davidson is located in Speaker Ryan's congressional district. Bourbon is produced in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell state. And Levi jeans are made in Nancy Pelosi's district.

Such tariffs are the product of EU bureaucrats with too much time on their hands. If such tariffs are imposed, the United States should respond. That response, however, should not be economic. The United States should make pursue a policy of linkage.

For example, if retaliatory tariffs are imposed, then the United States should consider decreasing U.S. troops in Europe, shrinking the nuclear umbrella, or withdrawing from NATO. These are just to give you an idea of some options.

The point of linkage is to apply pressure where it's most effective. 34,602 troops are stationed in Germany where they make a significant contribution to the local economy. 12,088 are stationed in Italy. Around 900 are assigned to NATO HQ in Brussels. Selective decreases could serve as a noneconomic shot across the bow.     

Something Fishy in Minnesota

Wellstone Action, a progressive organization that trains young progressives in the art of campaigning, has been accused of financial irregularities. The sons of Senator Wellstone, who the organization is named after, are demanding that the organization stop using its family name, saying it has betrayed the core values of its parents.

The brothers sent a letter to Wellstone Action's major donors, asking them to exert pressure and withhold funding until more answers are forthcoming.

The dispute originated over how $200,000 had been spent.

Fast and Furious

The Justice Department will be handing over documents related to the Fast and Furious gun-trafficking operation under the Obama Administration. The documents will be given to the House Committee for Oversight and Government Reform.

Guns trafficked in this program were used to kill one federal agent.

Feds to sue California

On Tuesday the Justice Department sued California, which is only fair given how often California sues the federal government. The dispute is over immigration policy, specifically California's refusal to cooperate with federal immigration officials. Under California law, it is illegal for state law enforcement to inquire about immigration status, and California refuses to share information about illegal immigrants in its custody.

The lawsuit challenges three laws.

Assembly Bill 450 -- which makes it illegal for private employers to share information with federal immigration officials. Private employers that violate this law are fined. Penalties range between $2,000 and $10,000.

Senate Bill 54 -- which makes it illegal for state and local law enforcement to share information about illegal immigrants with the federal government.

Assembly Bill 103 --which  allows the state to inspect federal immigration detention centers.

These aren't the only laws in California that give it a reputation for being a sanctuary state. In 2013, California passed The California Trust Act, which prevents the state and local police from holding illegal immigrants picked up for minor offenses. 

Gary Cohen Out, Tariffs In

Gary Cohen, one of Trump's top economic advisors, has resigned over the the steel and aluminum tariffs being rolled out this week. He's not the only one upset. Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Ryan thinks the proposal is too broad. McConnell thinks tariffs might lead to a trade war. Mark Meadow, head of the Freedom Congress, worries that the Chinese might impose retaliatory tariffs targeting agriculture.

As many people have said, this is probably Trump opening negotiations. Will he impose a 25% tariff on all steel? Probably not. I expect we will get more targeted tariffs or other measures designed to prevent the transshipment of Chinese steel.

Over at the Financial Post, the second most read article is a op-ed supporting Trump's tariff plan. In it, the author notes that the EU has increased import duties on steel from Brazil, Iran, Russia, and Ukraine. He also notes that we don't know how much support the EU provides to its steel industry.

In any case, we'll soon find out.

Taxation : Equal Pay for Equal Work

According to Leftists, equal pay for equal work is a basic principle, particularly when they discuss the pay gap between men and women. Today, however, we're discussing how progressive income tax violates this principle.

Suppose you have two individuals. Let's say they're lawyers and make a fairly steady income. For the ease of calculation, let's say they both make roughly $100 an hour. And for the sake of our conversation, we'll say their work is of an equal caliber. 

Let us also suppose we have a country with three tax rates: 

A: 0% for people making $29,999 or under a year.

B: 15% for people making between $30,000 and $49,999 a year. 

C: 20% for individuals making more than $50,000.

As I mentioned in a previous post, progressive taxation is inherently discriminatory because the difference between an individual making $29,999 and $30,000 is arbitrary. Why is it justifiable to take 15 cents away from the latter and not the former? 

But that's not the question we're considering at present. Suppose one of our lawyers has had a bit of luck. He's been working for a few years, but he's mother went and did a very nice thing. Soon after he was born, his mother purchased a deferred annuity for her son, and she has dutifully been making the payments ever since. The annuity has been accumulating for 30 years. Now it has finally started distributing. It pays $3,000 a month. 

What will our lawyer do now that's he's making an extra $33,000 a year?

Let's suppose he made $20,000 from lawyering, working a mere 200 hours a year. He now stands to make $53,000 a year, putting him in the top tax rate. Will he continue to work those 200 hours? Perhaps. Perhaps not. 

What we do know is this. If our lawyer decides to work even a single hour, charging his normal rate, he'll take home only $85. Compared to the $100 the other lawyer will take home. Is this fair? It certainly isn't. But maybe you don't care for fairness. I can't say I blame you. 

How does this action harm the wider community? It can harm the wider community in one of two ways:

1. The lawyers aren't equally competent. The lawyer with the annuity offers a superior service. Because of his increase in income, he cuts back on his hours. This harms the entire community. His former clients get into legal complications. Trails take longer.
2. The lawyer with the annuity curs back his hours, and the one lawyer left in the game raises his rates. 

By introducing a progressive income tax, we inevitably distort prices, which have repercussion for society as a whole. 

Trash or Treasure: The Doomsday Machine by Daniel Ellsberg

The Doomsday Machine, despite the source, seems to be well worth reading. Thankfully, you don't have to. Given the importance of the topic discussed, and my own keen interest in the topic, I have decided to start a series of posts dedicated to examining the book in depth and fact checking the claims made.

Frankly, I've always been interested in Nuclear deterrence. My grandfather spent his last few years in the Air Force at NORAD as a staff officer, specifically Joint Systems Integrations Officer, he took a leading role in developing the Minimum Essential Communication Network among other things.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he was still flying interceptors, he was sent up with a nuclear air-to-air rocket, the AIR-2 Genie, to launch at potential Soviet bombers. I always remember this particular story because of he described the maneuver he would have to preform to get out of the blast radius in time. If I recall correctly it was a Split-S.

This brings me to an important point made by Mr. Ellsberg. Many Americans, suffering from the illusions produced by Hollywood, assume that only the president can approve the use of a nuclear weapon. Ellsberg challenges this. I think he's right. The book is well-written and full of interesting details.

Verdict: I'll read it for you.
Read Instead: My blog

Suspended

I history teacher in New Jersey has been suspended for being a proponent of armed teachers. Isn't that a bit much? It's actions like these that make gun owners and conservatives in general worry about their gun rights being infringed.

Gateway Pundit has more.

Identity Politics: Nextgen America

Two organizations, Nextgen America and the Latino Victory Fund, are attempting to get more Latinos to run for office in Las Vegas. This is part of a national campaign, seeking to increase Latino political engagement. You can read about their recent workshop in the Las Vegas Review Journal. 

Nextgen America started out life attempting to politically combat climate change. They're doing a lot of hiring. The Latino Victory Fund is pretty much as advertised. They have a beef with how many Latinos hold elected office, claiming in their Problem Statement that:

This disparity in Latino political participation is one reason for the dearth of Latino elected officials. While the Latino population grows, the number of Latinos elected to public office remains dangerously low. In the current Congress, only 28 members of the House are Latino when more than twice that number would be reflective of their share of the national population. The statistics are worse in many legislative bodies across the nation. The lack of Latinos running for office further discourages political participation in the Latino community: when you don’t see people on the ballot that reflect your community, you are less likely to vote.

This is a classic example of how Democrats think. Many Conservatives make the mistake of assuming Democrats think in ideological terms. For the most part they don't.

The Republican Party is a coalition of sympathetic ideologies. The Democrats are a a coalition of social groups. The ties that bind Republicans are much stronger than the ties that bind Democrats. This isn't anything new.

What's interesting, is the idea implicit in the excerpt above: the only legitimate representatives of Latino interests are Latinos. But how strong is Latino identity? According to Pew, 27% of Latino newlyweds intermarry. Out of all newlyweds that intermarry, 47% involve one Hispanic spouse and one white spouse.

Will the children of such couples feel that the only legitimate representative of their interests in a Latino. What about the grand children of such couples? I somehow doubt it. As people becoming of increasingly mixed ancestry, they will take an ideological turn. And the Republican Party has that market cornered, unless you're in the market for regurgitated Marxism. 

Taxation without Universal Benefits

Spectator has an interesting article out. You should read it. It claims that 42% of Americans are on government funded health care. I'm willing to believe that. it is 5% than one of my own attempts, but they included other programs that I didn't.

The interesting part is the author's claim that services like health care ought to be provided as a universal benefit. Otherwise the minority of Americans who are taxpayers end up getting taxed for nothing, essentially being robbed. I think that's a decent point, but I don't quite agree with the solution.

If we do go down the path of making health care a universal benefit, we'll end up, I feel, with an NHS of our own, which hasn't been a success. NHS in America would likely be an even quicker failure than in Britain. The NHS right now is hemorrhaging cash on compliance and data collection surrounding the internal market, which basically let contractors enter the system.

I can't imagine such a health care system being created in the US without such a market component in the first place. So any American NHS would be saddled with compliance and data collection to monitor contractors and determine contracts from the very beginning.

Food for thought. Introducing free markets to government programs isn't alway a good idea. 

Trade Tariffs: Steel and Aluminum

Big news, certainly getting a lot of coverage and some negative commentary. I believe Trump is doing this in a misguided attempt to solidify his coalition of voters. He wants to try and get voters in Rust Belt states to stay loyal.

I think his way of going about doing this is wrong headed, but I can see some logic to it. As I've said elsewhere:

 I'm not disputing that. I just think he holds those views for political reasons, not economic.

Admittedly, that's a somewhat tricky claim to prove, a claim about someone's motivation. And in the end, I'm not sure motivation matters overly much. He has his reason for doing this. I think his reasoning is bad, but I think it's legitimate. He is trying to keep his Trump Republicans on board. He thinks this might do the trick. 

I can understand why he might think that. And I sympathize.

I think the tricky part is how the EU will respond. To put it bluntly, the EU is quite peeved at the Brexit situation. They are in a fighting mood, and they might relish the chance of taking a swing at Trump. I'm not sure the European Commission has the power to impose retaliatory tariffs or if they must consult member states. My suspicion is they have powers to impose tariffs without consultation. Something I will certainly look into.

You needn't, however take my word for it. The Spectator has been providing some excellent coverage of Brexit negotiations. The ball is now in Europe's court. We'll soon find out if we have a trade war on our hands.