Assumptions

In their article centered on the domestic woes of the People’s Republic of China’s automobile industry, the news writers had this claim:

Beijing shows little sign of doing anything about its car mess, partly because it doesn’t enjoy full control. Local government officials who promoted car manufacturing are reluctant to pull the plug, said Tu Le, managing director of consultant Sino Auto Insights.

That’s partly true, but it’s erroneous to assume it’s the only factor. PRC Electric Vehicle exports are hammering the European auto industry, and it’s getting into Canadian auto industry. The US auto industry is getting hammered, albeit not as extremely, by the tariffs imposed in an effort to protect it from PRC auto imports.

This hammering is part of a sub rosa two-pronged assault on the West. One prong is holding Western industry hostage to PRC control over rare earths—both of the ores and of the capacity to process them into finished items. The other prong is to deindustrialize the West by pushing hard goods—not just battery cars—into Western markets at prices and in volumes that Western nations cannot match, inducing those populations to buy PRC goods in preference. The domestic auto industry kerfuffle is a price the PRC is willing to pay in order to achieve its aim of dominance over the US and over the West in general.

This is a long-term threat to Western security, but there’s a near-term security threat, also. As WWII demonstrated, a viable automobile manufacturing facility is at the core of the ability of a nation to produce its military establishment’s combat vehicles and related weapons systems.

There is a solution to this, which itself involves addressing both prongs. One facet is to take advantage of the PRC’s domestic industrial strait and either impose very high tariffs on all imports originating from the PRC, regardless of the path those imports take between the PRC and the final destination, or outright boycott all PRC products. Either would limit PRC sales to its already paltry and declining domestic market.

The other prong is to get off the dime and move to develop Western rare earth mining—there are a plethora of rare earth ore regions throughout North America, for instance, and on the accessible sea bottoms of the eastern Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea—and processing facilities, thereby eliminating the PRC-controlled bottleneck and associated fist on the throat of Western industry. In parallel, or at least in tight sequence, that rare earth supply chain adjustment should be extended to supply chains for all Western manufacturing and assembly facilities, removing all dependence on PRC supply.

Of course, this solution will be extremely expensive to bring about, especially were the PRC to cut off access to its rare earth output—as seems likely, along with restrictions on other supply chain materials—in response to moves to develop non-PRC accesses. That effects of that cutoff would last, though, only until Western accesses come on line. The relatively shorter-term cost, too, must be compared with the longer-term cost of PRC dominance over the US and the West and our remnant industrial output.

Nice Facility Ya’s Got There

The Pacific Maritime Association is planning to strike the two largest West Coast ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach. Talks haven’t gone as favorably toward the union as it wishes, so….

The union laid bare its attitude toward port management and toward us average Americans generally.

A timely agreement matters not only to the parties at the table, but to the entire Southern California supply chain and to the local, state, and national economies that depend on it.

That’s just naked extortion, and it’s putting those not anywhere close to the negotiations under union threat, using them as hostages. Not only is this union threatening the ports’ ability to function and earn the income needed to pay up, it’s also threatening all of the hostages it’s taken, us average Americans who make up those local, state, and national economies.

Yet another union is demonstrating why it should be decertified.

Further, in any other milieu than union “negotiations,” contracts signed under duress would be held invalid. If unions aren’t going to be decertified, then at the least, contracts signed while a strike, or a lockout, is in progress or within some serious time period after the end of a strike or lockout should be held invalid, having been signed under duress.

Some Crime Statistics

Here are some crime statistics, courtesy of the WSJ‘s James Freeman. These are national level, and it’s true that there are distinct local pockets of crime that are significantly higher than these national numbers. The national numbers tell the larger tale, though.

  • violent crime excluding simple assault declined 25%, from 9.9 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 2024 to 7.4 per 1,000 in 2025
  • aggravated assault rate declined 31% in 2025 from 2024
  • property victimization rate declined 19% in 2025 from 2024
  • burglary or trespassing rates declined 25% in 2025 from 2024
  • motor vehicle theft declined 30% in 2025 from 2024
  • other types of household theft declined 19% in 2025 from 2024

2025 is the first year of Trump II’s administration. 2024 is the Progressive-Democrat ex-President Joe Biden’s last year. Nor were those declines a continuation of any trend. Over the four years of Biden’s reign,

  • felony violent crime rose 59%
  • violent crime, including misdemeanor simple assault, increased 42%

These are the improvements that the Progressive-Democratic Party wants to undo with its midterm candidates’ avowals to abolish ICE and throw open our borders; reduce funding for, if not defund, our city and State police forces; empty our prisons; let those accused of violent crimes freely walk our streets on bail; and threats to “investigate” young folks contemplating jobs in the Trump administration.

“Media Bias”

In his WSJ op-ed regarding Effective Altruism and media bias, Andy Kessler had this remark:

Mr Stewart says he isn’t a journalist, but he and others like him helped kill media’s credibility.

Not at all. Journalists—the “media”—killed their own credibility, beginning as far back in my lifetime with Cronkite’s manufactured anger embedded in his “What’s going on here?” in the early stages of the Tet offensive, when he knew full well that what was going on was the utter destruction of the Viet Cong as a political and military entity in that war. From the end of Tet on, that side of the war was fought exclusively by the North Vietnamese Army.

Nor was it Stewart and others like him, or comedians generally, who printed on the NYT front page that tabloid’s decision to take sides in its news “reporting;” they would no longer print news objectively.

Nor was it anyone else that prompted CBS‘ Bob Simon infamously to declare that there not two sides to every story. Some had only one side, and he and his fellow “journalists” were the sole determiners of when and where that would be determined.

Nor was it Stewart, et al., who caused the “media” to spike the Hunter Biden laptop story. “Journalists” did that all by themselves.

Nor was it comedians who censored viewpoints on social media. That was social media managers doing that all by themselves, even as they cowered behind the fig leaf of government “pressure.”

The list is pretty extensive, and this is just politics.

The list extends into “climate” hyping. For instance, the Los Angeles Times print “news” outlet announced that it would no longer print letters to the editor that rebutted global warming arguments, since the science was settled and there could be no rebuttal.

Kessler needs to get out more.

Wealth Taxes and Irrationality

In their house editorial regarding the degree of wisdom of wealth taxes, the WSJ‘s editors noted this regarding a collection of celebrity economists’ position on such taxes.

M Zucman and his fellow French celebrity economists, Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, don’t believe high taxes and a generous welfare state materially affect the incentives to work and invest. When people respond predictably to the perverse incentives that politicians create, French economists claim they are acting irrationally. So with a wealth tax.

Stipulate that’s true, and that people do act irrationally in response to incentives, perverse or otherwise. It’s still how people behave, even the wealthy.

Zucman and his fellows insist on living in their idealized fantasy world, rather than handling reality.