Monthly Archives: May 2025

Still too many Leakers

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s the lede and second paragraph:

The US is stepping up its intelligence-gathering efforts regarding Greenland, drawing America’s spying apparatus into President Trump’s campaign to take over the island, according to two people familiar with the effort.
Several high-ranking officials under Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard issued a “collection emphasis message” to intelligence-agency heads last week. They were directed to learn more about Greenland’s independence movement and attitudes on American resource extraction on the island.

This was a classified message.

There is no excuse for blatting about to other nations our national security efforts, efforts that must by their nature be secretive. These are two persons who must be tracked down, fired for cause, and investigated for the potentially criminal nature of their “leaks” and for their mishandling of classified document(s).

Tariffs and Economic Disaster

Posted on by
Reply

There has been, so far, no economic disaster. In fact, Gerald Baker, in his Monday Wall Street Journal op-ed, put his finger on the longer term outcome of tariffs insofar as they lead to a decrease in the globalization of trade. Here’s his penultimate paragraph:

What difference does it make? An important one: If we see deglobalization not as a catastrophic act of self-harm but as a choice—even a rational one—we can position ourselves better to deal with its consequences. We know the costs of throwing sand in the gears of frictionless trade, but there are opportunities too: more-secure supply chains, a chance to nurture high-end domestic manufacturing and reduce our financial dependency on the rest of the world, and new attention to reducing the vast economic inequalities in the U.S. that globalization, with its incalculable rewards for the most advantaged, has exacerbated.

That’s on the right track. Also needed, though, is [ahem] some necessary parallel actions:

requirement that the “protected” industry companies use the large majority (60%-75%, say, just to have a starting point for discussion) of the increased revenues accruing from the increased sales at their immediately pre-tariff prices to achieve the following:

 

    • increase market share via their largely unchanged price
    • increase spending on innovation
    • increase spending on capital plant maintenance, improvement, and expansion
    • increase spending on line worker wages
    • increase spending on line worker hiring

And one more fillip: a hard expiration date of the protectionist tariff, in the range of 5-10 years, that cannot be extended except by Congressionally enacted statute.

Occupying Gaza

Posted on by
Reply

Israel has developed a plan to do this as a necessary step to finally destroying Hamas. Israel had done that some decades ago, but it was an incomplete occupation, and so it ultimately was a failure. One of the reasons for the failure  was that Israel intended only on controlling Gaza with no intent to destroy Hamas, hence it was an incomplete occupation.

The current plan has that as the goal and purpose of the planned occupation. I think the plan could work and not even be very long-term, if a couple of additional factors are included (and I have no idea whether they are or are not).

The IDF would need to completely isolate Gaza along its borders and seacoast to keep the terrorists from escaping out the sides and back. If they can do that, then occupying successively seized territory, whether contiguously seized or in separate chunks as the tactics and real-time situation require, then the Israel wouldn’t need to maintain the occupation of all of Gaza for any longer than it would take to satisfy themselves that all the arms and supply caches have been seized, the tunnels plugged, and Hamas functionally exterminated rather than leaked away.

The other factor is the formation of an Abraham Accord collection of Arab states plus Egypt that would emplace a governance function in Gaza. At that point, Israel could withdraw from the strip.

Tariffs and Reindustrialization

Posted on by
Reply

This seems to be my day for letter-writers. Another writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Sunday Letters section wrote about the current lack of effectivity of (protectionist) tariffs in stimulating moves toward reindustrialization in our economy.

Through initiatives such as Operation Warp Speed and strategic invocation of the Defense Production Act, the government took risk out of domestic production through substantial direct investment, guaranteed purchase agreements, prioritized allocation of critical materials and equipment, and streamlined regulatory processes.

He then proposed a similar program to spur reindustrialization.

He’s right as far as he went, but it’s too one-sided, lacking as it does any requirement for the targeted industries to do their part. Aside from the addictive nature of protectionist tariffs, it’s far too often the case that the “protected” industry companies merely take advantage of the increased prices of tariffed imports to raise their own prices accordingly, collect the increased revenue, and do nothing to improve their own competitiveness.

What’s also needed, as a part of these tariffs, is a requirement that the “protected” industry companies use the large majority (60%-75%, say, just to have a starting point for discussion) of the increased revenues accruing from the increased sales at their immediately pre-tariff prices to achieve the following:

• increase market share via their largely unchanged price
• increase spending on innovation
• increase spending on capital plant maintenance, improvement, and expansion
• increase spending on line worker wages
• increase spending on line worker hiring

And one more fillip: a hard expiration date of the protectionist tariff, in the range of 5-10 years, that cannot be extended except by Congressionally enacted statute.

That’s the route to actually reindustrializing: doing concrete things to achieve concrete goals.

Why Must They Be Mutually Exclusive?

Posted on by
Reply

A letter-writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Sunday Letters section objected to an op-ed whose writer touted Federally mandated IVF insurance provided by private economy insurers as a means to elevate our nation’s too low birth rate.

The letter-writer proposed, instead, a tiered cash baby bonus: bigger for married women, smaller for unmarried women.

My question: why must it be one or the other? Why not both?

Follow-on question: why not consider the system of which these are just two components? If the Federal government, or at least the Republicans in the government, are going to work for increasing our birth rate and against the related universal and easily obtained abortion rate—and they should, on both—and on the underlying economic situation of the middle and lower class individuals and families, why not provide women—married or not—in parallel with a range of incentives to have more babies, with financial, educational, and medical support during their pregnancies and in the period surrounding birth, and in the first years (until kindergarten?) of the baby’s life, expanding that to include the baby/toddler/child in the support mechanisms?

If our government and us are going to be serious about birthrates and about right to life, government and we need to get serious about achieving those goals.