WalletHub has a report posted listing the cities in the U.S. with the most-stressed and least-stressed populations. (H/T, Mark Tapscott at Instapundit) I took the cities with the stress scores in the 90th percentile or higher (i.e., the worst 10 percent) and looked up the party affiliations of their mayors. The Gentle Reader may make whatever he wishes of these data.
Paul Mirengoff has a post over at PowerLine with A Question for Joe Biden. Biden showed some backbone during the last debate by refusing to apologize for his position on forced school bussing of children across communities for the purpose of achieving racial balance in school. During the Obama administration, HUD promulgated regulations aimed at “affirmatively furthering fair housing.” AFFH has the goal of moving whole families across town to new neighborhoods to racial balance neighborhood populations. The Trump administration has reinterpreted those regulations, effectively putting them on hold.
Here’s Miregoff’s question for Biden—
I’d like to hear Biden say whether he supports the idea of the federal government conditioning grants to localities on their willingness to require that a certain amount of housing in mostly White neighborhoods be occupied by African-Americans. If Biden says he does this, and I think he almost has to, I’d like to hear him explain why it’s a good idea whereas busing was a bad one.
One possible answer would be that the goal of racial balance is good and that having minority children spread through the community eliminates the need for such bandaids as forced school busing.
I have a more basic question. Is racial balance for its own sake always a good goal? The last census data is almost a decade old, but it’s what we’ve got for now. It showed that blacks make up about 12.6 percent of the U.S. population and that Hispanics make up around 16.3 percent. Should NBA teams be forced to staff their benches with more Hispanics than Blacks? Or should the Lakers have different quotas from the Celtics because of the different balances in their cities? Or should we force families to move from LA to Boston in the name of balance?
Or should we let NBA teams hire on the basis of merit? If we allow a meritocracy in sports, why not in other businesses? Why not elsewhere?
The problem of sorting for merit is that half the population is below average. As a result, any system that sorts for merit tends to disproportionally reward top performers. As a rule of thumb, roughly the square root of any population will do half the work. (This may also be stated as 20 percent of the customers drink 80 percent of the beer.) That rule implies that in a country the size of America about 18,000 people would control half the wealth—and that about a dozen would have control of ten percent of the wealth. That’s not too far off from what we see in the Real World.
So here’s a yet more basic question, if we want to allow the best to rise to the top and given that the Marxist experiments of the 20th century all ended disastrously, what can we do to provide humanely for those among us who aren’t successful?
The Daily Beast reports that ThinkProgress is for sale. The Progressive news site has been the launching pad for the careers of several prominent leftwing journalists, but it’s losing more money that the Center for American Progress, the leftwing think tank that owns it, can afford. The site is expects to lose $3 million this year.
ThinkProgress has never been profitable. In the past, it has made up its shortfalls with contributions from CAP and CAP donors. Several ThinkProgress alums told The Daily Beast that they believed that CAP could continue covering the deficit but had concluded that the site was too much of an editorial headache and too big a financial drain for them to rationalize doing so.
One of the things I learned even before I took Econ 101 was that if too few people want to pay for your product, it will fail in the market place. ThinkProgress has had over a decade to find a functional business model. It doesn’t have the Real World eyeballs and clicks to survive on ad revenue. It hasn’t attracted a subscriber base. It hasn’t attracted sugar daddy donors. And now, it seems to have become more trouble that it’s worth as a propaganda arm for its related think tank.
I suspect that someone will buy it cheap (Remember when Newsweek sold for a dollar?), and it will struggle along as a vanity project á là The New Republic for a while.
Andrew Yang wants the government to give every adult in America a thousand bucks a month. There are around 250,000,000 of us, so that works out to about $3 trillion a year and would not quite double federal spending. (That’s roughly $3.8 trillion.) He would pay for it with a value added tax that he estimates would bring in less than a trillion dollars a year.
Math is hard, so I’m not sure how that works out in the real world, but I was able to do the math necessary to see the federal government already costs the average adult American over $15,000 a year.
Let’s assume that we’re willing to give kids a free ride until they reach 18. In that case, the average adult’s fair share (that is, the average tax rate) should be whatever proportion $15,000 is of the average income. Average income is about $47,000, so that implies a combined federal (FICA, income, excise, VAT, whatever) tax rate in the range of 32 percent. There aren’t enough rich to soak with the 70 percent max rate proposed by one of the B-Card Democrats won’t pull the average up that high.
Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.
However, it seems that some federal bureaucrats would rather stay in the DC area than move there. Politico and The Hill are reporting that the Department of Agriculture has decided to move a pair of its research agencies closer to the center where farming is conducted. Kansas City was chosen, in part, because of the USDA’s existing presence there and its proximity with many of the land grant universities doing work for the USDA. The move is supposed to save the government $300 million over the next 20 years.
Politico reports that employees at the Economic Research Service (research areas include climate change, nutrition, and the farm economy) allege that the relocation is an attempt to shrink the agency and dial back research that doesn’t align with the Trump administration’s priorities, but they have not offered any explanation of how working in a lower cost-of-living area in the middle of the farming heartland would adversely affect their work. OTOH, the USDA says the high cost of living the DC area hinders recruitment and retention at the agencies.
Politico further reports that workers at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture who arrange federal grants for agricultural research institutions believe the move is rooted in politics, but they have not explained how reducing the average distance between them and those research institutions will create any problems.
Of course, the decision to move these agencies is political. In 2016, the American people elected a President with a particular management philosophy, and he’s implementing it. Elections have consequences.
Legal Insurrection reports that the insurance carrier for Oberlin College has notified the school that while its policy does cover a defamation claim, it does not cover some of the other torts claims in the Gibson’s Bakery lawsuit. The insurance company has filed a motion to intervene in the case to find out what proportion of the $11,000,000 verdict was for defamation.
When most of us think about cyber warfare, we probably have hacking or malware attacks in mind. But what about using blocking and censorship to control the flow of information?
Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other private actors are essentially engaging in a form of private cyber warfare by deplatforming accounts that they view as politically incorrect, and they’ve been relying on the protections afforded by U. S. law to get away with it. But these American companies operate on the worldwide web, and no other country’s laws provide the protection they enjoy here. Some of those countries which we normally think of as democracies are considering giving the mainstream social media sites a dose of their own medicine.
Stephen Michael Kellat has an interesting piece over at Coyote Works about the cyber war that is brewing between Facebook and several countries (New Zealand in particular) and the possible economic fallout. It’s been suggested that countries having problems with Facebook or other social networks should consider nation-level blocking so that local alternatives might develop.
A cyber war need not be kinetic and appears to be shaping up as economic in nature. Currently the stock market is driven hard by the FAANG group of stocks which stands generally for Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. Out of those five companies, one produces physical goods to purchase and one is a retailer. The other three produce electronic intangibles for a global market. If the United States gets hit with what would effectively be targeted economic sanctions towards a specific company that may have offended local sensibilities, how are we going to react?
Blocking Instapundit or Legal Insurrection may not move the needle much on the national economy. Blocking Facebook would appear to cause a bit of a plunge, though. A multilateral blockade of one web property to essentially quarantine it would be a fairly drastic action.
Read the whole thing.