We’ve made Ars Technica! There Celia Ford reports:

Brace yourselves, Illinoisans: A truly shocking number of cicadas are about to live, make sweet love, and die in a tree near you. Two broods of periodical cicadas—Brood XIX on a 13-year cycle and Brood XIII on a 17-year cycle—are slated to emerge together in central Illinois this summer for the first time in over two centuries. To most humans, they’re an ephemeral spectacle and an ear-splitting nuisance, and then they’re gone. To many other Midwestern animals, plants, and microbes, they’re a rare feast, bringing new life to forests long past their death.

From Nebraska to New York, 15 broods of periodical cicadas grow underground, quietly sipping watery sap from tree roots. After 13 or 17 years (depending on the brood), countless inch-long adults dig themselves out in sync, crawling out of the ground en masse for a monthlong summer orgy. After mating, they lay eggs in forest trees and die, leaving their tree-born babies to fall to the forest floor and begin the cycle anew. Cicadas don’t fly far from their birthplace, so each brood occupies a distinct patch of the US. “They form a mosaic on the landscape,” says Chris Simon, senior research scientist in ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Connecticut.

It isn’t just cicadas. Entomologists, too, will be descending on us, well, like a swarm of cicadas:

Entomologists around the world already have their flights booked for May. “We’re like cicada groupies,” Lill says. He promises that this once-in-a-generation spectacle will be even better than April’s total solar eclipse. During 2004’s Brood X emergence, Lill remembers walking outside at midnight. “For two seconds, I was like, ‘Wow, I didn’t know it was raining,’ because I saw water flowing down the street. As my eyes focused, I realized it was literally just thousands of cicadas crawling across the street.”

I suspect the biggest challenge for me will be keeping my dogs from chasing and eating cicadas (and vice versa). Maybe I’ll just surrender and reduce their diets commensurately.

Almost two weeks after the polls closed, the 2024 primary election which also included referenda, judges, and, importantly, the Cook County States Attorney is over. For States Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke narrowly defeated the candidate endorsed by the Cook County Democratic Party, Clayton Harris III, who has conceded. ABC 7 Chicago reports:

CHICAGO (WLS) — Eileen O’Neill Burke has defeated Clayton Harris III in the Democratic primary race for Cook County state’s attorney, the Associated Press projected on Friday afternoon.

ABC7 Political Reporter Craig Wall has learned that Harris called O’Neill Burke to concede, and his campaign manager says they will not seek a recount.

The mail-in ballot count has been closely watched by the campaigns of both candidates. But the amount of mail-in votes expected to be received before the April 2 deadline is unlikely to flip the results.

In a statement praising Harris, O’Neill Burke sought to unify Democrats, saying in part, “While we may have had our differences in this election, we share a love for our beautiful city and Cook County.’

One paragraph in States Attorney-elect O’Neil Burke’s official statement is key:

The State’s Attorney’s office has a noble mission to represent victims and uphold the law. It’s a solemn obligation that I will take on with humility and dedication.

That is a view drastically different from that espoused by the outgoing States Attorney, Kim Foxx, who has rarely seen upholding the law as a key part of the office. That was also a factor in the many resignations among her staff that have taken place in recent years.

Make no mistake, this election has been a repudiation of the Cook County Democratic Party organization. Not all of the candidates it endorsed were rejected but many of them were. The tax referendum submitted by the mayor and on behalf of which the CTU expended substantial efforts was rejected.

There’s a reason for this. Crime is up sharply all over the city but the increase has fallen most heavily on the South and West Sides. Over Easter Weekend nine people were killed and 27 injured, mostly on the South and West Sides. That’s the largest number in the last ten years despite declines in the city’s population. Although this is partially a policing problem it is not only a policing problem but a problem that goes from end to end of Cook County’s law enforcement operation from police to states attorney to judges.

In the Wall Street Journal economist David Neumark comments on the “fast food minimum wage” going into effect in California:

Advocates claim that a higher fast-food minimum wage (and higher minimum wages generally) will reduce poverty. Again, they are highly selective in citing research, relying on a single study published in 2019 by Arindrajit Dube that contradicts most other work in finding a large poverty reduction effect from higher minimum wages. But Richard Burkhauser and co-authors have evaluated this work and found that its conclusions were highly sensitive to the period studied and the factors controlled for (or not) in the analysis.

The best evidence much more decisively shows that minimum wages don’t reduce poverty. Minimum wages obviously raise wages for some workers. But most minimum-wage workers aren’t poor, and in a very large share of poor families nobody works, so the minimum wage, even under the best of circumstances, can’t help poor families much. And the job-loss effect of minimum wages only makes things worse.

California’s fast-food minimum wage will make a bad policy even worse. It will reduce employment at fast-food restaurants, while failing to lift families out of poverty. Other research shows that it will raise fast-food prices and suggests these price increases are borne disproportionately by low-income families.

It’s unclear to me how you can increase the number of unskilled workers and increase the minimum wage even for a segment of the labor force without it having perverse effects. They’re increasing the supply of labor and simultaneously pushing up the support price.

I wanted to bring this article at The Hill by Alexander J. Motyl to your attention:

Analysts of Russia differ about many things, but the most important difference concerns their interpretation of the roots of Russia’s ongoing aggression. One side argues that Russian history and political culture are to blame — or, to put it more simply, uniquely Russian characteristics are the cause of Russian aggression. The other side argues that the causes are not uniquely Russian, but typical of the behavior of certain kinds of states, regimes, societies and leaders.

Unsurprisingly, historians of Russia and Ukraine tend to fall into the first camp, while political scientists with a comparative bent tend to fall into the second camp. Equally unsurprisingly, the first camp sees no easy solutions to Russia’s current behavior, precisely because it’s just a continuation of an age-old pattern of Russian behavior inspired by the inalterable Russian soul.

Dr. Motyl goes on to explain how the first is the most likely explanation. As should be no surprise I agree with him.

The implication of this is that the emphasis on Putin is mistaken. When Putin ultimately leaves the scene his successor may be even worse. The alternatives for dealing with this are limited. The present strategy appears to be to divide Russia into warring enclaves. Another alternative, one that I would prefer, would be containment. However, unlike Dr. Motyl I think the borders of that containment would be the Polish border and the borders of the Baltic states. For that to happen those countries would need to spend a considerably larger proportion of their GDP on defense than is the case at present. I don’t see their relying on U. S. funding to support Russian containment as a winning strategy.

I want to commend to your attention this primer on container shipping and global logistics at Springer Link by professor of maritime economics Hercules E. Haralambides. It is full of worthy observations including:

It is doubtful if the economies of scale in shipping are passed on to the final consumer, as required by the block exception of consortia and alliances from the provisions of competition law in Europe.

and

Economies of scale in shipping, distribution and logistical systems have totally changed our lives to the better in the last quarter of a century. But transshipment, warehousing and distribution don’t come cheap, as our enthusiasm with logistics often assumes. It is good to know this and thus make sure that the costs (internal and external) of logistics operations are paid in full, including the costs of using public infrastructure. The latter because (to a large extent) infrastructure is no longer a public good and thus the user pays principle should apply.

One might counter-argue on this that, in this way, higher transport and logistics costs would be passed on to the final consumer, as it usually happens with privatization. This may or may not be so, depending on how competitive transport and logistics markets are.

The author asserts and provides evidence that, for example, economies of scale flatten at around 4,500 TEU capacity and that there may actually be an inverse relationship between economies of scale in liner shipping and economies of scale in port facilities.

The question that led me to this piece was who captures the economic surplus from the use of container ships? It probably isn’t consumers. Ultimately, the piece did not answer the question for me and I’m still wondering. I suspect that most of the surplus is captured by the owners of large shipping companies and their banks and companies who ship considerable tonnage of high value merchandise long distances, e.g. Apple.

While I agree that we should be modernizing our infrastructure, I think it’s completely reasonable to ask to what end? And who should pay? The primary beneficiaries should pay and that is not now the case. Federal spending will not meet that test as long as we’re borrowing 40% of the federal budget and payroll taxes (which are regressive as presently constituted) make up another 30%.

This article by Noi Mahoney at FreightWaves provides more insight into the economic impact of the collapse of the bridge in Baltimore:

The port is the deepest harbor in Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay, with five public and 12 private terminals. It handled over $80 billion worth of cargo in 2023. It serves more than 50 ocean carriers making nearly 1,800 annual port calls.

The port generated nearly $3.3 billion in total personal income and supports 15,330 direct jobs and 139,180 jobs connected to the port, according to state data.

and

According to recent data from Implan, the port’s 15,000-plus direct employees could lose an estimated $275 million in labor income if container operations are down for a month.

Implan is a Huntersville, North Carolina-based economic software and analysis firm.

“Before we even performed the analysis, we knew this event would have a negligible loss to the U.S. gross domestic product,” Candi Clouse, Implan’s vice president of customer success and education services, told FreightWaves. “The logistics and shipping will just shift to another U.S. port temporarily. However, the potential impact to Maryland is something to keep an eye on. Even if the port is only closed for 30 days, Maryland would be at risk for losing $550 million to its gross domestic product and $1 billion loss in total value of goods and services.”

So, although the port is characterized as one of Baltimore’s primary economic drivers (after Johns Hopkins), the collapse of the bridge, while serious to Maryland, is unlikely to have major national impact. That further raises the question of why other than politics the federal government should bear the entire cost of rebuilding the bridge as President Biden has pledged.

The lawsuits are lining up in the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. There will not only be suits brought for the damage to the bridge itself but no doubt by the people injured in the incident and the families of those killed.

The ability of claimants to recover will be limited by the Limitation of Liability Act. The act limits the liability of the owner of the vessel to the value of the vessel plus the value of its cargo as long as the owner lacked knowledge of the problem beforehand.

It seems to me that will be the critical issue. The value of the Dali, the container ship that struck the bridge, is probably in the tens of millions of dollars. It’s hard to guess at the value of the cargo.

Regardless, unless negligence known of by the owner can be proven which I doubt, the liability will be far less than the damages caused.

Update

Jeanne Eaglesham reports at the Wall Street Journal:

While the lawyers fight, most claims will likely get paid by the insurers, including money for the bridge’s reconstruction. Then they will duke it out among themselves. Other claims might take longer, including those by the families of the people killed in the crash.

Other big sources of claims include the loss of revenue for the port, for the vessels now stuck inside it, and for businesses affected by the resulting supply-chain snarl-ups.

The bridge part of this web of claims may be the simplest to resolve. The structure cost some $60 million to build in 1977, which is around $300 million today when adjusted for inflation.

The bridge is covered by the state of Maryland’s insurance. The policy, covering property damage and business interruption for bridges and tunnels, pays up to $350 million, documents show.

This incident is significant enough that it will be a serious blow to the insurance industry, particularly maritime insurance.

Here’s a blogger I haven’t linked to in a while. Laughing Wolf speculates on what the disaster that took out a span of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore might have:

Baltimore is about the 12th or 13th busiest port in the United States. For all intents and purposes, consider it offline for at least a year. For the next few months, the ships that are there are likely to stay there, and no new ships will arrive. This is going to have several major impacts.

First, goods that would normally arrive there and be distributed will not. This is going to impact logistics and supplies in the mid-Atlantic region rather significantly. Second, Baltimore is on the ropes financially and otherwise. Right now, I sure don’t have a clue how bad the impact will be to a city already teetering on the brink, other than to say it’s going to be very, very bad. Third, how bad it will hit our national economy is something I don’t really want to think about right now. It’s not going to be good, but I can see scenarios where the level of suck could truly sucketh mightier than a Hoover. Fourth, don’t forget that the bridge is part of a major interstate, and a good stretch of 465 is now offline. That will impact not only interstate transportation, but will hamstring a significant segment of local regular traffic as well.

Read the whole thing.

I suspect he might be surprised at how quickly the port could be reopened. That doesn’t require a full repair—just the clearing of the fallen bridge blocking the waterway.

Still, the port is likely to be inaccessible for weeks or longer. We’ll need to wait to see what will actually happen.

The president has made some pledges related to the disaster. ABC News reports:

President Joe Biden gave remarks Tuesday on the Baltimore bridge collapse, telling residents “we’re going to stay with you as long as it takes.”

“It’s my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstruction in that bridge. I expect the Congress to support my effort,” Biden said from the White House.

“This is going to take some time,” the president said, adding, “We’re not leaving until this job gets done.”

I think we might want to reflect on that a bit. How will it work? For example, the way the Interstate Highway System is organized, the federal government pays the bulk of the expense for new construction while state and local governments are responsible for the bulk of upkeep of interstates within their borders.

I can see a role for federal funds in this disaster since it has interstate and, indeed, national implications but IMO pledging the federal government to bear “the entire cost of construction” is excessive. It introduces substantial moral hazard.

I’m starting to see some finger-pointing about the disaster. To the best of my understanding the bridge was recently rated fair not poor. I don’t believe it was prioritized in the infrastructure bill enacted in the early days of the Biden Administration. Major incidents involving ships colliding with pylons don’t appear to be commonplace but they aren’t unheard of, either.

Update

Does anyone know if a civil suit has been filed against the owner or operator of the container ship yet? This incident was no “act of God”. It doesn’t need to have been deliberate to be actionable.

I’m beginning to hear complaints that our infrastructure is not suitable for the transportation needs of today. Does that have things the right way around? Maybe the container ships trying to enter harbors are not suitable to task.

I wanted to call your attention to this op-ed by French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy in the Wall Street Journal. In the piece he paints a vivid picture of what will happen if “Hamas wins”:

Hamas would declare victory—on the verge of defeat, then the next minute revived. These criminals against humanity would emerge from their tunnels triumphant after playing with the lives not only of the 250 Israelis captured on Oct. 7, but also of their own citizens, whom they transformed into human shields.

The Arab street would view Hamas terrorists as resistance fighters. In Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—nations that signed the Abraham Accords or were leaning toward doing so—Hamas’s prestige would be enhanced. In the West Bank as in Gaza, Hamas would quickly eclipse the corrupt and ineffective Palestinian Authority, whose image would pale next to the twin aura of martyrdom and endurance in which Hamas would cloak itself.

After that, no diplomatic or military strategy would prevail against the iron law of people converted into mobs and mobs into packs. None of the experts’ extravagant plans for an international stabilization force, an interim Arab authority, or a technocratic government presiding over the reconstruction of Gaza would stand long against the blast effect created by the last-minute return of this group of criminals adorned with the most heroic of virtues.

Hamas would be the law in the Palestinian territories. It would set the ideological and political agenda, regardless of the formal structure of the new government. And Israel will never deal with a Palestinian Authority of which Hamas is a part. Goodbye, Palestinian State. Hope for peace harbored by moderates on both sides will be dead.

concluding:

Those who portray themselves as praying for the end of this war and a negotiated peace on “the day after” must recognize there is only one path to that end. First, the release of all hostages. Next, the evacuation of civilians from the zone of imminent combat. When will the world recognize that Israel, having been forced into this war, is doing more than any army ever did to prevent civilian deaths?

And finally, in Rafah, the destruction of what remains of Hamas and its death squads. Without this military victory, the endless wheel of misfortune will begin to spin yet again, though faster. This is the terrible truth.

What he fails to do is describe what will happen if Israel wins. I honestly have no idea but I can speculate.

The elected government of Gaza and much of Gaza itself will have been destroyed. Gaza’s civilian residents would be left without food or medical care and without a functioning economy or even functioning NGOs to provide assistance. Any prospect of a “two-state solution” would be dead.

It’s a bleak picture regardless of who prevails.