In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal John Cochrane takes a victory lap:

As inflation eases, representatives of different schools of thought are taking victory laps. But who really deserves one? What have we learned about inflation?

I think the episode is a smashing confirmation of the fiscal theory of the price level. Where did inflation come from? Our government borrowed about $5 trillion and wrote people checks. Crucially, and unlike in 2008, there was no mention of how the new debt would be repaid, no promise of debt reduction later. The spending was couched as an “emergency expenditure” not going through the usual budget process or requiring offsets. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, argued that “with interest rates at historic lows”—they were then—debt isn’t a concern, so “the smartest thing we can do is act big.”

People could have looked at all this new debt, thought it would be repaid with interest, and therefore regarded it as a good investment. They didn’t. They chose to try to spend the new debt rather than save it. But we can’t all sell, so that drives up prices.

The “fiscal theory” of the price level is the view that government fiscal policy is the primary determinant of the price level, i.e. inflation. Therefore, for sustainable price levels the federal government must run a balance budget over the business cycle. Unlike folk Keynesianism which holds that federal spending always stimulates the economy, that is completely consistent with what Keynes taught. If fiscal theory actual explains what we have experienced over the last several years, our present structural deficit is highly problematic.

Think of currency as stock in the federal government. When the federal government runs a structural deficit, the stock loses value.

Dr. Cochrane concludes:

A fiscal point of view isn’t encouraging about the future, however. Inflation is easing but remains high. The U.S. is running a scandalous $1.5 trillion deficit with unemployment at 3.6% and no temporary crisis justifying such huge borrowing. Unfunded entitlements loom over any plan for sustainable government finances. The Congressional Budget Office projects constantly growing deficits, and even its warnings assume nothing bad happens to drive another bout of borrowing.

Do people believe that the U.S. now can raise future taxes over spending by $1.5 trillion a year to finance new debt without more inflation? When the next crisis comes and Washington wants to borrow, say, $10 trillion for more bailouts, stimulus, transfers and perhaps a real war, will markets have faith that the U.S. can repay that additional debt? If not, another cycle of inflation will surely erupt, no matter what the Fed does with interest rates.

As Dr. Cochrane notes, neither the economists he refers to as “team transitory” (inflation can be explained by supply shocks) monetarists, nor those clinging bitterly to the Phillips Curve actually explain what has transpired. Here’s his comment on the monetarist view:

But does money alone drive inflation? Suppose there had been no deficit, and the Fed had done another $5 trillion of quantitative easing, buying $5 trillion of bonds in exchange for $5 trillion in reserves. Would people with $5 trillion more cash but $5 trillion less Treasury bonds, and thus no net increase in wealth, have tried to spend money, driving up prices? We pretty much know the answer—similar QE throughout the 2010s had basically no effect on inflation. In the monetarist view, more money and less bonds has exactly the same effect as more money and more bonds. In the fiscal view, overall government debt, including reserves, matters, not its particular maturity.

I suspect that no one will learn anything from what has transpired.

The graphic above was sampled from a post by Nate Silver. It in turn was taken from an academic article (linked to in Nate’s post). It illustrates the ideological leanings of Twitter users.

I’ve read both the post and the original article and, unfortunately, it does not really enlighten me on the question that occurred to me: how were the classifications arrived at? The biggest warning flag to me was the characterization of CNN as “moderate”. I suspect that “moderate” is not the right term. “Eclectic” might be better.

Read the entirety of Nate’s post. However the classifications were arrived at I think it makes pretty good sense. TL;DR is

1. Twitter used to have a sharp leftward bias
2. That produced some very bad decisions
3. Right-leaning users lean right harder than left-leaning users lean left

I think the first two are correct and I’m not so sure about the third.

Along similar lines is this post by Mohammed Soliman at the Foreign Policy Research Institute<:

Despite the optimistic aspirations in Washington that the collective West could carry the burden of dual containment against China and Russia, it will ultimately fall on Washington alone to pursue this resource-consuming strategy to maintain global primacy. The Russian invasion of Ukraine sent a clear message that the United States could no longer prevent revisionist powers from challenging the global order that Washington had established and committed to uphold after World War II. With America’s position as the center of the global order, it is currently navigating a significant transformation marked by a gradual shift of global power towards the East and Asia more broadly. In response to these evolving dynamics, the United States must exhibit adaptability and embrace the necessity of adjusting rather than stubbornly resisting these geopolitical changes. As a nation, it is crucial for the United States to acknowledge the inherent limitations, cost, and unsustainability of pursuing global primacy or an expansive definition of American interests and responsibilities. Washington can’t do everything everywhere, all at once.

It is the überhawks and believers in American hegemony who have gotten us into the fix we’re in. I don’t expect them to get us out of it. I don’t know what will happen but it is unlikely to be good.

My only real hope right now is for the special providence that looks over fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.

I wanted to call this interview of foreign affairs guru Edward Luttwak at The American Spectator by Francis Sempa to your attention. Here’s a notable portion of the commentary:

Luttwak believes that despite all the talk in Washington and in other Western capitals about “unwavering support” for Ukraine, Western leaders, including President Joe Biden, seek a negotiated settlement with Russia. The much-anticipated Ukrainian offensive has stalled. Russia’s government survived a scare by the Wagner Group, and its troops are fighting better now than in the first year of the war. Historically, “when Russia goes to war they always mess up” at first, Luttwak says, but “as the war goes on Russians fight better,” and that is what is happening now. Top U.S. officials, like CIA Director William J. Burns, recognize this fact and have advised Biden accordingly, which is why Biden poured cold water on the Ukraine-in-NATO suggestion. Putin, Luttwak noted, has also publicly pulled back from the “nuclear threat” in a signal to Ukraine and the U.S. that a negotiated solution is possible. Luttwak also contends that Ukraine’s leaders also know that a negotiated peace is the most realistic scenario for ending the war.

U.S. leaders, according to Luttwak, want a Russia–Ukraine settlement precisely because of the more significant geopolitical threat of China in the western Pacific. This is in line with what former Pentagon official Elbridge Colby has suggested. That threat, Luttwak says, is centered around the person of Xi Jinping, who Luttwak believes is “obsessed” with China’s “rejuvenation” and who thinks China’s “rejuvenation” demands reunification with Taiwan — if necessary, by force. Xi is preparing China for war.

Mr. Luttwak is much more hawkish than I and, although I think that China poses a threat to the United States, it is primarily a threat of our own making. To mitigate the threat we would need a complete sea change in our domestic and foreign policies, the latter of which Mr. Luttwak has been key in forming. I simply don’t see those changes happening.

What will happen? As noted in the commentary, we have a dangerous future ahead.

Rather than jumping into the scrum, let me, as they say on Jeopardy!, put it in the form of a question. Should influence peddling be a viable business plan for an elected official and his or her family? How about insider trading?

Don’t bother to argue that neither exists. Or is limited to handful of individuals. Both are widespread and commonplace.

My own view is that we need to be much, much tougher on all forms of political corruption and the appearance of political corruption. Living in Chicago can convince you of that.

It should be easy to ban insider trading by pols. Banning influence peddling will be more difficult. Any thoughts on that would be appreciated.

Erstwhile actor Matthew Hennessey offers advice to the striking writers and actors in his Wall Street Journal op-ed:

Your cause isn’t as righteous as you think it is. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may enjoy playacting as Norma Rae on the picket line, but don’t get carried away by the radical drama of it all. Actors aren’t saints. Writers don’t wear halos. You’re looking to “secure the bag” just like the producers on the other side of the negotiating table. Let’s not pretend this is the Dust Bowl and that Fran Drescher is Ma Joad.

Yes, you say you are fighting for the little guy—for the background player whose image and likeness gets computerized and copied by artificial intelligence without remuneration. But the Writers Guild and SAG-Aftra are trade unions. Their primary function is to force studios to hire their members and only their members. I suppose some lucky thespian who books a part with a few lines is the little guy compared with Disney and Warner Bros. But the actor slinging drinks, waiting tables and wondering how he’ll ever get a union card is an even littler guy. Full disclosure: That was once me.

The striking unions say they seek “fairness” but an unavoidable show-business reality is that the number of jobs is limited and the supply of talent is limitless. Somebody’s always willing to step in and play the part. This is the dynamic through which the producers acquire their power. It isn’t fair, but such is life. Producers frequently make bets that don’t pay off. Writers and actors don’t lose money when a picture flops yet they want in on the upside. How is that fair?

On a side note Hallmark’s When Calls the Heart has secured an interim agreement with the actors and writers. Not only will its 10th season start showing on time, it’s 11th season is already in production. It’s possible that will be among the very meager new scripted content that will be available until the first of the year. Will our torment never cease?

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Shadi Hamid writes:

According to a 2016 survey by my Brookings Institution colleague Shibley Telhami, few things predicted partisan affiliation more accurately than attitudes toward Muslims and Islam.

But Muslims who were brought into the Democratic tent didn’t necessarily align themselves with the party’s evolving views. Asma Uddin, in her book “When Islam Is Not a Religion,” describes “a tacit agreement that Muslims, as religious believers, will never challenge any of the rights championed by the Left, such as a progressive vision of gender or sexual equality.” Muslims became an integral part of the party not as a faith community with distinct theological commitments but as a “marginalized” group requiring protection from Republican bigotry.

For a time the bargain appeared to be holding and even solidifying. According to a Pew Research Center survey, in 2007 only 27% of American Muslims said homosexuality should be “accepted by society.” By 2016 that number had jumped to 52%. Many Muslims justified the shift by arguing that while same-sex relationships may be haram—forbidden by Islamic law—they weren’t so under American law.

But during the Trump years, the Democratic Party veered sharply to the left on social and cultural issues. The Republican Party lost interest in Muslims, with Mr. Trump neglecting to antagonize them during his 2020 re-election bid. The new enemy was “wokeness,” and a growing number of Muslims found themselves on the GOP side of that divide. According to the AP VoteCast Survey, as many as 35% of Muslims voted for Mr. Trump in 2020, compared with 8% to 13% in 2016.

The Democratic Party’s cultural turn has intensified. In March the Montgomery County Board of Education—the largest school district in Maryland, in a Democratic stronghold with a significant Muslim population—informed parents that they would no longer be notified when their children were reading from the school’s approved “selection of over 22 LGBTQ+-inclusive texts,” and that no opt-outs would be tolerated. Hundreds of Muslim parents have since sounded out in protest, some of them joining Christians in filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the mandate.

I think I can answer Mr. Hamid’s implied question—why are Democrats deserting Muslims? I don’t believe the Democratic leadership is thinking that far ahead. They see the views they’re championing as self-evidently righteous and believe that all right-thinking people necessarily agree with them. Their concern is focused unswervingly on the next election.

My two cents. Everything is progressing as I have suggested. People don’t abandon their culture, politics, or religion when they come to the United States or when they vote for a political party. And, as I posted twenty years ago, the irony of the present political moment is that there has been a sort of resonance between the views of Muslims and that of Jacksonians who are now largely Republicans, obvious for a century. Unless they happen to be black. But that’s changing, too.

I also think that a lot of Democrats, secular to the core, don’t understand religion, viewing it as a sort of personal preference that should be exercised privately and kept out of the town square. Religion just doesn’t work that way.

After noting that a) a significant percentage of voter don’t like either Trump or Biden and b) Democrats have some serious problems in winning over those voters, Ruy Teixeira observes:

Certainly Democrats can point to issues like abortion where Democrats do have an advantage, even with the swing group discussed here. But perhaps they should consider a Plan B, where the success of the Bidenomics pitch is not assumed and compromise is not anathematized. As I have argued previously, Democrats have generally dealt with culturally-freighted issues by some combination of ignore (change the subject) and attack (our opponents are hateful bigots who want to roast the planet). The latter now seems like the preferred Democratic approach. But there is a third way, if you will, that would fit nicely into a Plan B.

That approach is to defuse. This means moving aggressively to neutralize vulnerabilities in cultural areas by (a) dissociating the party from extreme positions in their own ranks; and (b) embracing a common-sense approach to these issues which typically aligns well with both Democratic values and public opinion.

Why, indeed? I’ve already provided my answer: the party leadership actually supports all of those “culturally freighted” ideas. They can’t defuse the situation without defenestrating themselves.

At the Eurasia Daily Monitor Hlib Parfonov takes note of something I pointed out some time ago. Ukraine is running low on personnel for its campaign against the Russians.

According to classified and partially open-source data, as of January 1, 2022, the population of Ukraine was 31 million, while the State Statistics Service of Ukraine reports 34 million, though there are problems with the methodology used to arrive at this number (RBK, September 16, 2022). The population dropping from 48 million to 31 million in 20 years is normal, especially as Ukraine has experienced multiple crises and outmigration waves during that period. According to Eurostat, approximately 4.9 million Ukrainians received residence permits in the European Union alone between 2014 and 2022 (Ec.europa.eu, accessed July 25) and approximately 3 million did so in Russia (Ukrinform, April 23, 2018). Subtracting from this figure the number of Ukrainians in the occupied territories (approximately 2 million), as well as those who left the country, the current estimate for Ukraine’s population comes to around 20 million.

and

Considering that Ukraine has a population of about 20 million citizens, and given that the most recent data on the number of people mobilized into the ranks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was last announced more than a year ago (at the time, it was reported that more than 1 million people had been mobilized), some estimates can be made based on how many new brigades have been created, the approximate number of those wounded and the calculations of the Ukrainian Ministry of Veterans Affairs regarding the potential number of combatants (up to 4 million) (Forbes.ua, July 8, 2022; Mva.gov.ua, May 23). Keeping in mind that Ukraine’s mobilization is permanent and that many have been wounded, the estimated number of mobilized Ukrainians totals about 2 million.

What does this mean for Ukraine? It means that 10 percent of the population is now involved with the armed forces, signifying that Ukraine’s mobilization reserve is rather small, with those pensioners who did not leave the country accounting for 10.7 million people (Pfu.gov.ua, July 12). All this means that Ukraine has approached a critical threshold with its personnel needs.

During the Vietnam War, in the South Vietnamese army, the percentage of conscripts to the population was 11.7 percent (Jcs.mil, accessed July 25). And this ratio was a painful blow to the state economy, and in general, almost all of it was sponsored by the United States. During World War II, Finland began to experience significant domestic problems when the number of conscripts reached between 14 and 15 percent of the general population. As a result, personnel shortages grew in certain professions, which led to significant consequences for the Finnish economy (Kinnunen and Kivimäkib, Finland in World War II: History, Memory, Interpretations, 2012). Similarly, in Ukraine, members of the Verkhovna Rada claim that there is a shortage of personnel in the energy, industrial and military sectors due to the mobilization of workers (Antikor.com, July 18).

At least in theory munitions can be replaced fairly readily. In practice it’s actually harder than that at least in part because we don’t have as much heavy industry as we used to. What you can’t replace nearly as readily is people.