Campbell’s Tomato Soup was first produced in 1898. It continues to be the company’s second biggest seller—right after Chicken Noodle Soup. Over the 120 years of its existence it has been sold in cans of the same size. Political Calculations remarks:

Political Calculations has tracked the price history of Campbell’s Condensed Tomato Soup over the past 126 years because of its remarkable consistency as an identifiable product over time. In fact, if you had a time machine and could travel to nearly any point in time from January 1898 to the present, you could likely find a 10.75 ounce size (Number 1) can of Campbell’s condensed tomato soup stocked for sale in American grocery stores.

That long-running consistency makes Campbell’s Condensed Tomato Soup an ideal product to follow to understand how inflation has affected American consumers through its history. Today, we’re updating our chart visualizing that history from January 1898 through January 2023.

The same product sold over the same period in the same sized container provides a nearly unique way of gauging inflation.

On a related subject one headline-grabbing statement emerged from the Chicago mayoral candidates’ debate. Craig Wall remarks at ABC 7 Chicago:

During the ABC7 debate Wednesday night, the candidates pointed to safety concerns time and time again, with one candidate in the hot seat over his “tough on crime” comment.

The candidates talked a lot about crime with different ideas and approaches for how to tackle it. But it was Willie Wilson who raised some eyebrows and some ire with his comments about criminals needing to be hunted down like animals.

Wilson in his closing statement during the debate said if elected mayor he’ll remove the handcuffs on police officers so they are empowered to catch suspects fleeing to avoid arrest.

“Somebody run, chase somebody by foot or car, that police officer should be able to chase them down, and hunt them down like a rabbit, okay,” Wilson said.

Mayor Lightfoot pounced on the statement in a characteristic fashion:

“For a candidate for mayor to say that we ought to take the handcuffs off police and let them hunt down human beings like rabbits is an extraordinary thing,” Lightfoot said. “I fully and utterly condemn it.”

Meanwhile Mr. Wilson’s response to the mayor’s criticism was mild:

Wilson, who lost a 20-year-old son to murder, doubled down on his comment by accusing Mayor Lightfoot of trying to make something out of nothing.

“So I think the mayor done lost her mind. I really do. I think she’s out of touch,” Wilson said. “You know, if she wasn’t out of touch she would know she has to protect the people at all costs.”

Willie Wilson received a plurality of the votes of Chicago’s black voters in the last set of mayoral primaries three years ago. His popularity has only grown since then, spurred in part no just by frank statements but by his giving away free gas to people living on the South and West sides.

Maybe I’m reading the tealeaves wrong on this but I doubt Wilson will pay a penalty for saying what probably 80% of Chicagoans are thinking.

My own view is that more active policing is necessary but not sufficient. What is most necessary is for law enforcement, City Hall, the City Council, prosecutors, and the judiciary to all be rowing in the same direction. That will take some work and some time.

An interesting event happened yesterday here in Chicago. Alonzo Small and Jenna Barnes report at WGN:

CHICAGO — At least one person was shot during a thwarted robbery onboard a northbound CTA Green Line train, causing a temporary suspension of service during Friday’s rush hour.

The incident occurred just before 5 p.m. near the Cicero stop in Austin on the West Side. Police say a 33-year-old man pulled out a gun and tried to rob a 25-year-old man. The victim then pulled out his own gun and shot the offender.

WGN News learned that the victim and suspect shot at each other but only the suspect was hit.

The chap defending himself had legal possession of his firearm and a concealed carry license.

I’m afraid this is a sign of things to come. When law enforcement isn’t seen as protective or reliable, ordinary civilians take the law into their own hands.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal remark on the Germans’ refusal to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine:

Representatives from 50 governments met Friday at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, and the U.S. on Thursday announced $2.5 billion in new U.S. aid to Ukraine, including more air defenses and infantry vehicles. Sounds good, but the bigger news is what didn’t make the cut: Tanks. The Germans have refused to send their Leopard 2 tanks, or even to let other European militaries such as the Poles send some of theirs. Leaks out of the U.S. say Germany has demanded the U.S. supply its own Abrams tanks as the price of Leopards.

Berlin’s tank refusal is a self-inflicted wound. Many Americans think the U.S. has to foot too much of the bill for NATO, and on this episode they have a point. It’s an open question whether Berlin will even follow through on meeting its NATO commitments and spend 2% of its economy on defense. Unlike the Japanese, who are stepping up against a regional threat, Germany still refuses to lead after an invasion in its own neighborhood.

Once again my explanation for German behavior has prevailed while the claims of NATO unity founder.

We need to recognize that our foreign policy goals are inherently contradictory. We can’t “keep Germany down”, assume primary responsibility for European defense, and have strong, reliable allies who are capable of defending themselves (not to mention their neighbors) until the cavalry arrives. The more we stand up, the more they will stand down. The more they are able to follow their own policy goals, the more they will.

Now that nearly a year has passed in the war in Ukraine, I think we should be able to agree that the best possible outcome is out of reach. The best possible outcome, of course, was Russia not invading Ukraine at all but failing that for Russia’s incursion to be limited in scope and duration and that Ukraine’s borders would return to their pre-2014 extent.

So, now what’s the least unacceptable but achievable outcome in Ukraine? I think it would be a negotiated settlement in which

1. Ukraine’s borders return to the pre-2014 extent
2. Russian access to the port at Sevastopol is guaranteed for a lengthy period
3. The rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine are guaranteed
4. The rebuilding of Ukraine is largely undertaken by the Europeans

I guess that some would call that “appeasement” but as I see things it’s pragmatic. It assumes that Putin is as good as his word and essentially calls his bluff. It includes face-saving measures both for Ukraine and Russia. I do not think that complete Ukrainian victory is in the U. S. interest. Quite to the contrary it comes with risks of its own. I do not think a Russia without access to the Black Sea that has fallen into chaos, is even more nationalistic and aggressive than at present, or fragments into a dozen landlocked statelets is in the U. S. interest.

What would the least unacceptable but achievable outcome in Ukraine be?

I read this post by David Kramer of the Bush Center, “Supporting Ukraine: Why it is vital to U.S. national security interest”, as well as the accompanying report with interest, hoping to learn something. Sadly, I was disappointed. The closest he comes to an explanation of why supporting Ukraine is in the U. S. national security interest is a slippery slope argument.

A “slippery slope” argument is a claim that an action will inevitably lead to a chain reaction of events. For such an argument to be true the first, presumably small step must inexorably lead to the next and to the next and, ultimately, to an undesirable outcome. He never does that.

I agree that Russia should not have invaded Ukraine. I agree that the Russians have committed war crimes there. I find the evidence that the invasion of Ukraine would inevitably lead to Russian invasions of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, etc. weak.

Beyond that the piece is an example of proof by assertion, as the “Hunting of the Snark” puts is, “what I tell you three times is true”.

I think that Russia is corrupt, illiberal, irredentist, and has interests that are not particularly well-aligned with our own. I don’t think they’re bent on world domination. The Soviet Union was but Russia is not the Soviet Union; Putin is not Stalin—he isn’t even Khrushchev. They were both committed revolutionaries. I see no evidence that Putin is.

I think that supporting Ukraine is in out national interest. I don’t think that unconditional unlimited support for Ukraine is.

I find assertions like this:

Concern about escalation, including the possibility that Putin would order the use of tactical nuclear weapons, must not deter us from providing Ukraine with the assistance it needs.

distressing. Survival is a permanent interest. Is Ukraine? To whatever extent he’s right in his dismissal of escalation, it’s also an assertion that deterrence has failed.

One of my ongoing concerns is that too many of the people offering advice are interested parties and Mr. Kramer appears to follow that pattern.

Rather than discuss the issue, I’m just going to show you four graphs. First, the 10 Year Treasury bond interest rate over the period of the last 50 years:

The federal debt:

The federal debt as a percent of GDP:

Note that doesn’t include the last two quarters. The interest rate has almost doubled since then (see the first chart). And spending on net interest:

I’ll add one small piece of analysis. It is an observed fact that debt overhang impedes economic growth and the causality goes in that direction (not the other way around). Translation: the situation is very different from what it was ten years or 20 years or 50 years ago. The present large debt overhang will make it very difficult for us to grow our way out of this problem.

I don’t care that Republicans don’t seem to care about this unless they have a Congressional majority and there’s a Democrat in the White House. That doesn’t matter unless you have a plan for 1) holding the federal debt constant; 2) holding the federal budget constant; 3) nearly trebling the amount of interest paid. If your plan is to borrow to cover the additional interest, it’s a lousy plan. If your plan is to raise taxes, tell me how you’ll do it and how you’ll raise enough revenue. If your plan is to cut spending, tell me how you’ll do it and what you plan to cut.

If your plan is to increase taxes and cut spending, keep Joschka Fischer’s advice in mind: the problem is not in knowing what to do but in how you’ll keep your job if you do it.

One caveat: don’t blame me. We’ve been doing nearly the opposite of what I’ve been saying to do over the period of the last 60 years.

Th editors of the Wall Street Journal remark on the same wargames that I commented on earlier:

War games are a product of choices and assumptions, but there were four preconditions to defeating an invasion, none of them guaranteed. First the Taiwanese have to fight. The island is ramping up its spending on defense but its conscription and readiness are underwhelming. Condition two: Arms need to be pre-positioned; the U.S. can’t pour in weapons over friendly borders after the fight starts a la Ukraine. American weapons deliveries to Taiwan now lag years behind orders.

Three: The U.S. must be able to rely on its bases in Japan. American fighter jets lack the range to commute to the war without Japan’s outer islands, one more reason Tokyo is America’s most important Pacific ally. The fourth condition? The U.S. “must be able to strike the Chinese fleet rapidly and en masse” with long-range weapons.

The cost in blood of U.S. sailors and airmen would be enormous. “In three weeks,” the report notes, the U.S. would suffer “about half as many casualties as it did in 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Commanders would have to “move forward despite a high level of casualties not seen in living memory.”

The American public has no experience since World War II of enduring dozens of lost ships, including two U.S. Navy aircraft carriers (crew: 5,000) badly damaged or lost in most scenarios. The casualties and equipment losses compound the longer the U.S. waits to intervene, a warning about the costs of political indecision in a crisis. It’s also worth asking if a U.S. President in his 80s would have the stamina and concentration to manage the flood of difficult decisions coming at him.

I’m not comfortable with commenting on the pros and cons of particular tactics or weapons systems. I wish the editors had devoted more attention to cost-benefit analysis.

IMO we need to start looking at matters in a much more steely-eyed manner. Defending the U. S. homeland and possessions is not subject to cost-benefit analysis but defending other countries is. Furthermore, to a certain extent our strategy is working at cross-purposes. The stronger and more interventionist we are, the less our notional allies are willing to stand up and defend themselves. To my eye the lesson of the wargames was that we can’t do it alone.

Here’s an issue of Politico’s “West Wing Playbook” that illustrates my problems with technocracy, journalism, lawyers or maybe all three. Here’s how they introduce their resource, Mark Zaid:

To answer that, we called up MARK ZAID, a prominent national security attorney who has extensive experience dealing with claims around mishandling classified information.

But here are some of his responses:

Had you been in the White House on Nov. 2, the day the first batch of documents was discovered, what steps would you have taken?

I would not have revealed it at the time out of concern of influencing, unfairly and unduly, the elections.

and

Do we really care about the quality of the room? Isn’t the bigger question: What’s in the documents?

I’m not concerned about any of these blunders with respect to legal liability. The blunder pertains to public perception and undermining your credibility.

The problem I have with his answer is that he’s not answer the questions as a “national security attorney” but providing answers as a political operative or an advocate. They hypothetical “had you been…” gives him some cover but in this instance he has no client so answering as an advocate is improper. Attorneys are officers of the court and IMO he should have answered the questions accordingly.

Any ward heeler is equipped to answer the political questions. His intro confuses the issue.

“Technocracy” is supposed to be rule by experts. Being an expert in subject A does not automatically confer authority in subject B. That’s my problem with technocracy. In practice it’s not actually rule by experts but rule by specious authority.

As journalists, given their introduction, they should have limited their questions to those about national security rather than so many about politics.

And lawyers need to decide whether they’re officers of the court, experts, advocates, or political operatives. Pretty clearly they can’t be all of the above at the same time.