George Soros takes to the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal to explain why he supports and will continue to support “reform” prosecutors:

Like most of us, I’m concerned about crime. One of government’s most important roles is to ensure public safety. I have been involved in efforts to reform the criminal-justice system for the more than 30 years I have been a philanthropist.

Yet our system is rife with injustices that make us all less safe. The idea that we need to choose between justice and safety is false. They reinforce each other: If people trust the justice system, it will work. And if the system works, public safety will improve.

I think most of us support more justice in the criminal justice system. Maybe that’s naive of me. My definition of justice is that in a just system when two different people commit comparable crimes they face comparable likelihoods of arrest, trial, conviction, and punishment with regard to race, creed, gender, or national origin. Mr. Soros’s is somewhat different:

We need to acknowledge that black people in the U.S. are five times as likely to be sent to jail as white people. That is an injustice that undermines our democracy.

Note that there is no room for the prevalence of crime in Mr. Soros’s formulation. Just to take one example the rate of gun homicides in majority black neighborhoods is higher than in majority white neighborhoods regardless of the socioeconomic level of the neighborhood. Homicides are a good example because they are less likely than robbery or rape to go unreported or unnoticed. According to the FBI blacks are arrested for nearly every class of crime at a rate disproportionate to their numbers in society as a whole. The overwhelming preponderance of the victims of those crimes are black as well. Presumably, Mr. Soros’s conclusion would be that blacks are arrested at too high a rate. Keep in mind that those who will be injured by criminals going free will be disproportionately black.

That is not my idea of the system working. Perhaps it is Mr. Soros’s. I would genuinely like to see evidence supporting the claim that fewer arrests results in less crime.

The graphic at the top of this post comes from the Wall Street Journal in an article by Lauren Weber, Peter Grant, and Liz Hoffman. You can click on the graphic for a larger version. Here’s the meat of the article:

More than two years into the Covid-19 pandemic, exasperation is growing among business, city and community leaders across the U.S. who have seen offices left behind while life returns to normal at restaurants, airlines, sporting events and other places where people gather. Even after many employers have adopted hybrid schedules, less than half the number of prepandemic office workers are returning to business districts consistently.

The problem is most pronounced in America’s biggest cities. Nationally, office use hit a pandemic-era high of 44% in early June, while cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco and New York have lagged behind, according to Kastle Systems, which collects data on how many workers swipe into office buildings each day.

The divide has created a sense of urgency among politicians and business leaders in these cities, where the stakes are especially high because office workers are the engine of local economies and fuel small businesses.

From April 2020 to March 2021, 26,300 New York City small businesses closed permanently, according to a report the mayor released in the spring. Available office space in New York has grown to about 125 million square feet, up from 90 million in the first quarter of 2020, according to data firm CoStar Group Inc. Retail rents in Manhattan have declined for 18 consecutive quarters, starting well before the pandemic, according to commercial real estate services firm CBRE Group Inc.

One issue for workers in big cities is time spent in transit. New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Chicago have some of the nation’s longest commute times—as well as some of the lowest return-to-office rates, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of the country’s 24 largest metropolitan areas in May.

Concerns about crime and safety, including on public transportation, have contributed to urban employees’ unease. In New York City, major crimes, which include murder, robbery and assault, rose about 7.5% from 2019 to 2021, according to New York Police Department statistics. In San Francisco, there were 56 homicides in 2021 compared with 41 in 2019, while robberies and assaults both fell. And in Los Angeles, violent crime edged up about 4% between 2019 and 2021.

The graphic may be a bit hard to understand. For each of the ten cities over at the far left is the pre-pandemic occupancy rate, for all of them lurking just short of 100%. The shaded area for each city depicts the present occupancy rate and the black line indicates the ten city average rate.

It looks to me as though big cities are in serious trouble. Those most affected will be the people who worked for businesses that served all of those officeworkers. Janitorial services, maintenance, restaurant workers, and so on. Most of them probably live in the cities, they can’t work remotely, and the businesses they worked for are gone. City workers, too, will be affected as will taxpayers in cities like Chicago who are paying for the pensions of retired city workers.

At the Wall Street Journal Jiyoung Sohn explains why the U. S. subsidies for chip manufacturing might not be effective:

A mega-spending package to grow U.S. semiconductor production must reckon with a tough reality: The world is already awash in chip-making incentives.

What makes the U.S. effort unique is the enormous one-time sum—roughly $77 billion in subsidies and tax credits—earmarked to boost American manufacturing of the ubiquitous tech component. But other countries, especially in Asia, have doled out government dollars and offered favorable regulations for decades. And they plan for more.

China has prepared investments of more than $150 billion through 2030, according to one estimate. South Korea, with an aggressive array of incentives, aims to encourage roughly $260 billion in chip investments over the next five years. The European Union is pursuing more than $40 billion in public and private semiconductor investments. Japan is spending about $6 billion to double its domestic chip revenue by the end of the decade.

Taiwan has around 150 government-sponsored projects for chip production over the past decade, with its leader pushing for more localized manufacturing of semiconductor equipment. Singapore landed a $5 billion chip factory earlier this year from United Microelectronics Corp., which said it had been drawn by the city-state’s vision to attract high-tech firms.

“We are in a race to subsidize semiconductor manufacturing,” said Peter Hanbury, a partner with expertise in tech supply chains at Bain & Co., a management consulting firm. Countries must compete over a limited number of chip makers that have relatively finite needs for new production sites, plus expand engineering talent, stable infrastructure and supply chains, he said.

As I’ve said before carrots will not be enough of an incentive. Sticks will be required as well. And we can’t wait to see if subsidies alone will be effective in getting more chips produced here.

In case there’s any ambiguity about what I mean by “sticks”, I mean eligibility for federal contracts. Start with defense contracts. No company whose products use chips manufactured outside the United States should be eligible to bid on defense contracts. Start with the products intended for sale to the DoD and if that isn’t enough, extend it to all products sold by that company. And if that still isn’t enough, extend it to the entire federal government.

CWBChicago reports that a veteran prosecutor is resigning from the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office. The most pertinent part of the resigning prosecutor’s statement is:

This Administration routinely claims that they have shifted their focus from prosecuting low level crimes so that they can focus their resources on fighting violent crime and drivers of violence. This is simply not true. If this Administration was truly concerned with effectively fighting violent crime, then they would fully staff those courtrooms and Units. Not create more useless policy positions on the Executive Staff at the expense of hiring more ASAs who can work in the trenches. Meanwhile, the rest of us are overworked, overstressed, and under-resourced. But at least we were allowed to wear jeans in July. Well, those of us not working in courtrooms. That move illustrates how tone-deaf this Administration is. They simply don’t care about the well-being of the ASAs on the front lines.

I cannot continue to work for an Administration I no longer respect. A few months ago, I was summoned into a meeting with the State’s Attorney so she could criticize some bond hearings I did. One involved a massive shootout and the other involved a woman who was walking to the store when she was gunned down in a crossfire. The bond hearings involved gun possession charges only. The State’s Attorney communicated that she was upset because a headline in a newspaper read ‘Man won’t face murder charge under the Safe-T Act.’ The State’s Attorney voiced her concern with the headline and the heat she was getting from her backers and never voiced any concern over the fact that this woman was shot and killed simply walking to the store. And nobody was going to face a murder charge.

That is what is wrong with this Administration. I’ve seen it day after day. How many mass shootings do there have to be before something is done? This Administration is more concerned with political narratives and agendas than with victims and prosecuting violent crime. That is why I can’t stay any longer.

I do not understand how Kim Foxx was elected in the first place. I understand even less how she was re-elected. From the very outset she has been obviously incompetent and politically motivated. She’s a major reason for the rise of crime in Cook County and a reduction in cases prosecuted does not translate into a reduction in crime. As crime rises unchallenged it does not make Cook County a more desireable place to live or work.

The editors of the New York Times have realized something that occurred to me back in February. When the price of oil doubles you can sell half as much and make as much money doing it. More even. Here’s their insight:

Nations seeking to help Ukraine are aiming at the wrong target. They have focused on reducing Russia’s energy exports instead of reducing Russia’s earnings from energy exports. Russia is exporting less oil but, in a perverse twist, it is earning more money, according to the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, based in Finland. The sanctions have raised prices, more than offsetting the decline in exports. In May 2022, Russia earned 883 million euros per day from oil exports, up from 633 million euros per day in May 2021.

The situation is about to take a turn for the worse. New sanctions that the European Union and Britain have agreed to impose on Russia by year’s end are likely to drive oil prices even higher. Some analysts warn that the price for a barrel of oil could exceed $200, well above the spike in the early weeks of the war, when oil prices topped out around $124. That could easily push Western economies into a recession.

Here’s their prescription:

The Biden administration has a plan that could avert this crisis. It would establish a buyer’s cartel — an agreement among Russia’s customers to put a price ceiling on Russian oil. That ceiling would be significantly lower than the current market price, sharply reducing the role of Western consumers in funding the Russian military. But the price would still allow Russia to make some profit, so that it has an incentive to export its oil to members of the cartel. Some of the key participants in the plan, including the United States, have banned the importation of Russian oil, but other nations that America hopes to enlist, notably India, continue to import large volumes of Russian oil.

It is an audacious and untested idea. It also appears to be the best available option. If it works, it could deprive Russia of revenue without devastating the economies of nations that are trying to support Ukraine.

A “buyer’s cartel” is a completely fine idea but I’m skeptical it will be effective for a number of reasons. The first reason has to do with the structure of cartels. In general for a cartel to be effective, the participant that buys (or sells) the most must participate. In the case of Russian oil that’s China and China is not participating in the sanctions against Russia. Does anyone expect China to join a buyer’s cartel promoted by the U. S.? I don’t.

The second reason I’m skeptical has to do with the quality of Russian oil. Crude oil is rated based on viscosity (“heavy/light”) and sulfur content (“sweet/sour”). Here’s a graph illustrating the grades of oil from different sources:

Even when Ural crude is blended with West Siberian oil it’s pretty sour. That means it’s dirtier and requires more to refine. Germany and Netherlands don’t import Russian oil preferentially; they import it because they get the best deal for doing so. Otherwise they’d avoid it because of its cost. Which takes us to my last reason.

For the buyer’s cartel to work, the members would need to be willing to do without. Germany in particular has shown no willingness to do that. I doubt the cartel would hold.

So, go ahead. It’s certainly worth a try. Just don’t expect too much from it.

And so it begins. Or ends, depending on how you look at it. At the Washington Post Josh Rogin recounts an exchange between Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and visiting U. S. Congressmen:

Speaking to a delegation of five U.S. lawmakers last week in Kyiv, Zelensky repeated his requests for more and better U.S. weapons. He also revealed that he has been asking the Biden administration to deploy U.S. military personnel in Kyiv to improve U.S.-Ukraine coordination on all aspects of the war, three of those lawmakers told me.

Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) asked the Ukrainian president whether he supported sending more U.S. military personnel into Ukraine to boost coordination. Zelensky jumped at the idea.

“As soon as I raised it, he cut me off and said, ‘We’ve been asking for it. We’d welcome it. We’ve proposed that,’” said Waltz, who told me, “The problem is with the White House.”

Zelensky proposed that U.S. and Ukrainian military personnel form three joint coordination cells, focused on planning, logistics and strategic communications. Waltz said U.S. troops would not be deployed to the front lines. They would work out of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, which is struggling right now to reestablish operations with a skeleton staff.

It should be noted that sending American soldiers to Ukraine is not a popular idea. Opinion varies from 22% in favor to 40% in favor, depending on how it is phrased (Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, NORC). I find the notion that State and Defense are only now realizing that once Russians have dug into Ukraine they will be quite difficult to dislodge not credible. If it is true, we need a new State Department and Department of Defense.

Arguments in favor include improved oversight (they’re only thinking about oversight now?) and improved training.

There’s one major argument against. Doing that would make those forces legitimate targets of war. I should note that it has been argued that no target is a legitimate target because Russia’s war against Ukraine is an illegal one. We have never taken that view with respect to our own illegal wars which include Iraq and Syria. By that argument every American who participated in either Iraq or Syria is guilty of a war crime.

I do not understand the relish for great power war that seems to be overtaking us these days.

They’re identifying them. The editors of the Washington Post like me think that Democrats shouldn’t finance the campaigns of fringe Republican candidates:

The issue is not simply that this scheme could backfire and elect fringe candidates; Democrats’ Machiavellian approach in key races could pan out. Still, it reeks of hypocrisy to elevate figures who deny the election, while also making the case that they are a grievous threat to American democracy. The moves risk undercutting the progress Democrats have made on communicating these dangers to the public and positioning themselves as the party of democratic principles. As Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) told Politico: “No race is worth compromising your values in that way.”

According to FiveThirtyEight, at least 120 Republican nominees for Congress and statewide elected office endorse the “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen. Others are in contention to win primaries in the weeks ahead. To be sure, the rise of such candidates says more about the state of the Republican Party today. But what a sordid story if Democratic spending helps enable any of them.

You don’t come to an understanding of what people’s values are by listening to them talk. At best that tells you what they wish their values were. At worst it’s what they want you to think their values are.

No, values are what you do. Or, as Aristotle put it, virtue is a habit.

That’s the underlying reason for the sad state of our politics, particularly at the national level. Getting elected isn’t just the most important thing. It’s the only thing.

At The Hill Mychael Schnell reports that Congress has enacted its bill intended to encourage the manufacture of semiconductors in the United States:

The House passed a $280 billion bill on Thursday to strengthen the domestic chip manufacturing industry and finance scientific research in a bid to boost the United States’s competitiveness on the global stage, sending the measure to President Biden’s desk for final approval.

The legislation, titled the CHIPS and Science Act, cleared the House in a 243-187-1 vote. Twenty-four Republicans supported the measure, and one Democrat voted “present.”

and

The Senate approved the measure in a bipartisan 64-33 vote on Wednesday, receiving support from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The bill’s passage through both chambers marks a significant congressional achievement and the culmination of more than a year of negotiations over legislation to increase the U.S.’s competitive edge against China.

The House and the Senate initially each passed their own China competition bills, referred to as “America COMPETES” and “USICA,” respectively, but conference negotiations between the two chambers had stalled for weeks.

Lawmakers ultimately came to a consensus on the CHIPS and Science Act, which will allocate $54 billion for chips and public wireless supply chain innovation, including $39 billion that will go towards financial assistance to build, expand and modernize semiconductor facilities in the U.S. It also includes $11 billion for research and development by the Department of Commerce.

The measure seeks to establish a 25 percent tax credit for investment in semiconductor manufacturing and funnel $81 billion to the National Science Foundation (NSF), $20 billion of which will go towards an NSF directorate.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal refer to it as the “Schumer-Manchin Tax and Subsidy Pact”.

So, here’s my question. Two years from now how many more microchips will be manufactured in the U. S. than at present and what proportion of our total consumption does that represent? Five years? Ten years?

If the reporting on the bill is accurate to my eye it appears long on carrots and very short on sticks and has no provision for evaluating whether the bill has succeeded in its objective or not.

I don’t oppose subsidies as a strategy but I think they need to be more directed than these will be. If subsequent to 1962 Congress had passed bills that called broadly for space flight, we would never have landed on the moon.

My kneejerk reaction to this bill is that in two years it will have no material impact on our semiconductor manufacturing and in five years will only have a minor impact. Our dependence on imported semiconductors will continue to grow. I honestly don’t see how we can justify this on a security basis. It would be as though we were dependent for oil on Japan on December 7, 1941.

At Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball Kyle Kondik has updated their assessment of the 2022 House of Representative elections and the news is not good for Democrats. More than 90% of the movement has been in favor of Republicans. Here’s the meat of the post:

Our topline assessment of the House picture has not really changed since the Dobbs decision. We continue to see the Republicans as very strongly favored to win the majority with seats to spare, as they only need to win 5 more seats than they won in 2020 (213) in order to flip the House. Our best guess is a GOP net gain somewhere in the 20s. Something lower than that would be, in our view, not that bad for Democrats given how we see the political environment, as it would put them in the position of holding the Republicans to a relatively small House majority (low 230s or even 220s) that could be vulnerable in the 2024 election. If Republicans get over 30 — which is certainly within the realm of possibility and would represent a strong showing — it would give them a bigger cushion for 2024 and beyond. A 35-seat net gain would put the Republicans at 248, surpassing 2014 as the biggest modern Republican majority. The GOP continues to have a path to such a majority even if we wouldn’t project it at this point (we looked at that path earlier this year, and we will do so again).

The advise under such circumstances would typically be to appeal to the base but I’m not sure who the Democratic base is anymore. Black voters, the elderly, public employees? Turnout is notoriously low for younger voters, particularly for a midterm election. I’m not even sure that appealing to the base is enough anymore.