Megan McArdle uses her Washington Post column to critique President Trump’s remarks on crime in Washington, DC. On the one hand, she rejects deploying the National Guard:

I make a point of agreeing with President Donald Trump whenever he is right about something, and I’m afraid he is right that in D.C., crime and disorder is a major problem. It is not as big a problem as it was a few years ago, but with crime, as with cancer, “somewhat less of a problem than it was” is not really very good news.

This does not justify Trump’s harebrained scheme to deploy the National Guard to patrol the streets, an idea that marries sinister overtones with very limited effectiveness. Nor is the problem likely to be solved by federalizing D.C. law enforcement and prosecutions, as he suggested at a Monday news conference. But Trump’s critics will not talk him out of these plans by conjuring the specter of a fascist takeover, nor by arguing that he shouldn’t be worried about crime, because after all, look how much it’s fallen!

On the other hand, pooh-poohing DC crime is no solution:

D.C. had 187 homicides in 2024, or about 27 for every 100,000 residents. That is, to be sure, a massive 32 percent drop from the 273 people who were killed in 2023, but that probably wasn’t much comfort to those 187 people or their grieving families. And it’s horrific compared with Boston, which had 3.7 homicides per 100,000 residents during that same time frame, New York City (4.7) or Los Angeles (7.1). Even a further reduction in 2025 — year-to-date homicides have fallen 12 percent compared with the same period last year — won’t bring those numbers anywhere near where they should be. This is the capital city of our country. We ought to be able to do at least as well as other major cities.

Unfortunately, her proposals—increasing the number of police officers and prosecutors—are ill-considered. The reason is simple: the issues producing crime are cultural ones, social issues rather than lack of enforcement.

I remember the old days when libertarian Megan was posting as “Jane Galt” on her own site. I wonder what younger Megan would have thought of today’s Megan’s proposals?

Let’s compare Japan’s old capital, Kyoto, with DC. Kyoto has (PDF) about 300 police officers per 100,000 population; DC has twice as many per capita. Boston, which she cites approvingly, has fewer police officers. If you consider the sizes of the police forces of Chicago, New York, etc. and their respective crime rates, you arrive at a disquieting realization: there is no causal relationship between how many police officers there are and the crime rate. That’s completely consistent with a study I’ve been citing for more than twenty years (of Omaha) which found no material difference between a high police presence and a low one in different areas of the city that were similar in population and demographics.

I haven’t bothered to do the research on the number of prosecutors but I’m willing to bet a shiny new time that the results are similar with prosecutors as those for police officers.

I also don’t agree with the views of our mayor (possibly the least popular mayor in the country) that the way to reduce crime is more summer programs for young people.

My own view is that enforcing the laws, all laws, is one of the keys to reducing crime but it’s not nearly enough. I would suggest that the number of single parent households headed by women are lower in Boston than they are in DC but that the number of gang members per 100K population is higher. The effort should be directed at reducing the influence of gangs and producing conditions under which families will remain intact.

One of the many questions I don’t see anyone having an answer for is how Palestine will function as a country without one of two things happening. Either

1. The country will consist of the West Bank only and will be landlocked or
2. Hamas will retain control of Gaza.

Given a choice between unconditional victory for Israel and unconditional victory for Hamas, IMO the answer is clear. Israeli victory would be better for the United States. Given a choice between unconditional Israeli victory and a Gaza from which Hamas has has been eradicated, I don’t believe the choice is nearly as clear.

I can’t say they’ve been a deluge but they’ve certainly been a constant “drip, drip, drip”. Articles about the weaknesses of generative artificial intelligence from a business perspective that is. I’ve saved at least twenty articles over the last two weeks on just that subject.

There’s no doubt that the Magnificent Seven technology companies are using AI as an opportunity to cut their development head count. The total appears to be around 50,000 so far this year and around 100,000 last year. The question that’s not being answered is how they’ll make money from gAI (other than be reducing head count)?

IMO that’s particularly true of Google. Using AI to summarize search results has resulted in a dramatic decline in “click-throughs”. There are reports that “click-throughs” have declined by as much as 40%. For Google that’s the rough equivalent of sawing off the branch you’re sitting on.

In the mean time they’re spending enormous sums on AI.

Keep in mind that it took Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon a decade or more before they figured out workable business models.

There’s one thing that I don’t think that Fred Bauer recognizes in his op-ed about Congressional redistricting at the Washington Post:

While the GOP might temporarily benefit from a fresh round of redistricting, Republicans from a handful of Democratic trifecta states (such as California) might be more vulnerable, and some centrist Republican House members have expressed uncertainty about escalating the war. The mixed incentives of various factions (Democrats to block Republican gerrymanders, and tipping-point Republicans to save themselves in Democratic states) could theoretically give Kiley’s bill a path to passage, though it would face a steep climb if it were to survive the House. If the president opposed the bill, it would almost certainly fail to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate. And the president surely will oppose it if he sees it as blocking redistricting that would help Republicans.

However, maybe the deadlock over redistricting could be an opening for bigger reforms. Few observers see the House as a well-functioning body. The loss of swing districts has made it increasingly sclerotic and internally polarized. The average size of congressional districts is nearing 800,000 residents, distancing members of the supposed people’s house from the people.

The tensions over redistricting could help forge a deal to resolve some of the underlying drivers of this legislative dysfunction. Congress could not only ban future mid-decade redistricting in a reapportionment package but also expand the House. This would allow for a one-time round of redistricting leading up to the midterms and give everyone — from California to Texas — another bite at the apple before the 2030 Census.

I can’t imagine any sitting Congresman voting to reduce his or her own perceived influence or the likelihood of she or he being re-elected. From their points of view that’s no compromise—it’s a suicide pact.

For the reasons Mr. Bauer provides I think it’s unlikely that Congress will act to stop states from doing midterm redistricting but that’s the most I would expect from Congress.

As is typical at this time of year both the news and opinion pieces are even duller and more repetitive than usual. When most of the local news broadcasts are devoted to the weather in Milwaukee you know things are slow.

Maybe I’ll just start writing posts without a connecting lead-in from the news or opinion sections.

It’s not just that so many people are taking their final summer vacations before school starts—seemingly the entire continent of Europe will be on vacation until next week.

There’s a certain amount of commentary on President Trump’s announced confab with Russian President Putin, much of it focused on how much the author of any given piece dislikes Trump. The one thing I hear no one talking about is a plan for Ukraine to prevail in its war with Russia without demanding that we provide arms we don’t have to Ukraine, Ukraine field troops they don’t have, or we begin World War III.

In her Washington Post column Heather Long takes note of a development in the U. S. economy:

The top 10 percent of earners now drive about half of spending, according to Moody’s, up from 36 percent three decades ago. These people will determine if the U.S. economy avoids a recession. These are households earning $250,000 or more, and they are largely doing just fine, buoyed by strong stock-market gains, mansions and rental properties that have shot up in value in recent years, and a rebound in business dealmaking. The wealthy continue to spend on lavish vacations, parties and events, and that masks the strain that many middle-class and moderate-income families are experiencing.

The “K-shaped” economy is back, where there’s a clear divergence between how the top and the bottom are faring. Businesses understand this. It’s why credit card companies have introduced even more exclusive credit cards this summer with higher fees, all-inclusive resorts are debuting $1,000-a-night experiences, and luxury car brands such as Porsche and Aston Martin have been among the first automakers to raise prices, because their clientele is less likely to push back. Any company that can is trying to go “upmarket” as much as possible in this environment.

I think the implications of this go far beyond the risks of tariffs to consumption on the part of those earning $170,000 per year or more which is the focus of Ms. Long’s column. It means that the upper middle class aren’t saving or investing at the rates they should be. It means that we need a rebalancing of the economy towards greater production and less consumption as I’ve been contending for some time.

It also supports another point I’ve been making for some time: tax policy needs to be more focused than at present. Simply cutting the tax rates of the top 10% of income earners isn’t encouraging them to save or invest as much as needs to be the case. It’s encouraging them to consume.

I don’t know enough about Texas politics, state laws, or its Congressional districts to make an intelligent comment about the plan to redistrict Texas’s Congressional districts. I think that most of what we’re hearing is just political posturing.

As I’ve said before I think that Congressional districts should be compact and within county and municipal boundaries. I would support amending the Constitution to that effect. I don’t believe there is any prospect of that short of a Constitutional convention which would be risky.

I also think that Congress should pass a law prohibiting redistricting other than following a decennial census. It’s my understanding that such a law is making its way through the House.

Just for amusement here’s the Illinois 4th Congressional District:

Its original purpose was to ensure that Chicago would elect a Hispanic representative. Such contortions were deemed necessary following the 1990 census but that’s certainly not the case anymore. I’m not sure what purpose is actually served by it now.

President Trump has raised tariffs on good imported from India to 50%. At CNBC Erin Doherty reports:

The White House announced Wednesday that it is imposing an additional 25% tariff on India, bringing the total levies against the major United States trading partner to 50%.

“I find that the Government of India is currently directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil,” President Donald Trump said in an executive order.

“Accordingly, and as consistent with applicable law, articles of India imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 25 percent,” the executive order reads.

The new tariffs are set to go into effect in 21 days, according to the order, while the previously announced 25% tariffs are set to take effect on Thursday.

Trump’s new tariff rate on India is now among the highest levies on any of the United States’ trading partners.

That sounds like he’s serious about striking at the oil revenue that has increased Russian GDP over the last year and provided the funds necessary to continue the war. Whether the new tariff is actually applied or whether it will be effective are different questions.

I’m less concerned than some about such actions driving India farther into the Russian-Chinese orbit. India will remain within the Indian orbit and the Indians recognize that China is a bigger risk for them than the United States.

If Mr. Trump is really serious, he’ll go after India’s services trade with the U. S. which will be more difficult but which dwarfs its goods trade with the U. S.

I know I’ve mentioned this before but I don’t think I’ve mentioned it lately. I used to be a faithful donor to our local public television station but I stopped in protest and have not done so since. Without getting too deeply into the weeds the station sold off an asset and the funds realized by the sale were used for purposes having nothing to do with the station’s mission and everything to do with the ambitions of the people working for the station.