While I was researching the changes over the years in the wholesale price of denim fabric (yes, it is relevant to something), I stumbled across this post by apparel consultant, Stefano Aldighieri. Here’s the part that caught my eye:

• The quality of apparel has consistently dropped.
• Disposable fashion is not a savings. Customers spend more buying several cheap items than if they bought better quality, longer-lasting garment.
• Over-production generates a strain on resources and an increase in waste; about 80 percent of the apparel made ends up in landfills, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
• The race to the bottom is not helping anyone. No investment in product development is possible. When the only thing that matters is price, people stop investing and trying to make better things.
• Whenever we buy something that has a price too good to be true, we know that someone along the supply chain was not paid a living wage. Nobody really wonders how some companies can possibly sell so cheap, and nobody really cares enough to ask the right questions.

The only strategy I can think of that would really change that state of affairs would be a radical change in values. I don’t see that as forthcoming even from those who express so much concern about the environment. It’s not a question of priorities but one of subpriorities.

In an op-ed in the New York Times Greg Weiner laments the sorry state of American government:

We have become a de facto parliamentary system in which competing parties battle for executive power. The problem is that we have acquired all the vices of such a system but none of its virtues.

A parliamentary system typically has the effects of discouraging demagogues and ensuring competence, by seasoning leaders on the journey from the backbenches to the ones at the front. By contrast, three presidents who served before Joe Biden — George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Mr. Trump — arrived in the White House as either newcomers or latecomers to national office. Parliamentary systems also feature vigorous debates with real consequences. Governments rise and fall on the basis of their legislative agendas. Debates in Congress are largely stagecraft, with actual governing being relegated to a vast executive branch empowered to turn vague laws into detailed policy.

He proposes no solutions.

One aspect of the failure of our government that is conspicuous by its absence in Dr. Weiner’s account is the judicial branch. For decades both the legislative and executive branch have been eager to let the Supreme Court do the heavy lifting. I don’t think that can be attributed, as Dr. Weiner does, to the arising of an ersatz parliamentary system. I think there are multiple causes.

The first is that the Congress is far too small for a country the size of the U. S. Some hold to the “cube root rule”. Using that as your gauge the U. S. Congress is the least representative legislative body of any OECD country. To fit the rule the Congress must be half again as large as it is now. I’m skeptical and think the so-called rule is a post hoc observation. By that standard France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are all over-represented.

The second is that federal elective office has become far too cushy a gig. Why give up a lifetime sinecure? The way to maneuver without leaving any fingerprints which might cause you to lose that sinecure is by having some other branch of government do the heavy lifting for you.

The third is the most serious and that is that I think the American consensus has broken down. I see no consensus on practically any subject, including the benignity of the United States. It has been known since the time of Plato that consensus is a requirement for republican government. Throughout history all multi-ethnic, multi-confessional empires have been autocracies.

The reforms that would be required to remedy any of those are so numerous and so extensive it’s hard for me to imagine any peaceful resolution. That suggests we will either continue our drift towards tyranny or break up into none-too-friendly regions.

An Indiana man has been arrested making a “straw purchase” of the gun used to kill the Chicago police office to evade federal law. The Trib reports:

The gun used to kill Chicago police Officer Ella French during a traffic stop Saturday was bought in a sham purchase by an Indiana man on behalf of another man, who was in the car French and her partner pulled over before they were shot, federal prosecutors allege.

Jamel Danzy now faces charges of conspiring to violate federal firearms laws. A bond hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.

French was killed and her partner was critically wounded over the weekend after the traffic stop in West Englewood. Chicago police have two men in custody connected to the shooting, one of whom was arrested in possession of a Glock semi-automatic pistol, authorities said. Charges against those two suspects have not yet been announced.

But shortly after the shooting, investigators traced both the gun and the car to Danzy, a restaurant worker in northwest Indiana, according to the complaint.

ATF agents on Sunday tracked down Danzy at the restaurant where he works, and he agreed to be interviewed on tape in an agent’s car in the parking lot.

Agents showed him the paperwork from the dealer, and at first, he claimed to have bought the gun for himself, the complaint states. But “after further questioning,” he admitted he instead had bought it for someone in Chicago, Individual A, who had a felony record and could not buy a gun for himself.

What law could have prevented this? It was already against the law. The problem is not that we need more laws or even that we need better enforcement, a common complaint of mine. It is that people are breaking the law.

I think this may be the first time I have ever linked to a post in The Federalist. Josiah Lipincott delivers a scathing indictment of the general staff:

Instead of profiles in courage, America’s military leaders deserve profiles in grifting. Current Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin made $7 million once leaving the service. Gen. James Mattis is reportedly worth $5 million, including $150,000 annual payouts from Theranos for serving on their board. Theranos was a blood-testing company indicted for fraud. Not a single senator asked Mattis about the connection at his confirmation hearing as secretary of defense. Gen. David Petraeus, after leaving the CIA in disgrace after revelations of leaking classified information to his mistress and personal biographer Paula Broadwell, went on to a successful career in academia, public speaking, and private equity. His net worth is estimated at $2 million.

The generals lied, America lost, and the people got looted.

I’m more inclined to blame the Congress than the generals. The numbers he cites above are a rather horrifying illustration that even 60 years later the Military-Industrial Complex is alive and well.

I have been in favor of federal support of rural broadband. Unfortunately, the provision in the present infrastructure bill is about three years late and there’s little actual need for it. Elon Musk is already in the process of doing what the federal government declined to do.

Consequently, I have little to say about the Washington Post’s editors’ full-throated endorsement of the provision but I did want to open their closing paragraph up for discussion. Here it is:

In an ideal world, society might ensure that every household has adequate income, and let people decide for themselves how to allocate it, rather than creating separate bureaucracies to help pay for food, rent, child care and, now, Internet bills. But that’s not our current world. Congress is prepared to make a massive investment in a defining element of modern-day infrastructure. Every member should want to help make this history.

Is that a Kinsley gaffe? Far from being ideal, I think that would be dystopian. The run-on effects would overwhelm the presumably benign intentions. Maybe in an ideal world with ideal humans but I don’t think I can even imagine ideal humans. I think that being flawed is part of the package.

I see that the Biden Administration’s performance on our southern border is beginning to alarm the editors of the Washington Post:

What is mostly missing from the sweeping rhetoric and broad-strokes analysis is an actual plan for action.

Ms. Harris and administration officials have also described short-term steps designed to get a handle on deterring the current tsunami of migrants and asylum seekers at the border. But the convoluted messaging — telling migrants not to seek entry to the United States while at the same time relaxing or scrapping an array of measures that would actually dissuade them, and providing relief to migrants on both sides of the border — has been a failure.

That failure is measurable, and it is politically toxic. As of mid-July, a staggering 1.1 million unauthorized border crossers had been apprehended so far in the current fiscal year, which began last Oct. 1. Nearly 190,000 migrants, a record monthly total high, were taken into custody by border officers in June alone, when the early summer’s heat often deters many from making the trek. At the current pace, officials project that apprehensions will reach 1.5 million by the end of the fiscal year, the most in more than two decades.

They characterize the administration’s policy as incoherent. I don’t think it’s incoherent at all. I think they’re wrong. I think it’s constituent service for a very small constituency—about the same size as that for the “Latinx” neologism which offends a lot more people than it pleases.

Allow me to acquaint Vice President Harris with the work of another Harris, Sydney, who drew the cartoon at the top of this post. Waiting for divine intervention is not generally the greatest policy and there are no mulligans in politics. Unfortunately, I think the administration has little choice but to double down on its present approach of doing things that convince people in Mexico and Central America to do the opposite of what they’re telling them to do. Being charitable I do not believe that is intentional but feckless.

I have no idea of how they can mitigate the risks of the approach they’ve taken. The “it happens every year” explanation fell apart when the summer heat rose and the numbers of “encounters” did not decline. It probably doesn’t help that the presidents of Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras all attribute the increase in illegal migration to President Biden’s campaign rhetoric. Blaming him certainly takes them out of the crosshairs but it’s hard to hold him completely blameless.

At The Hill Erich J. Prince wonders whether property rights are under attack:

Although certain requirements of landlords are surely reasonable, this recent spate of policies goes too far in restricting homeowners’ ability to do as they wish with the properties that are theirs.

When it comes to eviction moratoriums, there are horror stories, such as were covered in The New York Times last month, of being unable to evict disruptive and abusive tenants residing in a landlord’s own home. All the while, much of the rhetoric desperately calling for an extended eviction ban shares the same assumption as the New Jersey law and the proposed Philadelphia ordinance: that government ought to be considerably involved in the arrangements made between landlords and tenants.

At some point the question becomes: Is this house I own even mine?

to which I can only respond that the concern shouldn’t be limited to property rights. It extends to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, religious freedom, and others. The pretext is bringing COVID-19 under control but is the actual reason just a desire for control?

Over the weekend a Chicago police officer was murdered, shot to death, in the performance of her duty. Her partner is in critical condition. The editors of the Sun-Times declaim:

In an undated photo posted on Twitter, Chicago Police Officer Ella French is equipped with everything that should have protected her on Saturday night.

She is wearing a safety vest. She has a police radio attached to her uniform so she can call for backup. She has her gun strapped to her waist.

Most importantly, Officer French is wearing the insignia of the Chicago Police Department on her left sleeve, and that should have been enough. In a better world — a better city — that should have been the only armor she needed. It should have kept her safe.

It did not.

Officer French was shot and killed in the West Englewood neighborhood on the South Side about 9 p.m. on Saturday while making an apparently routine traffic stop. Another officer was shot, as well. He is fighting for his life, as we write this, in a hospital intensive care unit.

This city should be so ashamed of itself.

Today there is an enormous amount of finger-pointing going on regarding the incident. The mayor is blaming guns. To his credit our senior senator, Dick Durbin, pointed to gangs but also blamed guns. Chicago police officers blame the mayor. Some aldermen are blaming Cook County States Attorney Kim Foxx, I’ve heard at least one alderman blame the voters.

To date there have been 494 homicides in Chicago. Of those about a third were committed in three neighborhoods: Englewood, Garfield Park, and Austin. The murder of the officer took place in Englewood.

IMO thinking that guns are the problem and that can be solved by imposing tougher restrictions on their sale is a fantasy. We don’t know for certain but based on the FBI’s statistics something between 40% and 80% of all violent crimes are committed using guns obtained illegally. How will increasing that percentage reduce violent crime? That’s what will happen if the restrictions on firearm sales are tightened. The sad reality is that even in countries in which personal possession of firearms is illegal, people who want guns can get them. And that’s getting easier rather than harder.

That leaves the gangs. Until and unless the people of Englewood learn to trust and value the Chicago Police more than they do gang members, it will remain dangerous to patrol that neighborhood and other neighborhoods in which shootings are routine.

I wish that more people understood the point highlighted in this Wall Street Journal article by By Rachel Louise Ensign and Shane Shifflett. College degrees were supposed to be a way out of poverty for Americans and for blacks and other minorities in particular. That hasn’t happened:

Black millennials thought college would help them get ahead. Instead, it is setting them back.

The median net worth of households with Black college graduates in their 30s has plunged over the past three decades to less than one-tenth the net worth of their white counterparts, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Federal Reserve data. The drop is driven by skyrocketing student debt and sluggish income growth, which combine to make it difficult to build savings or buy a home. Now, the generation that hoped to close the racial wealth gap is finding it is only growing wider.

More than 84% of college-educated Black households in their 30s have student debt, up from 35% three decades ago, when many baby boomers were at the same age. The younger generation owes a median of $44,000, up from less than $6,000. By comparison, 53% of white college-educated households in their 30s have debt, up from 27% three decades earlier. The median amount rose to $35,000 from $8,000. All figures are adjusted for inflation.

Meanwhile, Black graduates’ household incomes have grown more slowly than those of college graduates in general, according to a Journal analysis of census data. Median income for Black college-educated households in their 30s increased 7% from the early 1990s to late 2010s to about $76,000. Income for their white counterparts rose 13% to about $114,000.

All of this is unfolding exactly as I have predicted over the last several decades. Our problem is not and has never been that not enough people have college educations. It is that we are not creating jobs that people with college educations want to take and that pay enough for them to pay off their educational loans.

There are ways to change that but we need to recognize the reality. We can’t export jobs and import workers at the rate we have for the last 30 years without its depressing wages. We need to start producing more of what we consume here and putting American workers to work producing them. That is true even if it raises retail prices by a couple of percentage points—that’s what the Walton family among others are pocketing by our massive importation of consumer goods from China. That is true even it it reduces our rate of economic growth by a percentage point or two.