At Defense One Marcus Weisgerber makes the argument that the U. S. may need to nationalize military aircraft production:

The United States might need to nationalize parts of the military aviation sector if the Pentagon does not come up with new ways to buy planes that stimulate more competition in private industry, a top Air Force official warned.

Will Roper, the head of Air Force acquisition, spoke Tuesday morning as the service finalizes ambitious plans to buy a new series of combat fighter jets called the Digital Century Series.

“We have multiple vendors who can still build a high-end, tactical platform,” Roper told reporters. “I think it’s really important that we find a new model where there are no big winners and no big losers, but continual competition.”

Lockheed Martin and Boeing are the only U.S. companies that make tactical fighter jets. Boeing’s F-15 Eagle and F/A-18 Super Hornet are considered a generation behind Lockheed’s F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. Boeing and Sweden’s Saab are building the new T-7 pilot training jet.

Northrop Grumman is the only U.S. manufacturer of a heavy bomber. Boeing’s KC-46 is the only aerial tanker in serial production and Lockheed’s C-130 Super Hercules tactical transport is the only military cargo plane in production. There are no strategic, long-range military transports in production.

The very same argument can be applied to a lot of military hardware including heavy armor, artillery, and aircraft carriers.

IMO the issue is due less to loss of capability than to consolidation and reduced demand. Unless you believe that we will be buying a lot more military hardware in the coming years, we probably should be doing a major reassessment of what our military should be prepared to do and how it will do it.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal conclude their editorial critical of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision to lock “down his state again” with some advise that sounds pretty prudent to me:

U.S. political leaders from the top down have talked about Covid-19 as if it’s an all-or-nothing choice: Lock down the economy to “crush” the virus or let it rip. The reality is that we may have to live with the virus for a long time, and that means managing its risks while letting the economy function to avoid mass poverty. The price of lockdowns is higher than their benefit.

Those making the decisions are doing so with a confidence that they won’t participate in the mass poverty. We are not all in the same boat.

And we cannot offset the creation of mass poverty either by taxing “the rich” or simply having the Fed extend credit without severe adverse consequences.

In her latest Washington Post column Megan McArdle tries to explain why she believes that the reason that blacks are dying of COVID-19 in numbers disproportionate to their number in the population:

Why is covid-19 killing more black people than white people in America?

For many on the left, the answer is easy: “systemic racism.” That answer drives conservatives bonkers. Covid-19 comes from a virus; it does not care whether victims are white or black and, indeed, doesn’t have eyes to distinguish.

Conservatives, I understand why you feel this way. But on this issue, the left is, well, right.

In the balance of the column she makes a number of points in which it is rather clear she does not see the fallacies:

Let’s start with what “systemic racism” is, which is not “systems full of racists.” Black people aren’t dying in such numbers because all or even most white people around them hate them and want bad things to happen to them. But they probably are dying because we enslaved their ancestors.

I say “we” even though my personal ancestors never, as far as I can determine, enslaved anyone or even set foot in the South. But I am a U.S. citizen, and the United States legalized slavery, even to the extent of helping some whites pursue runaways into free territory. “We,” as a nation, did that. They, as a people, suffered.

That’s true as far as it goes but it does not go far enough in several ways. If you’re going to assert collective guilt, you necessarily ascribe it to both blacks and whites. That sounds absurd and it is. I gather from the balance of the column that she imagines some sort of ledger in which the guilt of blacks for slavery is balanced by the slavery itself and Jim Crow afterwards. The problems with this line of reasoning is that some whites were slaves, too, not all whites benefited from black slavery, some but not all whites sacrificed greatly to end slavery, and some blacks in the U. S. are not the victims of the legacy of U. S. slavery.

Not recognizing the sacrifices that were made to end slavery is an error common to the descendants of more recent immigrants. The majority of my great-great-grandfathers fought to end slavery and at least two of their families suffered for it: two of them died young of the privations they experienced while serving in the Civil War. That was in the era when men were the primary breadwinners. Those deaths blighted those families right down to the present day.

Yesterday I was speaking with a black colleague of mine (born in the U. S. and reared mostly in Nigeria) whom I like and respect quite a bit. He volunteered that he had never experienced overt racism in the United States but he had in Europe.

Also, being black is not dispositive for poverty and misery in the U. S. 8% of millionaires are black and 1% of billionaires. You cannot explain that while holding to the belief in the implacable racism our our system without special pleading.

Finally, I have already linked to the NBER study which found that even controlling for age, geography, income, and occupation, there is still a discrepancy between the prevalence of COVID-19 among blacks and whites in the U. S. Said another way, systemic racism is not an adequate explanation. There may be other behavioral explanations. There are even plausible explanations for why blacks may be more susceptible. Wouldn’t providing Vitamin D supplements be worth a try for goodness sake?

I am not claiming that racism isn’t real. I have no doubt that it is or that it is not easier to be white than black in the United States. What I am saying is that when you are trying to solve a problem, address the issues that are easiest and give you the most bang for the buck rather than trying to fix those which will be most difficult or may even be impossible to solve.

This statement by Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control, quoted at CNN, illustrates in just a few short words a number of my peeves about the public pronouncements about the COVID-19 pandemic:

“The time is now,” Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the CDC, said during an interview with the Journal of the American Medical Association’s Dr. Howard Bauchner. “I think if we could get everybody to wear a mask right now I think in four, six, eight weeks we could bring this epidemic under control.”

The issues include fallacies, misstatements, and exaggerations. Rosy scenario, blaming the patient, tertium non datur, hedging, kicking the can, undeclared assumptions, non-falsifiability, and circularity.

The hedging is obvious. Would it take four weeks or eight weeks to “bring this epidemic under control”? That’s a considerable difference. Keep doubling it and he’s bound to be right eventually.

The circularity works this way. Eight weeks go by. The epidemic is still not under control. That is taken as proof that not enough people are wearing facemasks. That also illustrates the non-falsifiability of the the statement.

The actual science does not support the statement. I’ve now read all of the studies I’ve found. Not one supports the claims of effectiveness that are being made here. I’m prepared to believe that wearing masks might slow the spread of contagion a little. I’m not prepared to believe that contagion can be prevented enough to bring the epidemic under control even with 100% compliance. I can only speculate that he’s making some assumptions. In particular, I think he’s assuming that, if he buys a little time, a safe, effective vaccine can be developed, produced, and deployed in sufficient quantity to end the pandemic. The DJIA notwithstanding I doubt it.

I wear a facemask. I do not do so because I believe it will keep me from contracting the virus (the evidence does not support that belief). I don’t have COVID-19 so it won’t keep me from spreading it to someone else. Why do I wear it? I am modeling the behavior I expect from others. That’s why President Trump should wear a facemask in public and why you should, too.

Will that “bring this epidemic under control”? I doubt it. Maybe it will help a little.

Before you read this piece by Peter Earle at the American Institute for Economic Research you might want to recall John Kenneth Galbraith’s famous wisecrack that the only purpose of economic projections was to make astrology look respectable. Otherwise it’s a good piece:

As data accrues on both a national and state-by-state basis, the parameters of COVID-19’s lethality is firming up. Two new papers from Dr. John Ioannidis point to the growing shortfall between apocalyptic pandemic predictions and the vastly more destructive policies implemented in observance of them.

The flaws identified include inadequacies in the data, bad assumptions (particularly the assumption of homogeneity which I have been complaining about for months), that the estimates were not robust, that the evidence on available interventions was weak, dimensionality (not taking enough factors into account), and bandwagon effects.

Mr. Earle concludes:

What can economists teach epidemiologists? When it comes to forecasting, humility is key and discretion is the better part of valor. If in a position of power or influence, don’t be afraid to bore politicians to death. Be aware, and remain aware, of the utter unpredictability of human action. And always, above all, remain mindful that the presence of even one human being (and more realistically, millions) introduces complexities which are difficult to predict and virtually impossible to simulate.

Offhand I’d say that humility on the part of both economists and epidemiologists would be well-deserved. Such humility is valuable, probably because it’s in such limited supply.

I agree with the sentiments of Clarence Page expressed in his most recent Chicago Tribune column:

Although I am pleased to see attention drawn to such obviously innocent victims — all of whom were Black — after years of seeing them buried in the back pages of most minds, I am also tired — exceedingly tired — of seeing various politicians and pundits hold up Chicago’s gun violence, not so much to help resolve the crisis as to use it as a bullhorn to shame their adversaries.

Chicago is not alone in receiving this president’s wrath. Three days earlier, McEnany scolded reporters for asking a series of questions about a tweet the president sent about NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace, but not one question about violence that had taken the lives of children in New York and Atlanta, among other cities. Then she quickly left the stage without taking further questions.

Making political hay out of Chicago’s problems is insensitive to say the least. But I don’t think that Mr. Page is thinking things through enough.

It has been three generations since Chicago had a Republican mayor. In recent mayoral elections Republicans haven’t even bothered running for mayor. The Illinois legislature has been controlled solidly by Democrats for decades. Whatever you think of the Republican Party, Republicans can’t be blamed for Chicago’s or, indeed, Illinois’s problems. Those must be owned by Democrats.

Why do Chicago Democrats insist on voting for the same do-nothing candidates year after year after dreary year? That’s a question. I have no answers.

If Democrats don’t like Republicans scoring political points from Chicago’s misery, they might try solving the problems for which they’re leaving themselves open to criticism. Just a suggestion.

The number of homicides in Chicago in 2020 has already exceeded the number at this time in 2017—the year with the largest number of homicides in decades and possibly ever when you adjust for population. The editors of the Chicago Tribune assess the results of the efforts by present political leadership:

Police strategies so far are failing. Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s efforts to control violence have been inadequate. Gov. J.B. Pritzker as a candidate promised to address crime through a special agency, but creating more bureaucracy, again, has not reversed alarming trends on the streets of Chicago.

They propose augmenting police efforts with “street outreach”:

Street outreach works. In neighborhoods where outreach workers are deployed, violence is down. At READI Chicago, more than half of the young men who join the program remain engaged in it a year later, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab. “When our guys are on duty — evenings and weekends — the shootings in those locations have dropped to almost zero,” wrote Arne Duncan, founder of CRED and education secretary under former President Barack Obama in a Tribune op-ed co-authored with READI executive director Eddie Bocanegra and Vaughn Bryant, who heads up Metropolitan Peace Initiatives.

And yet, street outreach remains under-resourced. Philanthropic groups provide much of the funding, though earlier this year Lightfoot pledged $6 million in city funds to street outreach efforts. More is needed. Arthur says the ranks of street outreach workers need to be doubled, or even quadrupled. At READI, it costs $20,000 annually to pay for each participant. But a year in an Illinois prison costs $38,000. “It’s not a cheap program,” Bocanegra tells us. “But when you compare it to prison? What we pay as taxpayers … for police, for the cost of detention? We’re not educating the public about that comparison.”

There’s no cure-all for the scourge of gun violence that has persisted for decades. Police can’t solve the problem alone. Neither can new laws or the next torrent of outrage. As Arthur says, “We need all hands on-deck.” A police department that commits to forging real and lasting trust in neighborhoods. Buy-in from the private sector to reverse yearslong disinvestment and seed job growth. A City Hall that focuses unrelentingly on crime reduction.

It’s certainly worth a try but let’s keep our eyes opened. There’s a narrow line between providing city or state support for “interrupters” and providing city or state funding for the gangs themselves. It has happened before. Additionally, there is the always-present temptation to fund NGOs that are the best footsoldiers for your election campaign than those who get the best results. There’s got to be serious, demanding oversight and that won’t come free.

I found this statistic astonishing and distressing. Two-thirds of the deaths from COVID-19 of individuals under the age of 65 have been of blacks or Hispanics. Business Insider reports:

An April report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that one-third of the nation’s hospitalized COVID-19 patients in March were Black — despite the fact that Black Americans make up just 13% of the population.

As coronavirus cases have spiked across the country, this disparity has only deepened. A new CDC report found that Black and Hispanic patients represented nearly two-thirds of coronavirus deaths among those younger than 65. The researchers looked at data from more than 10,000 coronavirus patients whose deaths were reported from February 12 to May 18, and found that more than one-third of deceased patients under 65 were Hispanic and another 30% were Black.

They continue:

In an interview with Business Insider, Surgeon General Jerome Adams attributed some coronavirus outbreaks among communities of color to “social determinants of health.” Black and Hispanic people, for instance, are more likely to hold service-industry jobs that increase their risk of exposure. Black Americans also account for 17% of frontline employees, despite making up 12% of the US workforce, according to a study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

In addition, Black people more likely to have preexisting medical conditions that make them vulnerable to severe health outcomes.

I suspect, as intimated in the BI piece, that the issue is multifactorial. Another possible explanation is difference between the health care received by blacks as opposed to whites:

Blackstock said one of the main reasons for these outbreaks is that patients of color are less likely to have access to quality healthcare. Black adults are uninsured at nearly twice the rate of white adults, according to US Census data. Many Black patients may also be hesitant to seek medical care in the first place.

This is something I’ve mentioned before. The lack of trust that many blacks have for police officers isn’t limited to police officers. It extends to the health care system as well.

If blacks and Hispanics including those who are Medicaid beneficiaries are not receiving quality care, that is an ethical problem it is incumbent on the medical profession to address. Keep in mind that the medical profession is supposed to be self-policing.

I think there is an urgent necessity for investigating this issue and such an investigation needs to be unflinchingly.

Let’s start out with Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the U. S. Constitution:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

and proceed on to Alex Tabarrok’s post at Marginal Revolution on Congress’s failure to fight SARS-CoV-2:

One of the most confounding aspects of the pandemic has been Congress’s unwillingness or inability to spend to fight the virus. As I said in the LA Times:

If an invader rained missiles down on cities across the United States killing thousands of people, we would fight back. Yet despite spending trillions on unemployment insurance and relief to deal with the economic consequences of COVID-19, we have spent comparatively little fighting the virus directly.

Read the whole thing.

I think the most likely explanation is that it’s obvious to the House leadership how passing bills that puts money into many Americans’ pockets will gain votes but a lot less obvious that “increasing the supply of PPE, expanding testing, developing treatments, standing up contact tracing, or developing a vaccine” will do so. And then, of course, there’s presidential politics. It’s an election year, you know.