There has been some Chicago news while I was out of town. WGN reports:

CHICAGO (WLS) — After spending the night in a police lockup, Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno was released Wednesday on his own recognizance following his arrest on charges he committed insurance fraud and obstruction of justice for allegedly falsely reporting his car had been stolen in January.

The judge said that if allegations against him are true, then Moreno had a terrible lapse in judgement.

“The appropriate bond was set. It is an I-bond. He has strong ties to the community. He has no prior offenses,” said Camilo Oceguera, Moreno’s defense attorney.

Moreno turned himself in to authorities Tuesday night after an arrest warrant was issued for him. The politician’s arrest is the latest in a bizarre set of circumstances which investigators say began on Janaury 4, when Moreno told police he returned from a trip only to find his black 2016 Audi A6 missing from the garage of his Wicker Park home.

During a bond hearing Wednesday afternoon, prosecutors said after Moreno told officers no one else had access to the vehicle he leased, the 47-year-old proceeded to file a false claim with his insurance company only hours after knowingly loaning the car to his on-again, off-again girlfriend.

When informed by a neighbor about the event, my reaction was “Well, it’s a start.” One down. Forty-nine to go.

Here’s the conclusion of Brett Arends’s polemic against the media coverage of Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods at MarketWatch:

Right now we export less to China than we do to Japan, South Korea and Singapore put together. That’s the point. So the effect of China’s new tariffs on the U.S. are yet another rounding error. Even if China banned all imports from the U.S., that would amount to only 0.6% of our gross domestic product. And we’d sell the stuff somewhere else.

Don’t buy the hysteria. President Trump is simply trying to pressure our biggest competitor to buy more American goods. That should be a good thing, even if you don’t like him.

I don’t think that’s quite right. $30 billion is unlikely to persuade China to do anything. What it’s just barely possible that the tariffs might do is to change the habits of American consumers and businesses. American businesses will seek sources other than Chinese ones for their products and some of those sources might just be American ones. Either one of those is a benign outcome. All other things being equal we should prefer buying from other than Chinese sources if for no other reason than that the Chinese authorities are not good people. They are building out China’ military for other than benign reasons, are imprisoning millions of their own people for political reasons, and generally imposing Orwellian conditions on China. Do we really want to subsidize that?

You might want to take a look at Carl Cannon’s post at RealClearPolitics on American public opinion on Medicare For All:

Health care has emerged as the top policy issue for American voters, according to a new poll containing detailed data suggesting that any political party ignoring this topic – or misreading the public’s mood on it – does so at its own peril.

With the political discourse in Washington and in the national news media dominated by Russian hacking, President Trump’s business dealings and possible impeachment, the new survey asks respondents to rank the policy issues they consider most important to America’s future. In a list that included five other topics — the economy, the environment, education, foreign policy, and immigration — health care came out on top by a significant margin: 36% of Americans ranked it first, and 26% listed it as their second choice. Only the economy (26% ranked it first, 25% second) was close.

I found his post reasonable. The bottom line is that many Americans think that health care is too expensive, something needs to be done, and Medicare For All might be that something.

They’re right on the first two points. Health care, whether in the form of insurance premiums or deductibles, has been eating up their raises for decades and the costs are rising faster than their incomes.

In the absence of a commitment to cost control I’m skeptical that Medicare For All would save most Americans any money and, as I’ve pointed out before, I do not believe that serious health care cost control is politically possible in the United States. I don’t think that just kicking insurance companies out of the picture will free up enough money.

I also think that the political goal that some have, establishing health care as a right, is folly. IMO there’s an irreconcilable conflict among affirmative rights, rights of self-determination, and property rights, a conflict that can’t be resolved by good intentions or a slogan.

Charles Lane is right on the money in his Washington Post column about the federal minimum wage:

What is the minimum wage in the United States? To a much greater extent than used to be the case, the correct answer is: “It depends.”

Under federal law, the hourly minimum is $7.25, the same as in 2009, the last time Congress increased it. This is the lowest since the 1950s, in inflation-adjusted terms.

Yet in the decade since 2009 — especially in the second half of that decade — many state and local governments have enacted minimum wages higher, often much higher, than $7.25. Fully 89 percent of the 6.8 million minimum-wage employees now face a legal minimum above $7.25 per hour, the New York Times reports, but the precise figure varies by state and city, ranging all the way up to $16.09 in SeaTac, Wash.

How about the U.S. tax on a gallon of gasoline? Once again, it’s an increasingly state-by-state situation. The federal excise tax of 18.4 cents has been fixed, i.e., declining in real terms, since 1993. In the interim, many states have been adjusting theirs, such that there is now a wide range between the top rate (58.7 cents in Pennsylvania) and the bottom (14.7 cents in Alaska).

For those of us accustomed to thinking of the United States as a unified economy, best regulated as uniformly as possible from sea to shining sea, these facts discomfit.

We should get over it. At least I have. It would be unwise to have, say, 50 different auto-safety standards. Yet in certain situations, a regulatory patchwork can have its advantages. And so it is with the prices of entry-level labor and motor fuel, essential as they may be to the functioning of the economy.

The appropriate role for the federal government in setting a minimum wage is to set a floor wage based on the lowest prevailing wage anywhere in the country. That’s the $7.25 that is the case now. Anything else should be left to state and local governments.

Just for the record I do not believe that illegal aliens have any particular predisposition to violent crime and have never made that claim. I have said that homicides perpetrated by illegal aliens would not have taken place but for the presence of the illegal alien, something that seems self-evident to me. Homicide is not a random occurence. It requires a perpetrator and without the perpetrator it would not have taken place.

But the study described in this New York Times article, however well-intentioned, is junk science:

A lot of research has shown that there’s no causal connection between immigration and crime in the United States. But after one such study was reported on jointly by The Marshall Project and The Upshot last year, readers had one major complaint: Many argued it was unauthorized immigrants who increase crime, not immigrants over all.

An analysis derived from new data is now able to help address this question, suggesting that growth in illegal immigration does not lead to higher local crime rates.

In part because it’s hard to collect data on them, undocumented immigrants have been the subjects of few studies, including those related to crime. But the Pew Research Center recently released estimates of undocumented populations sorted by metro area, which The Marshall Project has compared with local crime rates A lot of research has shown that there’s no causal connection between immigration and crime in the United States. But after one such study was reported on jointly by The Marshall Project and The Upshot last year, readers had one major complaint: Many argued it was unauthorized immigrants who increase crime, not immigrants over all.

The clearance rate for violent crime in the United States is around 45%, that is to say arrests are made for 45% of violent crimes that are reported to authorities. But the situation is even worse. According to the FBI only about 37% of violent crimes are ever reported to the authorities. That means that we have absolutely no idea of who committed more than 80% of all violent crimes and making any claims of any variety about who committed them is more than the available data allows. We certainly don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions about year-to-year variance.

The study in question is dependent on a very commonplace fallacy: false precision.

I don’t know what proportion of violent crimes are committed by illegal aliens. No one does. I don’t believe they’re responsible for a larger proportion than they comprise of the population and could even be responsible for a lower percentage. But that’s a belief, not something I can prove.

Doris Day, singer, radio performer, motion picture star, and television performer has died. From the Variety obit:

Doris Day, one of Hollywood’s most popular stars of the 1950s and ’60s who was Oscar-nommed for “Pillow Talk” and starred in her own TV show, has died. She was 97.

The Doris Day Animal Foundation confirmed the legendary actress-singer died on Monday at her Carmel Valley, Calif. home.

Though she was marketed as a wholesome girl-next-door type, the comedies for which she was most well-known were actually sexy and daring for their time, and her personal life was tumultuous, with four marriages and a notorious lawsuit.

The vivacious blonde, who also had a successful singing career, teamed with Rock Hudson in “Pillow Talk” and other lighthearted romantic comedies including “Lover Come Back” and “Send Me No Flowers.” Her other significant screen roles included Alfred Hitchcock thriller “The Man Who Knew Too Much” (1956), co-starring James Stewart and featuring Day’s Oscar-winning song “Que Sera Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be”); and “The Pajama Game” (1957), based on the Broadway musical.

She was an important figure in show biz. After getting her start as a band singer in the 1940s, she was the singer on Bob Hope’s radio program for a while. One of her predecessors in that job was Judy Garland. Hope had a keen eye for talent.

Five of the songs she recorded hit #1 on the pop charts, twenty were in the top 10. None of her many movies was the top grossing picture of the year in which it was released but she was a reliable box office favorite for in more pictures for twenty years—a longer period than movie stas typically enjoy.

I’ve never been a great fan of the movies that made her famous. Check out

Storm Warning (1951)
Love Me Or Leave Me (1955)
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Julie (1956)
Midnight Lace (1960)

for roles somewhat different from those you’re used to seeing her in. They vary from great (Storm Warning, The Man Who Knew Too Much), to overwrought (Midnight Lace) to just plain weird (Julie).

This isn’t usually a news blog but I found this breaking news sufficiently interesting and important I thought I would break in and comment on it. From CBS News:

Saudi Arabia said Monday two of its oil tankers were sabotaged off the coast of the United Arab Emirates in attacks that caused “significant damage” to the vessels. One of the ships was en route to pick up Saudi oil to take to the United States, a Saudi government minister said.

The announcement by the kingdom’s energy minister, Khalid al-Falih, came on the heels of a new warning to sailors in the region from the U.S. While no blame was cast at Iran or any other nation for the alleged attack on the ships, it fuelled fears that a miscommunication or small act of antagonism in the politically charged region could quickly escalate into a full conflict.

Late last week the U.S. Maritime Administration warned commercial shipping companies that from the beginning of May there had been, “an increased possibility that Iran and/or its regional proxies could take action against U.S. and partner interests, including oil production infrastructure, after recently threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. Iran or its proxies could respond by targeting commercial vessels, including oil tankers, or U.S. military vessels in the Red Sea, Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, or the Persian Gulf.”

That fills me with questions. How long will it take before Saudi blames Iran for the sabotage? Present reports say that the Saudis haven’t named any suspects. How long will it take before the Iranians blame the Israelis or the Americans for them? Iranian politicians are already blaming saboteaurs from an unnamed third country. And what country would that be?

In his Washington Post column today Robert Samuelson is fretting about the limitations of economists:

As an economic journalist for roughly half a century, I have slowly and somewhat reluctantly come to the conclusion that many economists (and this applies across the political spectrum) often don’t know what they’re talking about — a shortcoming that is sometimes acknowledged and sometimes isn’t.

Before I appear unbearably arrogant, let me state the obvious. Most economists I’ve dealt with over the years are extremely smart and well-informed. They’re a lot smarter than I am. I’ve learned much from them; it has been one of the rewards of the job. Most are also public-spirited and generous with their time. With a few exceptions, they generally elevate the level of public discussion.

Still, the record is what it is, and it’s not pretty. Time after time, economists have failed to foresee major economic trends. In recent years, global interest rates have plunged to historically low levels. (A 10-year Treasury bond fetches 2.5 percent.) Given the importance of interest rates in economic decisions — they affect everything from housing to the stock market — this is a big deal. But most economists did not anticipate the declines and still can’t fully explain them.

I think there are several prospective and even conflicting explanations for that. My preferred explanation is that economics is a descriptive science like anthropology rather than a predictive one like physics. Economists claim otherwise because what impelled them into economics was political as much as intellectual.

It is a commonplace for economists to acknowledge that their motivation for becoming an economist in the first place was Asimov’s Foundation trilogy. In that now 75 year old work of science fiction a “psychohistorian”, Hari Selden, is able to predict the future thousands of years from his own time and puts factors into play that, in the fullness of time, will alter events in the direction he prefers.

But economics is not psychohistory, there are hundreds billions more people in the future world of Foundation, and the information available to Hari Selden is much better than the information available to today’s economists.

Which brings me to the second prospective explanation. Is it possible that globalization and, in particular, the rise of China that is confounding economists’ predictive abilities? Our economy is not closed and China is not open. We have very little idea what’s actually happening in China and what happens in China doesn’t stay in China any more.

One of the remarkable aspects of dictatorial governments these days is how many of them maintain their hold on power using foreign mercenaries. It is true of Iran with the basidji. And it is true in Venezuela where the Cuban government is providing thousands of physicians, teachers, and security forces in exchange for oil, a mutually beneficial arrangement. In her Wall Street Journal column Mary Anastasia O’Grady explains her plan for overthrowing the Maduro government:

Things will go from bad to worse for Havana if Mr. Guaidó is allowed to hold elections. This is why the Cubans are ruthlessly cracking down on the opposition while making the absurd proposal to the Lima Group that Havana ought to mediate a compromise solution. As if the fox ought to decide the fate of the hens. Defectors repeatedly testify that Cubans are behind the Venezuelan police state. It’s why the U.S. and its allies must shift their focus to Havana.

The Trump administration has been adding sanctions against the Cuban regime. Ships that carry oil from Venezuela to Cuba can no longer enter U.S. ports; Americans can now sue in U.S. courts over property confiscated by Cuba; and the ceiling on remittances from the U.S. has been reduced. Havana is feeling some heat. But it isn’t enough.

To persuade Cuba to exit Venezuela, the price of staying has to be higher than any benefits it still receives. That’s a hemispheric project, and it’s the best way to liberate Venezuela from tyranny.

IMO U. S. efforts would be better utilized enforcing the Monroe Doctrine and preventing intervention from outside the hemisphere to intervene to save the Maduro government.

The Cuban government has problems of its own which their symbiotic relationship with Venezuela will not help them to solve. The entire arrangement may well be on the brink of collapse.