It takes Bob Davis about 30 paragraphs to get to the meat of his assessment of the results of admitting China to the WTO in the Wall Street Journal:

China never fully followed through on its WTO pledge to allow foreign banks to operate in its local currency. It also pledged not to force foreign firms to transfer their technology, but today about one in five companies—many in aerospace and chemical industries—say that they’ve been pressured to do just that in order to do business in China, according to a July survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai.

At a WTO session this month, China’s vice minister of commerce, Wang Shouwen, denied that China twists arms to gain technology. Arrangements on technology are “absolutely contractual behavior based on voluntary business deals,” Mr. Wang said in July, according to a Geneva trade official.

China has also maneuvered to its advantage within the WTO. In one case it blocked exports of scarce raw materials needed by high-tech industries, hurting foreign firms. When the WTO ruled against Beijing on one set of restrictions, it removed the barriers—but then blocked another set of raw materials. “The core issue isn’t whether China lived up to the vast number of obligations, but whether it lived up to the spirit” of the deal, says Prof. Wu.

Other Chinese efforts to win an advantage in trade have happened outside the WTO’s purview. For years after joining the international trade regime, Beijing kept its currency undervalued by 30%, boosting Chinese exports by making them cheaper abroad, says Brad Setser, a currency expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. Former U.S. officials say that China and other WTO members wouldn’t have agreed to a provision punishing countries for such measures.

Professor Wu’s characterization is nonsense. China hasn’t lived up to the letter of its agreements let alone their spirit. It is not in compliance full stop.

Completely omitted from the analysis: the enormous growth in wealth of party officials and their families, China’s enormous corruption, the tremendous growth in air, water, and soil pollution not to mention carbon emissions, deadweight loss as a result of bad decisions by the Chinese government, and China’s modernization of its military and saber rattling against its neighbors. He also fails to consider the possibility that the Chinese people might have prospered without eviscerating the U. S. manufacturing sector if a more gradualist and evidence-based approach had been taken. Bill Clinton should forever be known as the president who kneecapped America’s middle class.

China’s political reforms have largely been reversed; there are few signs of hope there. What’s to be done now? The WTO is too timorous to enforce its judgments against China. Don’t expect relief there.

I don’t have much to say about “fake news” other than that it’s not new. As has been observed for at least 300 years, a lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is getting its pants on.

Among our gravest problems today are a lack of patience and a furor to act. Those along with the enormous availability of information, the profit motive in being the first with the story, and generally agonistic responses cause people to latch on to the first confirmation of their own biases they run across.

It is not a characteristic of Democrats or of Republicans. It is a feature of life in the 21st century. I suggest meditation.

In what I think is an important post at E21, Charles Blahous outlines the assumptions underpinning the Social Security trustees’ plan to extend the solvency of the Social Security system until 2062:

So, what about that trustees’ “low-cost” projection scenario that shows Social Security’s trust funds lasting until 2062? Well, that projection has virtually nothing to do with increased labor force participation. Here are just some of the assumptions that all must pan out for that scenario to transpire:

• The US fertility rate rebounds to 2.2, permanently. For reference, the current US fertility rate is about 1.8, and the US has not had a single year exhibiting a 2.2 fertility rate since 1971.
• Annual US mortality improvements will slow down to barely half the rate of progress assumed in the primary projections. Basically, this scenario assumes that Social Security will cost less than now projected, because we’ll stop making significant progress in improving longevity, and recipients won’t collect benefits for as long.
• Immigration will be over 25% higher than now projected.
• Annual productivity growth will be over 20% higher than now projected.
• Real wages will grow more than 50% faster than now projected.
• After 2028, the US will never again see an unemployment rate above 4.5%.
• Disability incidence will drop by over 20% relative to the primary projections.
• Disability recovery rates will increase by over 20% relative to the primary projections.

Not to put too fine a point on it but it ain’t gonna happen. What is not mentioned here is that one of the main assumptions of the Social Security system has failed. From 1950 to 1990 the percent of taxable income being earned by the top .1% varied from 15% to 20% and after 1990 it has risen rapidly to 40%. Very little of that income is subject to FICA. In 1970 90% of income was subject to FICA. Now less than 10% is. Since its assumptions have failed, the system needs to be re-engineered.

Jason Van Dyke, the Chicago police officer who murdered Laquon McDonald and whose actions were captured in a much-publicized video, has been sentenced to 81 months in prison following his conviction for murder with extenuating circumstances. From ABC 7 Chicago:

CHICAGO (WLS) — Jason Van Dyke, the Chicago police officer convicted of murdering 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, was sentenced to 81 months, or 6 years and 9 months, in prison and two years mandatory supervised release.

Judge Vincent Gaughan said he considered the most serious charge to be the second degree murder charge, not the 16 aggravated battery charges, and made his sentencing decision on that murder charge.

“I’ve been told time and time again that the citizenry of the county of Cook is not going to be satisfied with a sentence that’s anything south of 20 years,” said Pastor Marvin Hunter, McDonald’s great uncle. “However I want to say to everyone – everyone in the city of Chicago and across this country – that if they had sentenced him to 1 minute, it is a victory. It is a victory because what has happened in this courtroom today has never happened in the history of this county and it sets a precedent and it sends a strong message to unjust police officers that now you can and will go to jail if you’re caught lying, if you’re caught breaking the law.”

I found Pastor Hunter’s statement strong and reasoned but it’s not clear to me what would have satisifed Laquon McDonald’s family or, as he put it, “the citizenry of the county of Cook”. A maximum sentence? A death sentence? He may well have received that.

What concerns me about the entire sorry matter is that not enough attention has been paid to what motivated Mr. Van Dyke. Did he think he was invulnerable? Did he think he was defending himself? Is that, indeed, what he was trained to do? I think that much more has been on trial here than Jason Van Dyke and however harsh or lenient you may feel Van Dyke’s sentence has been the Chicago Police Department and the whole system of justice has been given a slap on the hand.

Do Congress and the president have an obligation to find a compromise to end the federal government shutdown? I think it can be argued that they do and that obligation transcends their obligations to their constituents, political parties, ideologies, or other agenda.

Article 4, Section 4 of the U. S. Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. It has been known for more than two millennia that republican government requires the possibility of compromise. If compromise has become impossible, that is inconsistent with republican government.

The dictionary definition of “compromise” is:

an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concession

and the compromise presently available has been obvious and proposed by practically every editorial page in the country.

I don’t believe that the actual substance of the disagreement between President Trump and Speaker Pelosi is what’s at stake. I think that both parties are trying to maintain a zero-sum game in which they win and the other side loses.

Three Chicago police officers have been found “Not guilty” of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and official misconduct in their actions following the murder of Laquan McDonald five years ago. NBC News reports:

Three Chicago police officers were found not guilty on all charges that they conspired to protect their colleague who shot and killed teenager Laquan McDonald in 2014.

Officer Thomas Gaffney, ex-Officer Joseph Walsh and former Detective David March were acquitted on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and official misconduct by Cook County Judge Domenica Stephenson.

“This court finds that the state has failed to meet its burden on all charges,” Stephenson ruled. “Defendants are discharged.”

The defendants, who each faced up to five years behind bars, were all involved in the probe following officer Jason Van Dyke’s killing of McDonald.

The three officers opted against having a jury hear their case, and instead asked for a bench trial, leaving their fate in the hands of Judge Stephenson.

All that this really tells us is that it is very, very difficult to convict a police officer of anything in Chicago. One of the things it does not tell us is how the community will react. We’re probably lucky it’s predicted to be the coldest weekend of the year so far.

This will do nothing to improve the reputation of the CPD or improve its relationship with the community.

Here is the text of a statement by a panel of eminent economists on climate change, quoted from the Wall Street Journal:

Global climate change is a serious problem calling for immediate national action. Guided by sound economic principles, we are united in the following policy recommendations.

I. A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.

II. A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. A consistently rising carbon price will encourage technological innovation and large-scale infrastructure development. It will also accelerate the diffusion of carbon-efficient goods and services.

II. A sufficiently robust and gradually rising carbon tax will replace the need for various carbon regulations that are less efficient. Substituting a price signal for cumbersome regulations will promote economic growth and provide the regulatory certainty companies need for long- term investment in clean-energy alternatives.

IV. To prevent carbon leakage and to protect U.S. competitiveness, a border carbon adjustment system should be established. This system would enhance the competitiveness of American firms that are more energy-efficient than their global competitors. It would also create an incentive for other nations to adopt similar carbon pricing.

V. To maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax, all the revenue should be returned directly to U.S. citizens through equal lump-sum rebates. The majority of American families, including the most vulnerable, will benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices.

The signatories of the statement are:

George Akerlof, Robert Aumann, Angus Deaton, Peter Diamond, Robert Engle, Eugene Fama, Lars Peter Hansen, Oliver Hart, Bengt Holmström, Daniel Kahneman, Finn Kydland, Robert Lucas, Eric Maskin, Daniel McFadden, Robert Merton, Roger Myerson, Edmund Phelps, Alvin Roth, Thomas Sargent, Myron Scholes, Amartya Sen, William Sharpe, Robert Shiller, Christopher Sims, Robert Solow, Michael Spence and Richard Thaler are recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

Paul Volcker is a former Federal Reserve chairman.

Martin Baily, Michael Boskin, Martin Feldstein, Jason Furman, Austan Goolsbee, Glenn Hubbard, Alan Krueger, Edward Lazear, N. Gregory Mankiw, Christina Romer, Harvey Rosen and Laura Tyson are former chairmen of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan and Janet Yellen have chaired both the Fed and the Council of Economic Advisers.

George Shultz and Lawrence Summers are former Treasury secretaries.

I have nothing to add to this other than to observe that it overcomes my biggest criticism of a carbon tax in Paragraph V and I think that Paragraph V is all but certain not to be implemented.

Update

Actually I do have something to add. In the absence of serious enforcement of a similar tax in China, their plan would lead to continuing deindustrialization of the United States with industry moving to China, India, Vietnam, etc. A border adjustment system would do nothing to mitigate that. How do they plan to impel China, India, and other countries that are the beneficiaries of this deindustrialization to adopt similar carbon taxes? If that doesn’t happen doesn’t that threaten to increase carbon emissions rather than decreasing them?

How do they plan to measure the results to determine when emission goals have been met?

Are they aware that carbon emissions in China, India, etc. do not stay in China, India, etc.? How do they plan to distinguish between American carbon emissions and Chinese carbon emissions?

Those are among the reasons I have long thought that capture was a better strategy.

In a piece at the Wall Street Journal Joseph Epstein provides a list of mildly amusing comebacks that were never made:

The first that occurs to me is Dan Quayle, the victim, in a 1988 debate with Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, of a notable put-down. Mr. Quayle compared his experience to that of John F. Kennedy, to which Bentsen famously replied: “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” I wonder if it might have occurred later to Mr. Quayle that he should have responded, “Then again, neither was Jack Kennedy.”

Elizabeth Warren might have saved herself much grief after Donald Trump mocked her as “Pocahontas” if, instead of running off to have a DNA test, she had offered a politically incorrect rejoinder: “Mr. Trump, I wish I were Pocahontas, so that I might have your preposterous scalp on my belt.”

When Joe Biden claimed, in response to Mr. Trump’s unfortunate remarks about grabbing women, that if he were in high school he “would take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him,” Mr. Trump replied that if Mr. Biden, tried, he “would go down fast and hard crying all the way.” But how much better if Mr. Trump had said, “O.K. Let’s do it. Shall we say hair-spray at 20 paces?”

Then there were the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Surely the highlight was Sen. Cory Booker’s “Spartacus moment.” The next day, when it was Mr. Booker’s turn to ask further questions, imagine if now-Justice Kavanaugh greeted the New Jersey senator with “Hail, Spartacus!” But, then, unless one is Oliver Wendell Holmes, I suppose one cannot exhibit wit and expect to be confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court, too.

I think that practically all such comebacks are in fact L’esprit d’escalier, witty ripostes that might have been made but never were. Most public figures aren’t particularly witty and never has that been moreso than today with speech writers, political consultants, public relations agents and other hired guns? Who needs wit when you have wealth?

The picture of Kamala Harris that emerges from Lara Bazelon’s New York Times piece is far from the lovely, sanitized one being promoted. To my eye it is of a dedicated statist that takes whatever position promotes her political career. I hope that’s not what Democratic voters are looking for.