Tuesday assorted links


Why no comments?

#1 - what's that I see? A big, beautiful Wall?!

#4 - never stop lifting.

When was the last time a Mexican suicide-bombed an American target?
And, those Palestinians must be stealing a lot of Israeli jobs.

It's the Syrian border.

Net tax-consumption and lowered social trust are ample justification for walls. Not even Mexicans care much for living with or around Mexicans. Didn't your husband marry an Anglo woman?

Frankly, we don't even need a good reason, or any reason, just like you don't need a good reason to keep strangers out of your house. Americans are who they are, and they are here. Whether anybody else gets to be here is entirely up to them. Build the Wall!

Techically a wall doesn't need a justifcation. It's just perhaps not an efficient use of resources, when what you are dealing with is "lowered social trust" as opposed to people actually trying to kill you.
What I really object to is the laws you want to impose on me that tell me who I can invite into my house (because YOU consider them strangers). If you want to repeal those laws, you can have a wall. Americans are not a unitary group with a collective consciousness. Some of them are Hispanic, and they have friends and relatives.

Until you get your own country you will just have to try and convince your countrymen of the merits of having millions of Mexicans here. (This is not, and has never been about the precious Meade kids getting to see their beloved abuela; is this the best the can libertarians argue now?).

If you are that enthused about living around Mexicans, you can also move to Mexico, a country built by them and just for them.

Aren't you from Georgia or something? Why should your preferences extend over a whole continent?

Agreed. Immigration is a local phenomenon, administered like we're a single nation or something.

So "local" refers to continent sized landmasses?

No. It refers to "local." As in, a national bureaucracy sets immigration policy for the nation, regardless of whether, for example, immigrants from equatorial regions will be healthy in cold, damp localities, or whether the locals want them or want to do business with them.

Also kind of like how the Rust Belt and South got to pick the national President this time around.

We probably need more countries on the North American continent given the numerous variances among localities.

It's almost as if maybe the flow of immigrants could be determined by the demand for labor. I mean, if locals don't want to do business with them, then they won't be able to find jobs.

Yes. This is why we don't need Title VII either.

The anarcho-capitalist ideal is not Open Borders, but No Borders, so that people get to draw their own. And if they want to negotiate the travel rights, the infrastructure loads, the policing, the vetting, and what to do with the migrants' children, they can do all these things. On their own dime.

" It's just perhaps not an efficient use of resources,"

The existing wall is said to stop 90% of the crossings. The rest of the wall will cost $25 bil and last 20 yrs+ while illegal immigration costs the US $125 bil a year. That's pretty nice bang for the buck.

"If you want to repeal those laws, you can have a wall." You have this backwards. When you repeal the laws making me pay for all the illegals, then you can stop the wall.

The wall won't work

The wall will work. That's why the open borders lobby doesn't want it.

That depends. Is the Corps of Engineers building it?

Or, in typical fashion, has Uncle Sam farmed out the work to contractors and subcontractors? If so, care to make a wager on how many of those contractors' workers are local and Mexican-American (and potentially themselves illegal)? How about an additional wager as to the percentage of those workers and/or their managers are getting a little sumpin-sumpin on the side from the Mexican cartels to share blueprints and/or build in a few extras to the wall to facilitate cartel business?

Functionally, the wall is a boondoggle. Its primary purpose is as a symbol for Trump's nativist voter base so they can feel represented. To provide the illusion of doing something without truly doing much of anything at all.

Actually sealing the border to end illegal migration would require its full militarization, eminent-domaining all the land on the U.S. side to a depth of at least a few miles, establishing fully staffed military monitoring posts and regional headquarters at consistent geographic intervals, concordant naval patrol measures out to a distance of 50+ miles at either end, and extensively deploying sensors, mines, and additional anti-personnel, anti-vehicle systems in a manner similar to the Korean DMZ.

I'm skeptical as to whether the knowledge that the janitorial staff at the grocery store speaks English and the vegetables on sale were picked by Americans (and now cost twice as much) is worth the effort and expenditure.

But, YMMV.

Well, the wall will stop some of the illegal immigration, if not all.

Some will be able to defeat or sidestep the wall (overstaying visas etc.). 90% seems too high, as current set-up just displaces attacks to the west. But I expect it might cut a good 50%, including a lot of the low skilled ones who can't make a visa-attack. It's probably still very cost-effective at that level. 250k/year reduction for 25 years at $25B works out to $400 per illegal immigrant defeated.

That seems astonishingly cheap compared to pursuit and removal once they are over the border. And prevents any effects in the first instance. So my back of envelope says the wall is a good deal.

Much smaller states seem to be able to physically secure their borders. I'm sure the US can as well.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that every immigrant is a net negative. The wall (or more importantly anti-immigration laws in general) will prevent immigrants who could have made a positive contribution to the economy, or even just to some Americans lives, from coming to the US.

"You seem to be operating on the assumption that every immigrant is a net negative. The wall (or more importantly anti-immigration laws in general) will prevent immigrants who could have made a positive contribution to the economy, or even just to some Americans lives, from coming to the US."

This isn't totally silly; obviously some immigrants create sufficient value to entirely justify their social and other costs. I'd pitch them at about ~$100k a year types, maybe a bit less if they come with good English and socialisation skills. They are welcome.

Obviously, yes, some of these will be casualties of the wall. But let's be honest; many of these higher value immigrants can either bypass the wall or come legally. The wall will vastly disproportionately hit the low-skill immigrant with net negative value. We must always think at the Margin, Hazel.


The thing with you is that we keep going back to the same property/ownership misconceptions, so at least you are consistently wrong from a libertarian perspective.

You do indeed have the private right to invite Mexicans to enjoy your house and your property. But you do not have the private right to invite them across your national border and thus enjoy public protection and property. You are giving up something you do not possess. Naughty libertarian. You must first convince your countrymen to let them in.

Can you, for a moment, imagine how catastrophically unstable private cross-border invitations would be? If the right to cross the border was NOT adjudicated at a national level and at the whim of private individuals? I could invite in literally millions of Africans (no shortage of takers)....for a small fee, say $100. Oh, they absconded into the local ethnic community and now we have a radically different population in the country and the schools all speak Yoruba? Sorry about that. I was too busy counting my $100 million.

Why to "my countrymen" (read, the government) get to decide who is allowed to have a job? I thought that we, as libertarians, were against letting the government interefere with private economic transacations?
If you want to make that argument, you also have to concede the argument that "your countrymen" get to decide things like (say) who a baker must bake a cake for. If "collective property rights" apply to immigration, then they apply to every other possible use of private property.

"Why to "my countrymen" (read, the government) get to decide who is allowed to have a job? I thought that we, as libertarians, were against letting the government interefere with private economic transacations?"

We totally are. And you can indeed offer the Mexican a job, as is your entire right. But you can't give away something you don't possess in order to facilitate that job, can you? You can employ a Mexican to cut your hair, but you can't grant him the right to cross either my lawn or our national border to do that.

"If you want to make that argument, you also have to concede the argument that "your countrymen" get to decide things like (say) who a baker must bake a cake for. If "collective property rights" apply to immigration, then they apply to every other possible use of private property."

Now, that's just a slippery slope fallacy, Hazel. Unless we are in a Rothbardian miniarchy, there will exist some degree of public property (including citizenship, visitor, and work visa) which will be subject to rules for it's dispensation and use. I don't see a problem with allocating this property collectively through our elected representatives. No more than I have a problem with shareholders voting for a board to allocate their company property. Indeed, my overall schema is that nation itself should be regarded as, effectively, a joint stock company where we all have 1 inalienable common share.

They can stay away from my private bakery though, who I bake cakes for is not public property.

If I may, Hazel, I think some of our issue here is that you are interpreting some of your rights as positive rather than negative rights.

Remember, in a Libertarian construction, you can do anything BUT YOU CAN'T INFRINGE SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY without their permission. Your "right" to associate and contract with the Mexican doesn't allow you to infringe other people's property, period.

Specifically, you may of course associate and contract freely with the Mexican, but you can't privately disperse public property to them (work visa, right to public protection, right to use public highways and land, EMR care, public schools etc.). My objection is and remains that your Mexican worker is violating the civic property rights of your fellow citizens.

Yeah, Imagine the cheap labor if the weren't belligerent or had tradable skills.

If the Palestianians weren't idiots, they would be running all of Israel's sweatshops by now.

If they weren't idiots, they'd be running their own.

+1. Indeed, some days, one wishes for smarter adversaries.

True, but even being employed in Israeli sweatshops would be a massive improvement over their current position.

Illegal immigrants kill about 3000 people in the U.S. every year.

#1 - the "www.haaretz.com" site is interesting, it looks like a Israeli website, having juicy stories about Israel that are impartial (check out the four Arab scientists who died probably at the hands of Mossad recently) as well as spicy stores (Turkish orgy on page one). I can't imagine an Arab site being so clickbaitish.

#7 - incompetent article, a polemic urging more DOJ antitrust actions ("ndeed, the DOJ seems to uncover a steady stream of major
cartels, many of them international in scope [OOH SCARY, DEM INT'L {{{}}}]. So there is always more to do here.") but fails to mention how several business deals--and I'm not talking about Sprint's merger or AT&T's mergers but many other deals announced daily--have been called off since DOJ antitrust approval for any merger often takes several YEARS. It should be several weeks. Just today Bloomberg TV had some company that decided--I think it was a US-China deal--to call off a merger since DOJ approval would take too long. Is that what so-called US 'free market' (haha) capitalism has come to? To depend on a green light from a DC bureaucrat who crushes numbers on an Excel spreadsheet and is a lawyer? Absurd and no mention of this in Shapiro's polemic.

Ok I clicked for the Turkish Orgy but didnt see the link.


Yesterday CNN ran a segment. They warned women about taking Uber. They cited 100 cases they found of Uber drivers accused of sexual misconduct towards a passenger. They mentioned it could be more than 100 cases because their research could have missed some cases. They warned women about private sector competitor Lyft, saying they have the same problem without citing any evidence. They showed interviews with two female victims.

What CNN didn't bother to warn women about. Riding in taxis can be dangerous putting them in potential danger of being sexually assaulted. The two women interviewed said they were severely inebriated. CNN did not warn women about the dangers of drinking too much alcohol. Why doesn't CNN care about drunk women sexually assaulted by taxi drivers?

EFL speaker Jay? In the First World, drunk people take taxis rather than drive home themselves. This: "What CNN didn't bother to warn women about." (sic) is EFL prose bro.

We need the assaults per passenger-km stat. There is little or no evidence that Lyft/Uber rate differs from black cab, and CNN certainly had no interest in uncovering it.

I call "fake news" on this CNN reporting.

2. It would be a stronger case for non-accidental progress if Trump and Kelly could stay on the same page about this. Or if fighting about it was their path to success, that Trump and Kelly keep at it. On the other hand, a Trump without Kelly looks to be a real buckle your seat-belts moment.

Doesn't seem much like an issue either way. Jong un was attending the olympics, there was a real opening of relations happening, we had half the Navy sitty off the Korean peninsula, removing troops would look like a nice next step. Everyone for the past 50 years has known that those troops are just a tripwire to force the US into action if NK invades. Not necessary anymore. There's no evidence of Kelly adding anything to the mix from this, never mind a "buckle your seat-belts" fainting spell.

What's this about sending your own bodyguard to raid your own doctor's office?

Normalcy it is not.

1. Shouldn't this link have a 'and subscribe to הָאָרֶץ if you must' notice?

#2 If I were the American president, there would be no North Korwan problem because there would be no North Korea, no Japan and no Red China. We have watched that story: North Korea and China fooled Clinton I, fooled Bush II, fooled Obama. Why should we believe they are being honest now instead of just carefully bidding their time. While they consolidate their control over a soon-to-be-Finlandized South Korea, threaten Formosa and take decisive steps to impose communism on the Philippines, India, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Americans have decided to sold South Korea out the way the sold the Hungarians out.

Are you suggesting you'd initiate wars with China and Korea and eliminate the nations?

thus fixing the problem?

I would launch a full scale nuclear attack against North Korea, Red China and Japan. I do not think the West can negotiate with them anymore than Chamberlain could negotiate a lasting peace with Hitler. The West must seize the opportunity, these last few years the balance of power still favors us and stop once and for all the Chinese-Japanese-North Korean Axis. Settling for a Finlandized Korea and Chinese hegemony in Asia will prove as expensive a mistake as giving Hitler Austria and Czechoslovakia in the 30's was.

Finally some sanity in the MR comment section.

Chamberlain's peace deal would have held up fine if the Allies hadn't gotten all bent out of shape about the invasion of Poland. NC gets a bad rap!

I mean, up to that point, Hitler only had created a totalitarian regime, hunted the Jews, invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia. Even after the Allies made clear that they would support Poland's right to exist. Clearly, he was not to stop with Poland.

Red China already attacked Tibet, Kore, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, Laos, India, Angola (by proxy) and supported the murderous regime of Pol Pot. Do we really believe it will stop now? I don't think so.

If Trump and the GOP nuke China, who will buy T Bonds and sell America cheap stuff? If China nukes America who would buy their cheap stuff and sell them T bonds? Same restraints apply to the dreaded trade war.

Dulce bellum inexpertis.

So that is it. Living within its means for a while would kill America. It can't be done. Not even to save the world (and America!!) from slavery in the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. You behave like the turkey that thinks he will never get the axe because the farmer feeds him everyday.
Let me ask you, is Chinese trinkets so dear, or borrowed money so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

As for your "dulce bellum inexpertis" assertion, I am Brazilian. We understand honor and freedom. In the times of the Empire of Brazil, when our forefathers were fighting a war for survival against the Paraguayan invader, the mother of our then-future first President, Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca, had six or seven sons fighting in Paraguay as officers of the Imperial Army. It was a long, expensive, gruesome war. Then trial ballons about a negotiated peace with Paraguay started floating. She replied to those whom asked her about it that she would rather have all her beloved sons buried with honor in Paraguay than see any of them again before the unconditional surrender of the enemy. One can not fail to compare her with the Spartan wives and mothers of yore: "Come back with your shield, or on". That is the kind of people we are. That is the stuff we are made of.

Thiago Ribero, you need psychiatric help. Advocating genocide? It’s funny that you brought up Hitler, because in this situation YOU would be Hitler. (Did this seriously not occur to you?) It’s one thing to not like the Chinese, or the Jews, or the blacks. Another thing entirely to become a psychopathic murderer. It’s incredibly disappointing, and sad, really, that you’re so hateful and morally bankrupt. The only person whose humanity is called into question by your racist hatred is your own. Without a sense of human decency and morality, how are you any different from a dog? What, if anything, would be lost if we shot you like a dog in the street?

Thankfully you’re too stupid to ever be elected president of anything. 1) China and North Korea have nukes too. What appeals to you about the prospect of major American cities getting obliterated? I guess cowardly Brazil on the sidelines would benefit. Oh wait, 2) Nuclear winter. Familiar with the concept, dumbass? Congratulations, you caused human extinction before Elon Musk figured out how to whisk us all to Mars. 3) China, Japan, and North Korea hate each other. Let them bring each other down. 4) Unlike Brazil, the USA is by FAR the dominant military power in the world. No one’s fucking with us anytime soon.

1. Defense or offense? After the Monty Python skit that Bibi performed earlier in the week, I am not so sure.

2. Perhaps we should temper our praise or criticism until we know the full story. Train spotted in China. North and South meet. Considering that our overzealous need to eradicate communism was the catalyst, perhaps our reduced interventionism permitted the reconciliation.

5. More philosophers on Twitter and more women on the platform might make the place less toxic. Just remember when the circuitous argument arrives that you were trained for this. Best of luck.

+1 on #1 Bibi was awesome.

"Monty Python skit"

Yeah, who cares if a Jew hating theocracy lied about its nuclear program to get sanction relief and billions in cash.

There are many Jew-haters in the world.

That is why I am skeptical of Obama, skeptical of all the recent Popes, and skeptical of pretty much every American celebrity. I have no Jew-hater friends but they all do.

May God protect them, even if they have hatred in their hearts! It is so difficult not to be stupid if one is human.

Does Barro really think that Trump would get mad on Twitter and fire a nuke?

Of course not. He knows full well how moronic that sentiment is. He also knows if he stops advancing such absurd notions, his employer(s) will stop paying him.

Shitty spot to be in, but there he is.

Other upside risks:
The Democrats decide that free trade is a good idea, because if Trump is against it, it must be ok.
Libertarians finally divorce white identity politics, making it possible for us to forge alliances with blacks and Hispanics.
Left-Liberals decide that George W. Bush was not the worst president ever, what the hell were we thinking?

Yeah Bush made me appreciate Nixon too.

Wait, on second thought, Bush was the worst President in modern times. By pretty much any measure.

Not sure what you mean about Dems and free trade. Seems to me Obama and other leading Dems quite actively pursued so-called free trade agreements. Obama had a huge hard-on for TPP, and of course Clinton was at the helm for WTO and NAFTA.

You're correct. The Democrats have always been at war with Oceania the party of free trade. Nothing to see here, move along.

You seem to be the one trying to rewrite history. There have been Democratic presidents at the time of our major free trade agreements of the past three decades. Try to start with that fact and work outwards into your revisionism from there.

Hazel is correct. TPP was a crap deal design to only protect corporate interests. I do hope we get a real one. NAFTA was signed by Clinton, but it was a Republican deal, started in the Reagan days.

Shhhh. No, it was the Democrats, really. They have always loved the free market. Everyone knows it.

No Hazel is incorrect.

Dems were involved in these deals, negotiated these deals, voted for these deals, and signed these deals.

For Hazel to be correct, Dems would be filibustering and vetoing them. Which is quite the opposite of what happened in the real world

You're right. Those people protesting the WTO in 1999 were not in any way affiliated with the Democratic party, which has always been a moderate centrist, pro-free-trade party.

Oh, I see you've moved the goal posts away from the party, skipped over the majority of the Dem voters, and honed in on a minority of protestors. Okay, I'll play

Yes, the Seattle protesters et al marked the beginning of the break off of what eventually became Nader/Sanders voters. Precisely in protest over the centrist/corporatist policies of the Dem party in matters of economics and war.

I don't know if the Dem party has "always" been this. Probably not, since they used to include slave-owning proto-Republicans. But that's what they've been for thirty years or so.

I wouldn't call the Dems policies in respect to free trade, particularly their move towards being more in favor of free trade "corporatist". The "corporatist" position would be the protectionist position, which would be the one advanced by Sanders/Nader that trade agreements should demand other countries have the same labor and environmental regulations as America, as a pretext for protection of domestic industry- and by extension domestic labor and the labor unions that depend on that industry. The protectionist position has always been the old-school labor-union backed position of that wing off the Democratic party. Those policies are designed to favor particular domestic businesses as a matter of government policy. That is by definition corporatism and crony capitalism. While the Democrats have moved in favor of freer trade, they are, of course, still trying to manipulate things in favor of certain interests, for instance by injecting demands for IP protections into negotiations, but more free trade is still less corporatist than no free trade.

This is getting silly

You mightbe bipolar

I'm not the one who is bipolar in this discussion.
The position that holds that free markets are awesome, but free trade is not is the bipolar argument.

Hazel, honey, your command of the facts is rather lacking. Your reasoning and logic moribund to nonexistant. Its best to end your comment war with MR and get 8 hours of sleep followed up with some light morning exercise and sunshine. I vote Democrats and I love free trade. Why? Because I'm a rich liberal coastal elite.

You are welcome in my party. We need more rich liberal coastal elites that love free trade. Please consider supporting free markets at home as well as in international markets.

"The United States commenced bilateral trade negotiations with Canada more than 30 years ago, resulting in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which entered into force on January 1, 1989. In 1991, bilateral talks began with Mexico, which Canada joined."

What party had the Presidency throughout this time?

"In the House, NAFTA passed 234-200; 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted in favor of it. The Senate approved NAFTA 61-38, with the backing of 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats."

"You're correct. The Democrats have always been at war with Oceania the party of free trade. Nothing to see here, move along."

Ssshhh, you are winning. The Democrats are now convinced that Free Trade is all their idea and that it's never been any other way.

Exactly. Everyone shut up now, and let them keep thinking that.

Libertarianism is probably the most Anglo-European phenomenon ever. It's actually even whiter than golf. Golfers have more affinity with other races and ethnicities than libertarians. Hell, everybody has more affinity with other races and ethnicities than libertarians.

Indeed. Libertarianism is born in suburban basements, in between microwave meals that magically show up in the freezer, while dad is off at the office,

+1. No surprise that so many former libertarians became white nationalist like Richard Spencer or Ricky Vaughan who were both followers of Ron Paul.

You guys are helping me make my point.

Why hasn't Tyler Cowen tweeted or blogged his support for Robin Hanson while Hanson is being faced with a barrage of slanderous attacks on his character? Alex Tabarrok and Bryan Caplan have done so. Why hasn't Cowen? You'd expect a colleague who has known Hanson for years would do so. Is Cowen too much of a coward to do so? Or is it because Cowen believes Hanson deserves the criticism and slanderous attacks?

It's called free speech. You might want to learn about it.

I'd be curious what Tyler thinks of this interview with Brian Leiter: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2018/05/an-interview-in-il-manifesto-about-identity-politics-trump-marx-and-more.html

Why? Brian Leiter is a person with little intelligence, little empathy, and who hates a lot of people.

Who cares what he says in an interview, the important thing is to pray for the poor little bastard. I hope he has a good day tomorrow, and every day for the rest of his life, but I am sad to see someone who thinks he is so smart spend his life in such a sad hateful way.

I'm surprised not to see any comment on the (disturbing) news about the GMU economics department: http://crookedtimber.org/2018/05/01/the-public-choice-of-public-choice/

Most interesting. But not surprising.

Yea, im not seeing anything that disturbing here, the only thing under attack is the pretend notion that a university's donors have no influence over a university's direction.

Then perhaps GMU should not characterize the donation as having "academic independence from donors." Truth still matters, as does actions, as does results.

Here, a rather embarrassing exposé of State U's routine (and dramatic) overriding of its undergrad and law school admissions officers in order to let in the children of, or close-others-bearing-letters from, state legislators came and went without much ado. The university response was: grow up, we need to reserve a certain number of slots for the uneducable but connected, to buy support in the Lege. (Mine is a large state, with competing university systems.)

Then too there was one of those he said-she said sexual encounters, of the sort that makes one wonder, how did this come to be news? - and the faculty tribunal ruled that it was not rape, no one should be expelled; then the university president abruptly expelled anyway. Again, the greater good was invoked: the explanation, this time leaked rather than run through a spokesperson, was that a donation was involved, from the parents of the accuser.

Markets in everything.. is there anything that can’t be bought?

FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — Virginia’s largest public university granted the conservative Charles Koch Foundation a say in the hiring and firing of professors in exchange for millions of dollars in donations, according to newly released documents.

The release of donor agreements between George Mason University and the foundation follows years of denials by university administrators that Koch foundation donations inhibit academic freedom.

University President Angel Cabrera wrote a note to faculty Friday night saying the agreements “fall short of the standards of academic independence I expect any gift to meet.” The admission came three days after a judge scrutinized the university’s earlier refusal to release any documents.

The newly released agreements spell out million-dollar deals in which the Koch Foundation endows a fund to pay the salary of one or more professors at the university’s Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank. The agreements require creation of five-member selection committees to choose the professors and grant the donors the right to name two of the committee members.

The Koch Foundation enjoyed similar appointment rights to advisory boards that had the right under the agreements to recommend firing a professor who failed to live up to standards.

A minority say in return for millions of dollars. What a scandal.

Reid, I'm aware that the faculty fancy they have an enforceable entitlement to other people's money, but other people aren't really on board with that. Only in the faculty rathskellar would a quid pro quo be regarded as scandalous.

You spelled rathskeller incorrectly.

The conservative stranglehold on American academia is all but complete.


Lol, good one.

But you replace the word “conservative” with the word “corporate” and 3/4 of my fellow arts faculty members will agree.

So it's a think tank whose viewpoint is not hidden behind the usual lies and self-delusions of academic neutrality and its hiring practices are tilted in that direction. Why am I supposed to be outraged? Oh wait, the name Koch is the talisman of ultimate evil.

On the matter of Trump getting credit for developments in Korea, if a deal is made he will indeed get a lot of credit. But the main player here, who is not getting recognized as such, is South Korean president, Moon Jae-in. He would have come to power even if Hillary were prez, and he has been pushing diplomacy since he came in. Last year the Trump team was dismissing Moon as a weak weenie, but he got Kim to come to the Olympics, while letting Trump take credit for that. Indeed, Moon has been very effective at avoiding having the US media point out how he has successfully manipulated Trump. If that were being reported, Trump would probably not be going along with all this.

As an aside I note that Josh Barro repeats a widely believed error about Korea, that North Korea broke its deal with Clinton. It did not do so. The US ended negotiations two months after W. Bush came in office, humiliating ROK prez, Kim Dae-Jung. This led North Korea to pull out of the NNPT and restart its plutonium reactor and build bombs. The usual basis for claiming that DPRK "broke its word" involves its enriching uranium. But halting that was never part of the original deal. Frankly this claim looks like the current Trumpian baloney on Iran that Iran's missile program violates the JCPOA, when missiles were never part of that agreement. But, hey, justifies ending JCPOA, even though all authorities, including even Netanyahu, agree that Iran is in compliance.

Comments for this post are closed