|
John's World
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Do North...
Have you ever checked at the summer/autumnal solstice to see if your farmstead, buildings, UFO landing strips, etc. were laid out exactly E-W or lined the North Star up with your grain bin layout? You haven't? Well, then me neither. How nerdy would that be? Heh. ![]() But if you farm in Manhattan, the day is approaching when you can observe an interesting solar alignment phenomenon. For Manhattan, a place where evening matters more than morning, that special day comes on May 30th this year, one of only two occasions when the Sun sets in exact alignment with the Manhattan grid, fully illuminating every single cross-street for the last fifteen minutes of daylight. The other day is July 13th. Had Manhattan's grid been perfectly aligned with the geographic north-south line, then our special days would be the Spring and Autumn equinoxes, the only two days on the calendar when the Sun rises due east and sets due west. You guys probably don't do druid parties either, I'm guessing. Never mind. [via 3Quarks]
The summer of our discontent...
I have taken the time to re-read most of my posts about the farm bill progress (?) through Congress [Note: you can do like wise by clicking on "farm bill" in the labels below.] The most upbeat spin I can put on them is they are not totally cynical. But they are not far from it. Despite my efforts to write honestly, this likely is an unfair characterization of events, influenced no doubt by my strong belief farm policy could be so much better. (And at times my concerns about rain - foolish, but a typical farmer trait) So it struck me hard to read these words from an observer whose work and opinion I admire immensely - Jim Weisemeyer. Comments: Will Peterson confront the "magic beans" and "monopoly money" charges by detailing where the $17.5 billion to $18 billion from the so-called reserve funds will come from? He has failed to detail the offsets so far and most expect him to be silent again. If all this sounds bewildering, it is. It's no wonder the vast majority of voters are losing faith in their government. The House farm bill process is another sad example of how not to write a major bill. I may get into hot water for borrowing rather liberally from subscription-firewalled material, but these thoughts are, I believe profoundly important. Jim rarely expresses even mild judgments of the politicians he chronicles meticulously in his professional writing, let alone lapse into frustration. I do not suggest he is corroborating my low opinion of recent farm bill (in)action. His information is far purer than mine, but his thoughts do seem to address the growing concern about Americans' alienation from our own government. How do people think the Democratic Congress is doing after six months? Lousy. But better than the alternative.As many have pointed out, this discontent - which strikes me as truly more deeply felt than our usual contempt for politics - is occurring as our economy chugs along briskly. The American Way is to rank financial progress 90% of the score, right? Steve Chapman puts his finger on the reason, I believe. A major cause of the misperception, though, is President Bush's sagging popularity. It's clear that many people let their discontent with the president color their view of everything. If he is failing to win the war in Iraq or curb illegal immigration, we assume he must also be coming up short on the economy.This rings true for me. It also forces me to reconsider if presidential popularity matters. I have always considered it to be simply news fodder - I mean, it's not like we could oust our leader at any moment by a show of hands. But perhaps there is something to political capital, and we are running a deficit. Let me hazard a prediction. If farm bill reform of some kind is not enacted (a replay of immigration), it will simply add to the widening chasm between people and government, making any political progress even harder, and fueling a spirit of futility and even despair. The farm bill debate has achieved that level of national prominence and involvement. This disillusionment, if eventually reflected in economic terms such as consumer spending, will make any recovery all the harder. The connection between business and politics is real, but subject to delays between actions and consequences. The inability to effect collective change would seem to be good for conservatives, but that presumes we are in a happy place right now. And fewer and fewer citizens seem to feel that way. This creates a real political conundrum. If Americans lose faith in government, no legislation will receive acceptance, because it is the creation of distrusted authors. How then will we address those issues? This is what happened perhaps to immigration reform. I think that if people did not already have the sense that their country was in some sense slipping away from them -- if they felt secure enough about our country and its direction -- then they would be a lot less inclined to think that illegal immigrants were taking it away from them. But the reason they think their country is slipping away from them need have nothing to do with illegal immigration itself, as opposed to a more general sense that the rules are stacked against them, and no one obeys the laws, and decent people who work hard get screwed. [More]I have no ready answer. But he urgency to accomplish something has increased. Our national character depends on a hopeful future. Labels: farm bill, immigration, politics
The fundamentals of great music...
I spoke this weekend on USFR on the misfortune of losing our music program at our local school. Without this early training how will we keep the tradition of singing in America? Sounds like these could be at risk. [via DailyDish] Thursday, June 28, 2007
The protectionist tide gets noticed...
Even while I support globalization on the whole, I have become convinced that we could do better the alleviate the misfortune of the biggest losers in the changes. Telling a 55 year-old autoworker to become a RN is no help, and rhetoric like that is one big reason many are no longer listening to rational arguments about the manifold benefits of greater world trade and integration. Surprisingly, many of America's financial leaders are agreeing. More striking are the report’s recommendations. It makes a strong case for the benefits of globalization (no surprise), but goes well beyond the usual corporate pablum of needing to equip American workers through better education. Since upgrading skills is a process that takes generations, the report argues, it will do little to shore up political support for globalization now. Instead the focus should be on improving the distribution of globalisation’s gains and doing more to help the losers. And that requires… a more progressive tax code and more (and better) government schemes to help displaced workers. I especially liked some of the suggestions in the report. The report takes particular aim at the (enormously regressive) payroll tax. Either payroll taxes should be integrated into the ordinary income tax system or the wage-cap on payroll taxes should be lifted. It brims with ideas for government tinkering: trade-adjustment assistance and unemployment assistance should be morphed into a single programme that offers wage insurance, portable health insurance and retraining. Communities should be able to federally insure their tax base against sudden economic dislocation (when, say, a factory moved to Mexico). [More] We can afford safety nets for people other than farmers. If we don't make the effort, many of our gains could be rolled back as trade barriers are rebuilt. Labels: economics, globalization
For the Frodo in all of us...
Want to build your own hobbit-house? (Well, that's what it reminded me of anyway) ![]() Much assembly required. But pretty cool. [via BoingBoing] Labels: fun Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Getting along...
International reaction to our farm bill debate and the ag subsidy roadblock at the WTO is ramping up. The two issues seem to have merged in the international press. Australia (BTW, one of our few allies in Iraq, remember): The 2007 Farm Bill is critical to Australia's interests because US subsidies to wheat, cotton sugar and dairy farmers have the potential to distort prices of some of our major agricultural commodities. Canada: The White House and key members of Congress had been pushing for major reforms aimed at cutting overall subsidies, capping payouts to millionaire farmers and generally bringing the regime into line with international trade rules.California (OK, it's technically not a foreign country, but it's close): Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is urging Congress not to forget their fruits and vegetables as they write a new federal Farm Bill. As Congress marches on to make the US the Land of the Corn via ethanol mandates, it strikes me as an excellent opportunity to try to give a little ground on our farm subsidies. If you haven't noticed, America is very slowly drifting into an isolated position in the world community. It was one story when we dominated every vital economic statistic, but that is hardly the case now. Crimony, if you can't get along with Canada, who's left to be friends with? Labels: farm bill, farm program, international, trade
iPods hurt corn farmers...
The entertainment industry is getting hysterical in its push to prevent video file-sharing (and outright piracy). In a breathtaking overreach, NBC is alleging video piracy hurts me out here on the farm, since fewer people will be going to the theater and won't be eating 5-gallon tubs of popcorn. We can all have a good snicker, but obviously some copywriter considers the American farmer the perfect pathetic victim poster-boy, like handicapped children or baby animals. Wonder how they get such ideas? And I wonder if any other farmers have wearied of hiding behind an public image of genial incompetence. [Thanks, Rodger] Tuesday, June 26, 2007
I've got some good news and, uh...
It turns out we all may have been worrying about anthropogenic climate change (global warming) unnecessarily. Following recent questions about how big US coal reserves really are, one analyst says we don't have to sweat carbon emissions - we're going to run out of fossil fuels way sooner than we thought. This fits with my intuition: We face such a huge looming problem with fossil fuels exhaustion that we should be thinking about moving away from fossil fuels due to rising costs and lowered production rather than because we might melt the polar ice caps. We need to embrace solar, nuclear, and wind because we just do not have as much fossil fuels left as the climate doomsters think we do.Oookay, there is room for all kinds of ideas, but we have been continually disappointed by the failure of an Energy Judgment Day to dawn. I changed my major in college from petroleum engineering to chemical engineering because a professor assured me we would be out of oil long before now. I think energy markets will advise us clearly about how fast we are running out of fossil fuels. And I don't see any real panic buying there yet. Labels: energy, global warming
Check it out on your vacation to Washington DC...
If you visit our capital this summer, take some time to at drive by the Dept. of Agriculture building. It is an enormous edifice and offers a hint of the massive bureaucracy that is sustained by our complex farm policy. ![]() Then consider this idea to umm, downsize this behemoth. The table shows that these reforms would eliminate 90 percent of the USDA’s budget, saving federal taxpayers $80 billion annually, or about $696 per U.S. household. Under the proposal, the USDA would retain responsibility for animal and plant health inspections, food safety, grain and packing inspections, and conservation activities. [Click on for larger image]I know, I know. Still, it's a thought. Labels: farm program, politics
A better direction...
While the Immigration Plan lives - despite Pres. Bush's well-meaning blunder - to see another day, its fate is very much in doubt. The senators voted, 64 to 35, to invoke cloture, or move to consideration of the bill itself. Since 60 votes are required for cloture, and only 45 voted for cloture two weeks ago, the measure’s supporters were heartened by today’s vote. Had the cloture vote failed today, the bill would have been dead for the foreseeable future. This could be some of the best work this Congress will do, because you can be sure few of them want to wrestle with this issue. Nonetheless, problems like this are their job and regardless of the outcome, it is encouraging to this observer to see Congress vote for something rather against everything. Still, along with others, I think I have found an immigration plan that addresses our real problems better. Another problem, though, was that the Senate bill was worse than it needed to be. On the legal side of the immigration equation, there are easy trade-ups to be had. In fact, even a National Journal columnist with no apparent qualifications could write a better bill.It may strike many of you as wrong-headed to argue for the economic merits of immigration when our culture itself seems to be at risk. I think we underestimate our ability to absorb and synthesize a new America with both Hispanic and European flavors. Besides, as I have argued ad nauseaum, the future belongs to those who will populate it. The Chinese will certainly be there, and the Indians, and with immigrants' help, America could be too. The U.S. Census Bureau this week reported that Hispanics, the largest minority at 42.7 million, are the nation's fastest-growing group. They are 14.3 percent of the overall population, but between July 2004 and July 2005, they accounted for 49 percent of US population growth. Of the increase of 1.3 million Hispanics, the Census Bureau reported, 800,000 was because of natural increase (births minus deaths), and 500,000 was due to immigration. [More]Many feel that national destiny is a function of wealth. I argue that our wealth is a function of population - that a growing economy needs a growing population, and furthermore, we can support far more people in the US that we have now. After all farmers haven been arguing that for decades, and now if we have enough productivity to add fuel to our output, we can surely feed a few more fellow citizens. At the center of our fears is, I think, the loss of our language and Northern European heritage. People speaking another language in OUR country stirs strong emotions. We have been here before. But I have great faith in the power of English ans a language and the American culture to absorb competing ways of life, simply because it is an amalgam itself. Our ability to find a new hybrid extends to more than just corn. Labels: culture, immigration, politics Sunday, June 24, 2007
Domino shortage in Japan worsens...
Five hundred fifty seconds of your life you'll never get back.
The backlash continues...
The Food vs. Fuel disagreement is intensifying. Ron Bailey - a science writer I greatly admire - backs up his opinion with good data: Another way to look at it is that it takes 450 pounds of corn to make enough ethanol to fill a 25-gallon gas tank. Four hundred and fifty pounds of corn supplies enough calories to feed a person for one year. The USDA projects that in 2010 the ethanol industry will consume 2.6 billion bushels of corn. A bushel weighs 56 pounds, so a quick calculation yields the result that 2.6 billion bushels of corn could supply enough calories to feed nearly 325 million people for a year. [More of a must-read for corn farmers] Even the popular ag speaker Dennis Avery is objecting. Unfortunately, U.S. corn land produces only 50 gallons worth of gasoline per acre per year—against an annual gasoline demand of 135 billion gallons. New U.S. ethanol plants coming on line could take 30 percent of next year’s U.S. corn for auto fuel—an unprecedented diversion of the world’s scarce cropland. Supplying the Bush goal of 35 billion gallons of ethanol per year would currently force farmers to clear more than 200 million acres of Midwest forest to supply even 10 percent of our gasoline demand from corn ethanol. [More] Too little, too late. It looks like the 35B gal. mandate will sail through Congress, locking our crop plans for the foreseeable future. The apparent benefits (energy independence without scrimping!) are too powerful for the actual numbers. Meanwhile, just in case we do get desperate enough for Brazilian ethanol, ADM is pursuing a rational strategy. Archer Daniels Midland, the nation's largest producer of ethanol fuel from corn, is setting its sights on a move into Brazil's sugar cane-based ethanol business, according to a published report.Mandates mess your your mind - not just your economics. I don't think we can predict how this legislated demand will change American agriculture because it is outside the realm of market economics. I'm getting the feeling this could be a spectacular ride for corn farmers. Labels: ethanol
Run, run - it's an Agribusiness Giant!...
I have been watching the media to make sure I know who the enemy is today. Number one is Terrorists, of course. They hate us for our freedom, apparently. But surging in the polls are Agribusiness Giants (AG). Descended no doubt from ancient Titans of Greek mythology, the mere mention of their names evokes evil and merciless power. Gird your loins, I'm going to horrify you: Oddly, I seldom see John Deere mentioned as an AG. (How embarrassing!) Nor does Pioneer - the leading seed grower (as of right now) - often fall into this category. One wonders if this is a coup by their public relations people or a failure. Regardless, the AG epithet is becoming stale, I think - perhaps even lame. Few talk about "giants" in other sectors or even care. Think about Toyota as an "autoindustry giant". Just doesn't work, does it? Here is how I see it. Cargill and ADM are customers of mine. I like customers of all sizes. Oddly, I have discovered that bigger customers often pay better and their checks don't bounce. All in all, I don't worry about the size of my customers, I worry about what they want to buy. As for Monsanto, they are a supplier. If somebody else can give me more value for my money, they are soo yesterday on this farm. Even AG's can't strip me of my right to choose. Labels like "agribusiness giant" are little more than code for "I wish I was (or worked for) them". And that envy comes from seeing business done well. Labels: culture
The end of civilization as we know it...
The possibility of a different kind of farm program has moved some legislators to near hysteria. "It's a threat to rural America. It's a threat to every consumer - a threat to the nutrition of the whole, entire world," said Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla. Oh, puleeze - pretty much the rest of the universe knows subsidized commodity prices have little effect on food prices. In fact, the NCGA is bragging about it. In fairness, milk and sugar prices could be significantly lower without current policy, but obviously Rep. Lucas is unaware of how those programs work. The idea my $24/A payment controls my destiny is embarrassingly ludicrous. Seems to me we're consolidating pretty vigorously even as we speak under current policy. And the pennies worth of grain in cereal is dwarfed by say, the latest advertising campaign. Do the math, for Pete's sake. Labels: farm program, policy, politics
Missing in action...
The blogging has been slow for two reasons. First, our mini-drought. We have been pretending to grow corn and beans for a bout three months with a few tenths of rain. While things never looked very bad, I have taught myself the unfortunate habit of imagining really credible scenarios of doom and despair. Creativity does not come easy with those brain chemicals washing around your head. Second, as we finally got relief (1.8" over the last few days), it came at a price - about $600 so far. Lightning stuck a power pole about 300' from our house and zapped our satellite TV and water pump. Nothing like no water to rearrange your work schedule. Finally, I will be presenting to an ag leadership group from the IA Farm Bureau on Monday. These are superb programs (If you are in IA and are interested I can give you a contact- drop me an e-mail) and I keep revising the presentation so it's more up-to-date. At some point this afternoon, I gotta put a fork in it and call it done. How's that for excuse-making? I haven't been married for 36 years for nothing. Posting (and replies) should accelerate presently. Thanks for all your great comments. Labels: blog Friday, June 22, 2007
Another side of the debate...
As the increasingly divisive debate over immigration continues, efforts are stepping up to manage the labor problem if immigrants are not available. Like robot fruit pickers. ![]() The more interesting aspect of the post for me was the tone of the comments. The immigration quarrel seems to bring out the worst in Americans. It could also the THE issue for 2008. [Thanks, Patrick] Labels: immigration, politics, technology
Nature's most perfect junk food...
![]() Hard-hitting investigative reporting of where Twinkies come from - a subject close to my heart. [via Neatorama] Labels: fun
Remember interest rates?...
While our economists and politicians work to ignore our growing (albeit a bit more slowly) deficit, other countries are trying to figure out where to invest surpluses. Up until recently, one of the assets of choice has been American debt: T-bills and bonds. Maybe not for much longer. Sovereign wealth funds (SWF) may total as much a $2.5T and they have been looking for a bigger bang for those bucks. All the more so with inflation heating up. The result has been a torrent of money into a finite pool of assets. There is no precedent for such fortunes suddenly to find their way into global financial markets, and they help explain the waterfall of liquidity that has driven up the value of risky (and less risky) assets of all descriptions around the world. The world's entire supply of shares is $55 trillion, and bonds account for a similar amount. Sovereign-wealth funds could soon become the most important buyers of such assets, and many others besides. If so, the world will witness the intriguing spectacle of its largest private companies being owned by governments whose belief in capitalism is often partial. [More]Our interest rates have been underwritten by the fanatical devotion of Chinese and Japanese governments with US debt instruments. Without those ready buyers, the Federal Reserve may have to raise rates to entice new buyers - even if they are not alarmed about inflation. The growing importance of SWFs and diversification into other markets is beginning to attract both worry and criticism.If this strikes you as mildly concerning, you are not alone. Consider this futuristic fable from an business observer: All of that borrowed money had to come from somewhere, and most of it came from Asia. When China stopped turning up at bond auctions in 2007 and started investing directly in companies instead, alarm bells should have rung. They didn't.... I'm not as pessimistic as the writer, although he makes good points, but I do think the days of cheap money, like cheap oil and cheap corn are probably over for some time. It also means the Fed may become less of a news source than during the Greenspan days. Labels: economics, finance, international, policy Thursday, June 21, 2007
Without us...
In a fascinating piece of imagination and scientific inquiry, Alan Weisman describes what would happen if we humans suddenly weren't here. There are places in Manhattan where they’re constantly fighting rising underground rivers that are corroding the tracks. You stand in these pump rooms, and you see an enormous amount of water gushing in. And down there in a little box are these pumps, pumping it away. So, say human beings disappeared tomorrow. One of the first things that would happen is that the power would go off. A lot of our power comes out of nuclear or coal-fired plants that have automatic fail-safe switches to make sure that they don’t go out of control if no humans are monitoring their systems. Once the power goes off, the pumps stop working. Once the pumps stop working, the subways start filling with water. Within 48 hours you’re going to have a lot of flooding in New York City. Some of this would be visible on the surface. You might have some sewers overflowing. Those sewers would very quickly become clogged with debris—in the beginning the innumerable plastic bags that are blowing around the city and later, if nobody is trimming the hedges in the parks, you’re going to have leaf litter clogging up the sewers. His book - A World Without Us - is not a scold about why we are doomed to extinction, just a science fiction experiment in what would happen. And I gotta admit, I have speculated myself on what this piece of the globe would look like without farmers like me grooming and repairing constantly. Exactly why this captivates me I'm not sure. End-of-the-world scenarios are a part of our literature and religion (e.g. The Rapture). Perhaps it stems from our deeply held conceit the world just can't get along without us. Labels: science
Google has made me the man I am today...
About 18 months ago I stopped trying to remember things. What a time saver! Instead of thinking - I just "google". The results were a greatly improved grasp of the trivial, and slightly higher electric bills. And an even sadder social life. Well, imagine my shock and awe when I discovered your choice of search engine really affects your search results. For instance, the study compared the first-page searches from major engines and found that on average: Are we being insidiously massaged into perfect clients of these on-line entities? Are our attitudes and beliefs at risk of being subtly shaped by which icon we click? Not according to my search results. [Bonus: James Fallows (the post source) also added a link to a post he did in 2004 about why Google was a bad investment. I have calculated how many acres $1000 invested in AOL or Microsoft or Google at the right moment could buy on several occasions. It seems so obvious now.] Labels: computer, culture, technology Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Those wacky foodies...
Of all the burning issues to take a stand on, our (yes, you're responsible for it) government is pushing back against the the Whole Foods-Wild Oats merger. The background: We're in the midst of a merger mania, and the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department's antitrust division—the agencies tasked with assuring that mergers don't harm consumers by reducing competition—have approved almost every deal. If the nation's largest hog producer buys the second-largest hog producer? OK. Telecommunications giants SBC and AT&T want to merge? No problem. Giant supermarket company Albertson's and giant supermarket company SuperValu get together? You got it. Color me surprised. I didn't think any merger would rouse this administration to anti-trust action. This is a pretty small beachhead to take a stand on and have any legal/historical impact, IMHO. Organic consumption is still a tiny fraction of food sales, regardless of the press it receives. Meanwhile, the organic soothsayers are parsing the morality of various forms of preservation for apples. Currently, organic apples that go into storage are refrigerated at 0 °C (32 °F) under low oxygen conditions. The reduced oxygen content is maintained by a constant flow of low-grade nitrogen, the researchers explained in the paper. (The use of nitrogen and the manipulation of oxygen levels are not considered violations of organic growing principles because the storage environment, rather than the produce itself, is affected.) The refrigeration process is so expensive to maintain that most organic orchards have their fruit turned into apple butter, juice, and sauce rather than put into cold storage. As a result, few organic apples are available past the harvest months, driving up the price of the fruit. [More] I don't know. Smells like science to me. This type of deep pondering over whether a specific technology is appropriate or not - similar to Amish rule making - is difficult for an engineer like me to embrace. The war against technology and science may never end. But in the meantime, we progress. Labels: food, organic, technology
The cost of tradition...
Many ecological problems we struggle with are the result of traditions of human behavior being carried forward into conditions wildly different than when they originated. One such example it the traditional Hindu funeral pyre. A SWEET whiff of burning flesh hangs over India’s open-air cremation grounds. The reason is that the traditional funeral pyres preferred by Hindus are extremely inefficient. On a windless day disposing of the remains of a fully-grown Hindu can take six hours and 500kg of wood.As Americans slowly change their funerary choices to include more cremations, unused burial plots are flooding the market. Think the residential real estate market is tough? Try finding a buyer for your unwanted graves. Farmers tend to think our business changes slowly. We don't know from slow. Labels: culture
Some you win, some you lose, and some...
You don't even score. The battle to reform farm policy may turn out to be little more than a tantrum. Gosh, it was exciting for a while. Imagine treating farmers like grownups! Even the White House got caught up in it. But we were just fooling ourselves. A House ag subcommittee just brought us back to reality. The panel, a subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee, brought each of several proposals for change to the farm bill to a vote before rejecting them, sending a strong message to those pushing for major changes to farm legislation. They include the Bush administration and a bipartisan coalition led by Representative Ron Kind, Democrat of Wisconsin.Extending the current farm bill is easier, of course and will allow those of us who have been winners to continue current trends. We could know the outcome soon enough for 2008 cash rent bids, and without any meaningful payment limits, we can guess what that market will look like. While there may be some minor drama on the House floor, or even the Senate, I'm sensing a political waxing here. The effort to persuade for rational treatment of our profession by our government is just one of a number of lost causes I have supported. Like the metric system. I'm also cashing my checks with a slightly clearer conscience. (Not really - but it sounds tough, doesn't it?) Labels: farm bill, farm program, policy, politics Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Knowhatimean?...
How many clichés can you pack into a 150-word paragraph? Beat this entry: I hear what you're saying but, with all due respect, it's not exactly rocket science. Basically, at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is you have got to be able to tick all the boxes. It's not the end of the world, but, to be perfectly honest with you, when push comes to shove, you don't want to be literally stuck between a rock and a hard place. Going forward we need to be singing from the same songsheet but you can't see the wood from the trees. Naturally hindsight is 20/20 vision and you have to take the rough with the smooth before proceeding onwards and upwards. The bottom line is you wear your heart on your sleeve and, when all is said and done, this is all part and parcel of the ongoing bigger picture. C'est la vie (if you know what I mean). [More]I think we've all learned something here. Labels: fun
The Dream Team...
Or Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue? New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has dropped his affiliation with the Republican Party (haven't we all?) fueling speculation about a third party candidacy. I would consider supporting him. He wouldn't need any special interest money, he could finance his campaign from his laundry budget. Throw in the Gubernator and this could get interesting. Labels: politics
Sarkozy and farmers...
Although he made pleasing sounds about protecting French farming interests during the campaign, I think the conservative Mr. Sarkozy might be a disappointment to French agriculture. One early signal might be the bizarre turn in the serious problem in France's wine industry. Such frustration has now boiled over into the threats of violence by the Crav, made in a video message sent to France's new President, Nicolas Sarkozy. The law-and-order issues like immigration as well as budget problems that brought Sarkozy election success may put ag support on back burner politically. French farmers have always tended to be demonstrative, so this will bear watching. Labels: globalization, international
The guest worker problem...
Much of the anxiety of the current immigration debate is centered on the proposed guest worker program, which has been largely advanced by agriculture (although only 4% of immigrants work in ag) and other employers. Much of what we suspect - not know - about guest workers is ill-informed or influenced by other fears. For example, many think outsiders depress the wages of native workers. But not to the degree you might suspect. But immigrants tend to work in different industries than native workers, and have different skills, and so they often end up complementing native workers, rather than competing with them. That can make native workers more productive and therefore better off. (In construction, for instance, the work of carpenters and masons, who are often immigrants, can create a need for crane operators and foremen, who tend to be native-born.) According to a recent study by the economists Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri, between 1990 and 2004 immigration actually boosted the wages of most American workers; its only negative effect was a small one, on the wages of workers without a high-school diploma. And if by increasing the number of legal guest workers we reduced the number of undocumented workers, the economy would benefit even more. [More] There are many aspects to the immigration debate, and the most likely outcome right now is to continue the status quo - hardly a good working solution. Hardliners who want to wall-and-deport cannot muster the political power to spend the enormous sums needed for that kind of enforcement - even if it is possible. The current answer for most problems in the US is more police of some kind - more coercion. One the the amazing features of American success has been voluntary compliance. Or as in the case of income taxes - a pretty good try. It seems to me America works best when we simply show people our way of doing things and they choose to copy us. We are less successful using strong-arm tactics. See "policy, foreign" I am concerned this debate will produce only a larger enforcement sector in the US economy ( a really unproductive activity), a less than charming no-man's land on our border, a crippled economy, and significant alienation for many of our citizens. And about the same number of illegal immigrants. Labels: immigration Sunday, June 17, 2007
Food fight...
The awakening food ethics movement has produced an oddly confrontational debate about which principle should occupy prime status. Some may say that a food that is organic and a food that is carbon neutral are two different things. For some, to eat organic is a diet choice, and not necessarily a consideration of whether a food has been flown from Turkey or Thailand. [More]Meanwhile the concept of "food miles" is searching for relevance. Local food must be more environmentally friendly, they say – the distance it travels from farm to fork is shorter so its carbon footprint is smaller. Right? Wrong. Local food, per se, is not necessarily more environmentally friendly than that produced overseas. There is no reason, per se, that food produced in Kent has a lower environmental footprint than food produced in Kenya. Should industrial commodity farmers care about this tempest in a teapot? I think so - at least to the point of careful watchfulness. As the agrarian sector of agriculture develops its position it can command enough public support to affect the regulation of agriculture, making the the business of supplying 6.2 billion people with food more difficult than it could be. Friday, June 15, 2007
What happens when people debate in good faith... To my surprise, I have found a global warming skeptic with a cogent idea how to attack the problem. I like it, and I think ideas such as his could be the outcome once the shouting and fingerpointing becomes boring (and many of us are pretty much there already). His idea - while hard to summarize briefly - is a carbon emissions tax with a rate set by the actual evidence of global warming. The more proof - the higher the tax, in short.
Regardless, I appreciate suggestions for solutions in addition to proof of one position or other. Labels: global warming, policy |