advertisement

John's World
Sunday, February 18, 2007
 
Why me don't think good...

A few Mac users are pointing out politely how my travails with Vista could have been avoided. This leads to an obvious question: If Macs are so obviously stable, easy and reliable, why is their market share still so small?

I think the answer lies in the lack of choice compared to PC's - something Daniel Gilbert points out in "Stumbling on Happiness".

Inescapable, inevitable, and irrevokable circumstances trigger the psychological immune system, but as with the intensity ofsuffering, people do not always recognize this will happen. For example, college students in one study signed up for a course in black-and-white photography. Each student took a dozen photographs of people and places that were personally meaningful, then reported for a private lesson. In these lessons, the teacher spent and hour or two showing students how to print their two best photographs. When the prints were dry and ready, the teacher said that the student could keep one of the photographs, but that the other would be kept on file as an example of student work. Some students (inescapable group) were told that once they had chosen a photograph to take home, theywould not be allowed to change their minds. Other students were told that once they had chosen a photograph to take home, they would have several days to change their minds - and if they did, the teacher would gladly swap the photograph they'd taken home for the one they'd left behind. Students made their choices and took one of the photographs home. Several days later, the students responded to a survey asking them (among other things) how much they liked their photographs. The results showed that students in the escapable group like their photograph less than did the students in the inescapable group.Interestingly, when a new group of students was asked to predict how much they would like their photographs if they were or were not given the opportunity to change their minds, these students predicted that the escapability would have no influence whatsoever on their satisfaction with the photograph. Apparently inescapable circumstances trigger psychological defenses that enable us to achieve positive views of those circumstances, but we do not anticipate that this will happen.

So what does this have to do with PC's and Macs? The primary gripe about Macs is a lack of choices for software, add-on hardware, and expansion. In short, choosing a Mac limits our choice in the future. It must be noted this problem has been significantly reduced in recent models.

It turns out we will pay premiums today for an opportunity to change our mind tomorrow. (This is also why puts are so expensive) Often this love of freedom carries a strange cost - less happiness.

Mac users, I believe see their experience as positive even with the lack of choice because their brains work very hard to emphasize the positive aspects. This same phenomenon occurs within in strictly controlled groups (military), during deprivation (your Dad's Depression stories), and irrevocable choices (having children). The finality of the decision makes the brain see it differently and it usually chooses to make it seem OK.

PC users dread giving up the freedom of choices with Macs, and this certainly carries a cost. But this same idea could prove to be powerful as a world of new choices opens up to many in agriculture who suddently can afford options.

I doubt if we will end up much happier that we are now. In fact, the choosing process involved in investment choices could make us less happy.






Labels: ,

 
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
 
I hope you're happy now...

The nascent science of happiness has attracted all sorts of researchers. And produced plenty in strange results.

Some results are predictable enough: Work is miserable, and commuting is worse. Others are not so obvious. For instance, praying is fun, but looking after the kids is not. Spending time with your friends is one of the most enjoyable things you can do, but spending time with your spouse is merely OK. In fact, parents or other relatives turn out to make more enjoyable company than the supposed love of your life.

What is perfectly clear, though, is that socializing with anyone except your boss makes you feel good. Sex is best of all. This is handy advice at last. But what if you are having sex with your boss? Whereof economists cannot speak, we must remain silent. [More]


Another example, the Danes have always scored high on national happiness comparisons. It turns out one reason may be low expectations.

Our analysis points to two explanatory factors. The Danish football triumph of 1992 has had a lasting impact. This victory arguably provided the biggest boost to the Danish psyche since the protracted history of Danish setbacks began with defeat in England in 1066, followed by the loss of Sweden, Norway, Northern Germany, the Danish West Indies, and Iceland. The satisfaction of the Danes, however, began well before 1992, albeit at a more moderate level. The key factor that explains this and that differentiates Danes from Swedes and Finns seems to be that Danes have consistently low (and indubitably realistic) expectations for the year to come. Year after year they are pleasantly surprised to find that not everything is getting more rotten in the state of Denmark.

This finding is supported by Danish news coverage of the 2005 pronouncement by Ruut Veenhoven, Dutch Professor of Social Conditions for Happiness and head of the World Database of Happiness, that Danes are the world’s happiest people. The headlines in Denmark ran: We’re the happiest “lige nu.” The phrase “lige nu,” which can be translated literally as “just now,” is a quintessentially Danish expression redolent, indeed reeking, of the sentiment “for the time being, but probably not for long and don’t have any expectations it will last.” [More]

I wonder if this means all of us corn farmers are in for some grumpy years, because my read on expectations in corn country is pretty dang high.

Still grumpy people are more creative, it seems.

You kids get off my lawn!

Labels:

 
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
 
Why it's not about us (Reason #28)...

It is important to many farmers that the world revolve around them. It's how we buttress our special status as recipients of government payments. Since a bunch of pesky facts contradict this world view, we choose to not hear them. As a result, most farmers I have talked to have trouble putting our industry in context with the rest of the economy.

One overriding reason is the "food" link. "Without us you'd starve", we point out to anyone who will listen. Probably not. This is the wealthiest nation on earth. We spend very little on actual foodstuffs (significantly more to have it prepared and delivered to us). Without us, someone else would feed our fellow citizens, and if anybody starved it would be the poor of the world, simply because they cannot compete for food with rich people in any shortage.

It is hard for us to get a picture of our actual position in the world because our entire self-image (and the one used to sell us seed, tractors and ideas) is a Ptolemaic cosmology with farmers at the center. There is a genuine fear of discovering otherwise, and becoming no more important than plumbers or accountants or teachers.

The world for the most part humors us. But many see clearly the scope of agriculture and its economic horsepower. One of these people was Leo Melamed, pioneering innovator at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Long ago he saw the wealth in agriculture would not match the growth of other sectors.

And then, finally, I came to the thought that Bretton Woods, the fixed-exchange-rate system, was coming apart. And when it finally comes apart, wouldn't there be a need for foreign-exchange futures? Our board thought I was crazy, and very frankly I thought it was a little crazy too, because why hadn't anybody else done this? I went to Milton Friedman, though, and he absolutely embraced the idea.

So the board had to go along with me. And the minute we went to foreign exchange, I said to the membership that if it works in foreign exchange, the sky is the limit! I was like a kid in a candy store, honest to God. Because in agriculture, where could you go with it? But in finance - ah, look at this! I mean, whoa, anything you want! [More of interview]

His foresight is a good clue for producers who are struggling to understand the influence of commodity funds. On USFR this weekend, Greg Hunt, one of our more erudite commentators brought up the startling fact that CalPERS - the giant retirement fund whose whims terrify boardrooms around the world - has decided to get into commodities.
CalPERS plans to decide as early as next summer whether to create a new natural resources/commodities asset class within the pension fund. “Global demand for natural resources and proved systems to extract and deliver them will only increase,” said Valdes. “We will look into commodities future contracts and related investments to naturally complement, diversify and add value to our expanding securities investments in the energy and raw materials sector. [More]
Investors like CalPERS talk money on a scale we can barely imagine. Consequently, market participants of their heft can easily skew trade in directions that will confound fundamentalists who assume supply and demand will override all (true in the LONG run) or those who extrapolate from the past.

But does it hurt anything for farmers to entertain this fantasy of unwarranted importance? I think so. Just as Rick Warren stated in the first line of the first chapter of "A Purpose-Driven Life", getting over yourself is the crucial first step in finding fulfillment and abiding happiness.

Seeing our work in real context is also a great defense to prevent being steamrollered by forces whose size we have not fully come to appreciate.

[See the later rerun post on farmland ETF's]

Labels: ,

 
Saturday, December 23, 2006
 
Work, happiness, and wealth...

I have been studying the economics of happiness for a few years. Thanks to the proliferation of fMRI machines in hospitals in the US, brain researchers can now verify what economists and psychologists deduced from behavior.

Or dispute them.

As America pushes back the frontiers of national wealth, more than a few people are asking "Is That All There Is?" in the face of unparalleled prosperity. This phenomenon has omens for agriculture in the US.

We are, I believe embarking on a few years of infrequent prosperity for many in farming. (For those who invested in an ethanol plant 2+ years ago this time has arrived) Anyone who has been "spreadsheeting" a budget for 2007 and has fooled around with numbers like $3.50 for corn has had a hallelujah moment. The question is begged, however, "Will this make me happier?"

Farmers love the work of farming. That is problem #1. As a rule, nobody has to pay you to do things you love to do.
If people are determined to pursue their calling rather than simply taking a job, some professions (surgery, cookery, genetics) may become overcrowded, others undersubscribed. But when a job cannot find enough takers, the market finds ways to ennoble it: first pay, and then status, begin to rise. It becomes economical to automate some aspects of the work, employing machines to do the deadening humdrum toil that men and women are no longer willing to put up with. What remains of the job will be the bits only people can do: tasks that require insight, ingenuity and the human touch. Ms McCloskey recalls the Cincinnati sewerman, interviewed a few years ago on National Public Radio, who earned $60,000 a year and liked to tell girls he was an “environmental” worker. [More]

Happiness is not so easily captured, nor is self-interest the sole undergirding principle of economic activity it seems. And wealth alone does not provide all the answers to being happy. Even Adam Smith - that old capitalist dog - puzzled over this.
"In what constitutes the real happiness of human life, [the poor] are in no respect inferior to those who would seem so much above them. In ease of body and peace of mind, all the different ranks of life are nearly upon a level, and the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings fight for."
Many farmers will experience a true upsurge in happiness as money worries lessen. But unless we have evolved significantly in the past decade or so, it will not last.

First, we have individual setpoints for happiness that are hard to alter.
Recent research conducted by Daniel Gilbert (a professor of psychology at Harvard) and others has unearthed several new elements about the business of happiness as concerns humans. The first element being that the major events of our lives have a minimal effect on our overall long-term happiness. Did you get married this year, or not? Have you been involved in a war lately or a victim of a crime? Regardless as to your answer, it is a fair bet that your happiness will be more or less the same in the long term. The latter could be understood if you accept that the brain has a mechanism of sorts to reset people back to their baseline happiness over time. The second element of happiness is the terrible truth that we are awful at predicting what will give us happiness. Do you expect that a new car or home will give you happiness? Certainly it will, just not as much as you expect. The same is true in the opposite. Do you think that getting rejected by your crush or losing a game will make you unhappy? It will, just not as much as you expect. [More]

Second, much of our happiness derives from status - our position relative to our peers and neighbors. This shows up as reference anxiety or pursuing positional goods. Our brains were wired to care about status, and despite protests to the contrary most of us do. As our neighbors experience similar good results, our success will likely pall.

Finally, we are competitors, and as such have a history of bidding up inputs (especially land) when our income goes up. We are agents of our own undoing.
Federal payments put money in farmers' pockets, which they used to bid up land prices to as much as three times its production value, Lines said. Prime Ohio farmland is valued at $2,500-3,000 per acre, compared to its productive worth of about $1,000 per acre, Lines said. [More drivel from 2001 here]
[Side note - I take a perverse pleasure in pointing out all those who called farmers fools for buying land at "inflated prices". No investment is more profitable for producers than to own the land. It has always been thus and those of you who took the challenge are being rewarded. One more point: never take risk advice from someone on tenure]

So if we view this as a window for changes that could make us happier, how can we maximize our outcome? Funny you should ask, because that is just what my presentation will address at the Top Producer Seminar in Chicago.

I can't wait to hear what I'm going to say!



Labels: ,

 
Monday, November 13, 2006
 
Preparing for happiness..

Many of us are starting to plan for 2007, even while nursing our marketing/production wounds from 2006. It is pretty exciting stuff looking ahead to $3.50 corn and $6+ beans and $5 wheat.

We are planning on being happy. What could go wrong?

Perhaps we could use a short course in being happy to refresh our skills. This 20-minute lecture by Dan Gilbert at Oxford is worth watching to help build some realistic expectations for our upcoming good times.

Gilbert is a psychology professor at Harvard and author of Stumbling on Happiness. He is part of the growing number of psychologists who are influencing economists to reconsider the effects of economic policy and our habit of relating it to wealth.

Happiness - it's not that hard...

Labels: , , ,

 
US Farm Report host John Phipps surfs the Web so you don't have to...

My Photo
Name: John Phipps
Location: Chrisman, Illinois, United States

Jan and I farm 1700 acres near Chrisman, IL. I have also written humor and commentary for Farm Journal and Top Producer for 13 years. Please visit my website (www.johnwphipps.com) to learn about my speaking services for your group's next meeting.

ARCHIVES
April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 /


advertisement

MORE FROM JOHN
On the Coffee Table

Farm JournalTop ProducerBeef TodayDairy TodayAgDay
U.S. Farm ReportPro FarmerPro Farmer Members

AgWeb Professional - Subscription InformationAdd AgWeb.com to your Favorites

FAQContact UsPrivacy PolicyAdvertise on AgWeb.com

Quotes by eSignal • Quotes delayed at least 10 min

© Copyright 2006 AgWeb.com a division of Farm Journal, Inc.

Home    |    Agriculture News    |    Weather    |    Money & Markets    |    Ag Discussions    |    Site Map