Maybe the rich should get all the money...

Boy, they economics of income distribution has hit full crescendo in favor of the wealthy.

Given the top-heaviness of the economy, one could make the case—one could, but I'm not—that the continuing upward redistribution of income is good for the economy and good for all of us. As they earn more, and keep more of their income, the rich and the very rich spend more, thus keeping the growing number of residents of Richistan gainfully employed. The fact that the rich are getting richer is one of the reasons that federal tax revenues—which are much less progressive than they were in 2000 but still somewhat progressive—are growing so smartly, up 7.4 percent year over year. Today, analysts are likely sifting through the jobs report and ratcheting down their forecasts for the Christmas season. It may well turn out to be a glum one for many retailers. But as long as the lights are on in the mansion on the top of the hill, the growing number of stores and businesses that cater to their residents will be busy. [More]

I fall in that despised category. I know, you are not supposed to acknowledge you are "rich", but numbers are numbers. And if a few more farmers would look more closely at their own AGI's we might see a different attitude about what's going "wrong" in agriculture today. Besides, the rich aren't the ones carrying the water to protect our advantages. Amazingly, it's the rank and file of agriculture who stand squarely against estate taxes or payment limits or pretty much anything I think might help level income.

Which leads me to suspect there are more of us in Richistan than even I imagine.

That, and the fact farmers are buying farmland with (gasp!) cash.

[Update: we're not the only ones whose economy seems to depend in the ultra-wealthy]

Even more bad news...

For big sprayer owners. My shorts aren't as clean as they used to be.

Not so long ago you could count on most washers to get your clothes very clean. Not anymore. Our latest tests found huge performance differences among machines. Some left our stain-soaked swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing. For best results, you’ll have to spend $900 or more.

What happened? As of January, the U.S. Department of Energy has required washers to use 21 percent less energy, a goal we wholeheartedly support. But our tests have found that traditional top-loaders, those with the familiar center-post agitators, are having a tough time wringing out those savings without sacrificing cleaning ability, the main reason you buy a washer.

On the other hand, dryer technology hasn’t changed much in the last 10 years. Plus dryers tend to outlast washers. That’s why we offer buying tips and highlight only dryers that combine performance, value, and reliability instead of showing full Ratings.

Today most top-loaders only get a good washing score, and some had the lowest scores we’ve seen in years. One washer, with an overall score of 19 (out of 100) is one of the lowest-scoring washers in this and past reports. Several major manufacturers are meeting the new energy standard by lowering wash water temperatures. But doing this often lowers the washing performance. [More]

While this information could be used for good, I suspect it will be the leverage needed to switch the old Kenmore for a Bosch.

Boy, nothing gripes me more than wasting $500 for household stuff that could go toward a better stereo in my $300,000 combine...

It's all about appearance...

Those guys with their fancy-pantsy $250,000 sprayers can eat my shorts when they see this.

I think I'll put one on my WD45 too...

[via BoingBoing]

It's only a trick if you find out...

Otherwise, it's magic. I have been frankly puzzled by producers who are bound and determined to find a pile of excrement overwhelming the pony of ethanol. Whether some weird "I'm not worthy" mind game is being played out I have no idea, but I do suspect this.

Still the idea that it's all a trick seems to have found traction. While it could be true, the real question is what our response should be to discovering this subterfuge. Here's mine.

The fools who rush in will make out like bandits. Seriously, my lifetime is replete with examples of conservatives being totally used by circumstance. The fear of failure, especially public failure, is an all too convenient excuse for inaction. And those who do plunge into the fire, if nothing else learn more about fire.

[Important Note: This analysis applies to producers, not small ethanol plant owners, who could be so very ummm, "discomfited" in the not-too-distant future]

But I digress. The "Trick" sector just received some "I-told-you-so" confirmation from the OECD.

C'mon, you know. The Organization for Economic Commission... no, no..

The Organization for Economic Cooperative Development...no, that's not it either. Cripes, here.

ANYHOO, as I was blithering, the ethanol miracle has of course been sponsored by your local political process, and as such it is fair game for political commentary.

The OECD will say in a report to be discussed by ministers on Tuesday that politicians are rigging the market in favour of an untried technology that will have only limited impact on climate change.

“The current push to expand the use of biofuels is creating unsustainable tensions that will disrupt markets without generating significant environmental benefits,” say the authors of the study, a copy of which has been obtained by the Financial Times.

The survey says biofuels would cut energy-related emissions by 3 per cent at most. This benefit would come at a huge cost, which would swiftly make them unpopular among taxpayers.

The study estimates the US alone spends $7bn (€5bn) a year helping make ethanol, with each tonne of carbon dioxide avoided costing more than $500. In the EU, it can be almost 10 times that.

It says biofuels could lead to some damage to the environment. “As long as environmental values are not adequately priced in the market, there will be powerful incentives to replace natural eco-systems such as forests, wetlands and pasture with dedicated bio-energy crops,” it says. [More]

Yeah, yeah, been there, heard that. But unless you have been comatose or under 30 for the last decade, you realize that actual, verifiable reality runs a distant second to powerful stories. I offer Iraq and the current belief among Republicans that WMD were found as evidence. Truth is a long-term winner, but a short term way to be mugged.

Hence my full-throttle approach to this ethanol boom, regardless of it's predicted length. While others prepare for Doomsday, I think a better strategy is to scale the highest point from which to (possibly) fall. If we have learned nothing else from recent political action, it is government feels responsible for my personal failings, especially since I am a farmer.

With others working diligently to weave a "safety net" I have not asked for, I plan to exploit (doesn't that sound like a nasty word) the passions of others for patronizing support.

Any rational person would have a hard time justifying ethanol subsidies, but here are not that many "rationalistas" around and they don't seem to have the votes. Adjusting is what democracy is all about.


[Thanks, Greg]

No upper limit?...

For dairy-illiterates like myself, an article in the current issue of Amber Waves, published by the ERS is a quick-and-dirty short course on current business trends in the dairy industry. I was struck by several points.

First, the cost structure seems to have no limit for economies of scale. The popular belief in grain farming is "small operations can be just as efficient as large". But that is clearly not true in dairy.

Small conventional dairies have higher average costs, 2005
	Herd size (milk cows)
Item	1-49	50-99	100-199	200-499	500-999	1,000+
	Dollars per hundredweight of milk produced
Gross value of production	17.87	17.56	17.20	17.25	16.56	16.54
Operating costs	12.30	12.94	11.51	11.31	11.07	9.74
Overhead costs	17.79	12.56	9.31	6.61	5.00	3.85
Unpaid labor	10.60	6.10	3.13	1.34	0.54	0.17
Capital recovery	5.26	4.56	3.89	2.55	2.03	1.66
Total costs	30.09	25.50	20.82	17.92	16.07	13.59
Net returns	-12.22	-7.94	-3.62	-0.67	0.49	2.95
Source: ERS estimates

Moreover, ERS suspects the trend continues beyond the current definition of "big".

On average, large dairy farms exhibit better financial performance than small. But ongoing structural change has led to even larger farms, with 5,000 and 10,000 cows. ERS’s financial database is not comprehensive enough to tell whether farms of that size have financial advantages over farms with 1,000 cows, but other evidence suggests that they might.

Finally, as in the post below, it strikes me that support programs are powerless to overcome the economics of consolidation, since this is all occurring as the government pays billions in dairy subsidies. The House version of the 2007 Farm Bill essentially continues current policy, so dairy producers are implicitly embracing the future suggested by the ERS, it seems.

I will be speaking to the 2007 Elite Producer Conference in November. I am looking forward to understanding how these farmers feel about their future.

Much ado about nothing...

Some large places where nothing is.


[via Presurfer]

Sights for sore eyes...

I stumbled across an interesting blog and wanted to share some great images.



Even though I am an industrial farmer, I respect the images of our heritage and the effort being made to preserve scenes like these. And I believe fervently the market can arbitrate the choices effectively for all of us.

What will payments limits accomplish?...

As the Senate rouses itself to legislative action after a summer recess, one topic of huge debate is the idea of "payment limits". But in fact, there are two different types of restrictions under consideration. First, a limit on payments to any given person.

In another news conference Thursday, Grassley explained his motives for reforming the farm programs. "The idea is that when we're subsidizing farmers to the point where 10 percent of the biggest farmers get 72 percent of the benefits out of the farm program, then it's tilted toward subsidizing big farmers to get bigger. And what my legislation also does is put a $250,000 cap (on farm program payments). Now I know to Iowans that still sounds like a lot of money, but this is a compromise that we can get through, getting farmers from all over the country to back it. And get senators to back it." [More]

This type of limit is based, I think, in the egalitarian ideal: "one man - one pile of money". It has appeal to those in the middle, since it would immediately place them on the same level of government favor as the largest operator - something dear to their hearts.

Second, a limit on how much money you can make and still receive any payment.

The current $2.5-million income cap on eligibility for farm program payments affects only a small number of farm program payment recipients each year. A reduction in the cap to $200,000 would affect a larger number of farm households but still only a small share of recipients. Based on IRS tax data for 2004, about 1.2 percent of all farm sole proprietors and about 2 percent of crop share landlords would be potentially subject to the proposed lower adjusted gross income (AGI) cap. ARMS survey data suggest a similar share of farm sole proprietors (1.1 percent) could be affected. When partnerships and farm corporations are included, about 1.5 percent of all farm operator households could be affected because a larger share of farm partnerships (2.5 percent) and farm corporations (9.7 percent) could be subject to the proposed cap. ARMS data indicate that $807 million in payments were received in 2004 by farm operators organized as proprietors, partnerships, and corporations with incomes exceeding $200,000. However, not all of these payments would be affected by a $200,000 income cap on eligibility for payments due to differences in IRS and ARMS data and changes by producers in how they manage their incomes and expenses. The study also found that farm income aver- aged $271,749 and net worth averaged over $1.86 million for farm households with AGI estimated to be over $200,000 based on the ARMS data. [More]

This proposal is much more straightforward: stick it to the rich. It arises from the inherent fairness bias programmed deep within our old brains. As the distribution of income and assets is perceived to be shifting to the tiny number of uber-wealthy, even irrational retribution seems like a good idea.

A brain region that curbs our natural self interest has been identified. The studies could explain how we control fairness in our society, researchers say. Humans are the only animals to act spitefully or to mete out "justice", dishing out punishment to people seen to be behaving unfairly – even if it is not in the punisher's own best interests. This tendency has been hard to explain in evolutionary terms, because it has no obvious reproductive advantage and punishing unfairness can actually lead to the punisher being harmed. Now, using a tool called the “ultimatum game”, researchers have identified the part of the brain responsible for punishing unfairness. Subjects were put into anonymous pairs, and one person in each pair was given $20 and asked to share it with the other. They could choose to offer any amount – if the second partner accepted it, they both got to keep their share. In purely economic terms, the second partner should never reject an offer, even a really low one, such as $1, as they are still $1 better off than if they rejected it. Most people offered half of the money. But in cases where only a very small share was offered, the vast majority of "receivers" spitefully rejected the offer, ensuring that neither partner got paid. [More]

If you are like most of us subsidy recipients, you have been analyzing these proposals in a very personal way: "OK, how can I get around this one if I need to."

Most of us won't have to yet, of course. But the obvious solution in both cases is to become more farmers. Make the wife an operator - and the kids. So one immediate outcome of payment limits of either sort will likely be: more farmers (on the books, anyway). And simple economics tells us the marginal cost to create and maintain these alleged operators will be slightly less than a DCP. Payment limits will be a huge boost to a) attorneys, b) accountants, and c) "financial advisers" (a vague occupation at best). Limits will have to be brilliantly constructed to survive the onslaught of fevered minds seeking a workaround on commission.

Farmers will, I believe, contort themselves to "protect the downside" and in the process make their operations more unwieldy with artificial entities and bizarre bookwork. They will also hand over most of the government proceeds to the experts who manufacture these constructs.

But a few - an obnoxious few - will accept the limits in the spirit they were enacted and rise above federal control. Once beyond reach of the FSA, they will learn to operate like other businesses do - insuring their own risks and enduring the consequences of nature and decision.
Those will be some scary dudes!

Which leads me to my grand conclusion: Neither limit will grant much relief since they are therapy for a symptom - namely the declining number of farmers and the intense competition to stay in the game. But that is not caused by prices or subsidies nearly so much as this:


This $592,000 machine replaces lots of guys on the old farm. And it is typical of what technology is handing us to work with.

While that number might produce “sticker shock” for some growers, it can be argued — as Deere marketing managers did in Cincinnati — that the machine replaces at least two other pieces of harvesting equipment and one or two tractors (at $183,019 for one of Deere’s new 9230 tractors).

Currently, most producers operate a boll buggy ($70,000 or so), a module builder ($80,000 to $100,000) and at least two tractors with a conventional six-row picker ($300,000 to $325,000).

As Deere’s managers point out, the equipment savings represent only a part of the equation. Both Deere’s and Case-IH’s new module building pickers can reduce the employees needed to operate the equipment from three or four to one.

Deere is also expected to emphasize increased speed of harvesting — the company says operators won’t have to stop to unload the round module — and quality enhancements of the polyethylene-wrapped module when it begins selling the new picker next year.

The latter is expected to help keep more cotton in and moisture out of the module. Deere managers say wet cotton modules can cost growers up to a bale of lint when cotton wicks moisture from the ground. [More]

The problem we are facing - the rapidly decreasing need for warm bodies on the farm - is lightly affected by farm programs and mightily affected by technology. Farming is not rocket science, and hence we are watching much of our work shift to clever machines.

Our problem is actually creating some value machines cannot create.

Fred and the farm...

So, we seem to have another candidate. One who is furiously trying to don the mantle of Ronald Reagan. He presents an interesting problem for farm subsidy fans.

Fred Thompson's record on spending is generally impressive. Aside from a fondness for Tennessee pork, Thompson was a strong proponent of streamlining government and eliminating waste. When he first entered the Senate, he joined a bipartisan group in sponsoring legislation hoping to put an end to corporate welfare. In 1996, he sponsored legislation to institute a biennial budget that would allow time for the Senate to exercise oversight on the spending process. He also often voted for measures to limit spending and against costly government programs. These include:

* Voted for the line-item veto
* Voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996, which reduced, and aimed to phase out, farm subsidies while diminishing distortions to the agricultural economy
* Sponsored an amendment in 1995 and 1996 against a pay raise for congressional members (though he supported a pay raise in 2002)
* Voted for welfare reform
* Voted against a 2000 amendment that would provide a prescription drug benefit
* Voted against the Farm Security Bill in 2002 that sought to increase agricultural subsidies with market-distorting payments, undoing the progress of the 1996 act
* Voted against $2.35 billion in agriculture assistance

Senator Thompson often joined with a minority of his colleagues in voting to strip wasteful projects from the various spending bills. These include:

* 1 of 23 senators to vote for an amendment to eliminate funding for programs carried out by the National Endowment for the Arts
* 1 of 29 senators to support eliminating $2 million in construction funds for a Smithsonian Institution storage facility for specimens stored in alcohol
* 1 of 26 senators to vote against extending ethanol subsidies
* 1 of 31 senators voting to strike a $2.5 million earmark for coral reef mapping off the coast of Hawaii
* 1 of 24 senators voting to remove $50 million for the construction and renovation of facilities at the National Animal Research Laboratory in Ames, Iowa [More] [My emphasis]

Thompson strikes me as a political opportunist determined to make the most of having no accomplishments as a public servant: You can't be against what you don't know - and Thompson is a bundle of question marks.

Besides, like Ronald Reagan (the new standard of Presidential stature) he is an actor!!! OMG!!

The next step for autosteer?...

Oh sure, we can simply plumb the GPS guidance into the steering hydraulics, but how much cooler would this be?


Be sure to watch the slightly creepy video.

[via Neatorama]

Yet another reason to respect the Danes...

For a small country, Denmark has been showing remarkable leadership in the EU and the world as a whole. And it is the home to some of the world's happiest people. Now they are taking a remarkable step to consider at least, scrapping the CAP.

Some Danish colleagues told me recently that the Danish Parliament on 30 May last unanimously passed a resolution requiring the Danish government to propose a strategy for how it would actively work for the elimination of EU agricultural support. The strategy should include a timeframe and plan of activities which should take into account the planned CAP Health Check in 2008 and the review of the EU budget in 2009. The strategy should be presented to Parliament before the end of 2007. [More]

The entire EU is more than a little restive about their byzantine system of farm subsidies, especially after the single payment regime eroded much of the popular support by increasing the transparency of the payments. In fact, even the French are headed for a real moment of reckoning as shortly they will be net payers into the CAP rather than their historic sponge-like participation.

Sometime in the next five years France,
the country that has done the most to
defend a unified European farm policy,
will move from being a net beneficiary of
the CAP to become a net contributor,
paying in more than it is getting out. This
will fundamentally change the outlook
of the French government towards the
‘financial solidarity’ of the CAP. The
new government of President Sarkozy
has already signalled a desire for more
national responsibility for the financing of
agriculture policy. This is code for French
taxpayers paying for French farmers
but not for Spanish, Polish or Romanian
farmers. [More]

How ironic it would be if the most intensely subsidized region of agriculture would become the most reformist. Think of who the US would have to be "not as bad as" to justify our payments. A handful of Japanese rice growers?

We kinda knew there would be a hitch...

In a frank and moving essay (at least for us 50-somethings) Lillian Rubin, writing in Dissent, captures the reality of preparing for retirement only to find the previous generation has first claim on your life.

“I always expected to inherit some money because my parents have been reasonably well off for most of my life. Not rich, but comfortable and careful with money,” explains a sixty-two-year-old college professor. “But now, I doubt it. My father had Alzheimer’s and spent his last years, nine of them, in a nursing home. I don’t think anyone who hasn’t been through it really understands how terrible that is. I don’t mean just the financial burden, which, by the way, was over three-quarters of a million, but the human cost. Seeing someone you love turn into a thing, not a person, and there’s no way out, it’s just terrible, one of the worst experiences in life.”

He stops talking, visibly moved, struggles to contain his emotions, then brightens. “My mother, bless her, is eighty-two and doing great. She moved into one of those assisted-living places a year or so ago, and before she was there a month, she was already practically running the place. It’s great; it keeps her busy. But it’s very expensive. Even with the money she got from selling their house, if she lives another eight to ten years, which right now seems likely, she’ll use up her money, and my sister and I will have to find a way to pay the bills.
“That’s a big twist, isn’t it? You go from knowing you’ll inherit money from your parents to wondering how you’re going to support them. I don’t begrudge her, don’t misunderstand me.” He hesitates, smiles, then in a voice that mimics an Old West cowboy twang, “Ah’m just tellin’ you the facts, ma’am, just the facts.” [More]

This article is worth reading to the end, regardless of your age. The relentless addition of years to our lives means more years of relative dependence - we are simply outliving our OEM equipment. These additional years are to use the economic euphemism almost always "less than fully funded", especially with the end of defined-benefit retirement programs and the looming possibility of Social Security shortfalls.

In fact, the one program growing to match the longer lifespans - Medicare - is in a way exacerbating the core problem by extending lives even further. Hardly a bad thing.

We think.

The experiences of Boomers caring for our very old parents as described above is doubtless reshaping our own planning. This will reverberate downstream, I believe, particularly in asset-heavy family businesses like farming.

I'm looking for clues to these attitude shifts, and would welcome your own thoughts or concerns. For example, I think Boomers will have an even more difficult time releasing control of assets since the prospect of long, long term disability late in life will require seemingly immense assets.

The average cost of long term care in nursing homes, assisted living facilities and in the home increased over the past year, with assisted living and in-home costs rising more sharply than nursing home care, according to Genworth Financial's annual "Cost of Care" survey. And, in the face of rising costs for all categories of long term care, Genworth found 65 percent of Americans surveyed in a new national poll admit to having made no long term care plans for themselves or a spouse.

The average annual cost for a private one-bedroom unit in an assisted living facility rose 7 percent from the 2005 survey, to $32,294, while the combined average hourly rate for a home health aide for in-home long term care spiked 13 percent to $25.32 per hour. The average annual cost for a private room in a nursing home rose modestly by 2 percent over last year to $70,912. [More]

Given we are a singularly selfish generation to begin with, this excuse will feed right into our historic self-absorption and provide the justification to keep our hands on every penny until we die.

Secondly, I am working to devise a scheme to prevent myself from entering the whirlpool of medical care. Hey, I know it's futile, but there's gotta be a better way to draw the line on life-extending medical care earlier than the now-common do-not-resuscitate orders. I have no idea how that's going to play out.

Furthermore, we need to devise a new or at least updated social contract with succeeding generations. Their retirement will be severely impacted by my longevity. Some trade-offs - economic or otherwise need to be made.

Long-term care insurance (LCTI) has been hard to justify, but perhaps deserves a second look, as the numbers have now changed and odds increased for both men and women to spend some time in a nursing or assisted living facility. I genially despise most all insurance, but do recognize this black swan is becoming more likely every day for me.

The constant philosophical struggle to balance life and wealth is not getting any easier. Guidance from our religious and social traditions may only carry us so far compared to the new horizons technology (medicine) extending before us today.

In the end we are faced with a pretty stark question: How much life can we afford?

The engineering is convincing as well...

After a lifetime of familiar and well-deserved complaints from the person who cleans our bathroom (hint: not me), I persistently return to the obvious optimal solution: a urinal. I am not alone.

My contractor, obviously, thought this was the best idea anyone had ever come up with, and immediately went shopping with me for a classy, retro porcelain model, the kind you can saunter up to in a tux and slap a highball on. But then my neighbor, Holly Purcell, a very successful real estate broker, informed me that I absolutely could not install a urinal of any kind if I ever hoped to resell my house. Noting my confusion, she slowly explained that urinals, to my shock, gross women out. [More]

Joel Stein is foremost a humor writer, but his analysis of this situation borders on insightful, probably because it matches my thinking so closely.

America, at this crucial period in history needs more problems-solving creativity like this, and a lot more support from the mavens of interior design for utilitarian solutions.

Nothing to do with Zambrano's last starts...

Why do girls "throw like girls"? Surprisingly it's not because of physical limitations or differences.

Readers who are happy with their throwing skills can prove this to themselves in about two seconds. If you are right-handed, pick up a ball with your left hand and throw it. Unless you are ambidextrous or have some other odd advantage, you will throw it "like a girl." The problem is not that your left shoulder is hinged strangely or that you don't know what a good throw looks like. It is that you have not spent time training your leg, hip, shoulder, and arm muscles on that side to work together as required for a throw. The actor John Goodman, who played football seriously and baseball casually when he was in high school, is right-handed. When cast in the 1992 movie The Babe, he had to learn to bat and throw left-handed, for realism in the role of Babe Ruth. For weeks before the filming began, he would arrive an hour early at the set of his TV show, Roseanne, so that he could practice throwing a tennis ball against a wall left-handed. "I made damn sure no one could see me," Goodman told me recently. "I'm hard enough on myself without the derisive laughter of my so-called friends." When The Babe was released, Goodman told a newspaper interviewer, "I'll never say something like 'He throws like a girl' again. It's not easy to learn how to throw." [More]

This really good read should be mandatory for all fathers with daughters.

And men in general.

Rethinking manufacturing - and farming...

An outstanding article in the WaPo (as linked by Cat0@Liberty) reset my conviction we are on our way to very few manufacturing jobs in the US.

The United States makes more manufactured goods today than at any time in history, as measured by the dollar value of production adjusted for inflation -- three times as much as in the mid-1950s, the supposed heyday of American industry. Between 1977 and 2005, the value of American manufacturing swelled from $1.3 trillion to an all-time record $4.5 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

With less than 5 percent of the world's population, the United States is responsible for almost one-fourth of global manufacturing, a share that has changed little in decades. The United States is the largest manufacturing economy by far. Japan, the only serious rival for that title, has been losing ground. China has been growing but represents only about one-tenth of world manufacturing. [More]

Color me surprised. I had acquired the hazy notion US factories were disappearing - not changing industries. The real problem is the same one facing much of our profession as well: the jobs with a future in the US are jobs requiring highly skilled workers.

During the most recent decade, U.S. manufacturing has become increasingly oriented toward the middle and upper ends of the value-added spectrum. Opportunities abound for workers with skills or the willingness and wherewithal to acquire them. In fact, the title of the National Association of Manufacturers tenth annual Labor Day Report on the state of U.S. manufacturing is “Rising Incomes Cushion Economy,” and its subtitle is “Finding Highly Skilled Workers Remains a Challenge for Manufacturers.” It seems to me that rising wages should make more workers willing to get the skills, and the need to find highly-skilled workers should induce manufacturers to assist on the wherewithal front.

We are pretty soft-spoken about educational standards or training requirements in agriculture. In fact, highly educated entrants into farming are often resented by colleagues as usurping a role that should be "reserved" for those who work hard and and possess more humble but admirable attributes. I mean, those guys could be doing hotshot jobs in the city, instead of displacing less qualified farmer wannabes. Indeed a significant number of present farmers are farming largely because they were not interested in educational challenge of occupations requiring degrees or other formal training.

Nevertheless, I believe developments like the human resource needs in manufacturing are being mirrored in agriculture. In addition, the subsequent quantum leap in capital management skills needed, wild volatility, and rapid adoption of technology combine to select for farmers with a much wider and deeper knowledge base and skill set. In fact, the current boom (Why didn't I grow some wheat this year?) could make farms capable of bidding for the fabled "best and brightest" along with other professions.

This sounds like a good idea until you realize we are becoming more intensely competitive at the same time. Having the "b & b" farm next to you is somewhat more sobering if you yourself are merely good and bright.

I notice they don't do it in February...

This month conscientious consumers are eating local: consuming only things grown within 100 miles - thus saving humongous amounts of energy and pollution.

Maybe.

At its extreme, the 100-mile diet means no coffee, no spices and no chocolate. Most people don't go that far, but they do embrace buying food grown and raised locally where possible.

Freshness, energy conservation and contributing to the regional economy are among the reasons people offer for buying local food. It's a growing trend across the country. [More]

I think this is a wonderful idea. Jan and I relish eating "local" from our garden (ahem - Jan's garden) when vegetables are ripe. But unlike the many farmer's market fans, I don't see the need to denigrate the old supermarket, which oddly enough almost everyone counts on to be there 24/7 offering produce of all kinds every day.

Contextor likewise is troubled.

Estimated sales at farmers markets rose from $888 million in 2000 to $1 billion in 2005, according to a 2006 USDA survey.

There are now more than 4,300 markets nationwide -- an 18 percent increase from 1994 through 2006 -- where local farmers sell directly to the public the fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, poultry, eggs, dairy and baked goods they have grown, raised, caught and made.

Wow! $1B! Contextor ponders the enormity of that number. Then Contextor thinks, "How much do we spend overall for food?" The answer: Americans spend $484 B per year in "food stores". Contextor takes a wild guess and uses 50% as the amount spent on food (as opposed to toilet paper and diapers and aspirin and light bulbs and...) and decides that the growth in farmers markets (about $100 million) is far less than the growth in food sales in total (about $10B). Farmer's markets will have to grow at PRC-like rates to just keep up.

Still, fresh local produce is a wonderful thing. We just don't need to badmouth the old reliable WalMart. Remember the temps could soon be -20°F.

Cancel the cemetery plot, Edna...

Remember your gym class pyramid? Well, it's not too late to join in. (Of course, you'll still be on the bottom)

The Great Pyramid can potentially be any human being’s grave or memorial site. As monumental as it is affordable, it serves those of all nationalities and religions. Individuals who are either unwilling or unable to have their physical remains buried there can also opt to have a memorial stone placed instead. Stones can be custom designed with any number of colors, images, or relief decorations. The Great Pyramid will continue to grow with every stone placed, eventually forming the largest structure in the history of man. Outlasting personal physical existence is something that the Egyptian pyramids could promise only a few, but this pyramid is open to every individual. Rather than hastily burying one another or allowing our ashes to be scattered, as a small stone in the pyramid we can remain part of our species’ constantly shifting and ever-expanding tableau. [More]

Just another one of those "if-every-Chinese-would-eat-a-Big-Mac-every-month" schemes. Somehow the sheer size of 6+ BILLION people confuses us into thinking we can actually persuade more than twenty or thirty to do anything. If this thing gets larger than a Iowa gym, I'll be surprised.

You call yourself a soprano?...

Sing this.

[Update: I realized after the fact this post gave no other information so here is the link to explain the recording. The voice is Mado Robin. The note is D4 above high-C - the highest sung note ever recorded]

[via Presurfer]

Older is better...

Yeah - that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

There's no news like bad news. The tabloids are full of accidents, gory murders, and mayhem, and people eat it up. But there may be a silver lining, at least for seniors. A new study finds that the human brain reacts less strongly to emotionally negative stimuli as we age, in effect making us more responsive to all things positive and less responsive to the dark and dismal. This bolsters a growing body of evidence showing that aging changes how the brain reacts to emotional stimuli. [More]

As farms across the US (and the globe, for that matter) struggle with succession issues, understanding how different-aged minds work is crucial to establishing working rules and family harmony. In fact, as we see astonishing leaps in longevity, incorporating the point of view of the older partners can offset perhaps the up-tightness too often the plague of mid-career farmers.

Another reason not to move to PHX.

[via 3Quarks]

Profiting from propheting...

Amateur forecasters - here is your homepage.

[via Marginal Revolution]

Why the "safety net" may be a tougher sale...

Farmers - or perhaps our public relations consultants - have wisely realized we need to repackage our previous versions of "victimhood".

It is relatively hard to ignore charts like this and plead for government entitlements. (But not impossible - I should note.)

"We believe farm policy should support agricultural production and not some subjective and social goals," Stallman, a Texas rice farmer and president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said after the appearance. [More]

This is an interesting remark, seeing as it abandons any pretext of ag payments being deployed for reasons of fairness or humanitarian aims. In the case of corn production, it is also howlingly wrong. My $24 DCP has virtually zero effect on my 2008 crop plans - especially since I get it whether I produce any corn or not. At current prices, corn subsidies do not affect corn production, period.

With per acre gross incomes in $700+ stratosphere, the DCP for corn farmers is vacation money or as we have seen, "new paint money".

It appears in the face of hard-to-disguise prosperity, aid advocates are falling back on our old reliable nemesis: the EU. "We have to pay our farmers because those Germans are getting mucho dinero!" Of course, one problem with this argument is EU farmers aren't the competition. In fact, for a change, foreign competition is less of a factor, since wheat is short everywhere as the rush to fuel crops bids acres away here and abroad. Wheat has always faced strong EU competition since Northern Europe's natural advantage is cereal crops. But even wheat looks like a gold mine now.

And of course, while we are fixated on the EU CAP, our strongest competitors are places like Brazil. We seem determined to fight the foe we prepared for, not the one that really exists. How very French.

In fact, the only crops really, really desperate for support are cotton, rice, and sugar - a fact Mr. Stallman and the largely southern-facing AFBF understand well.

However, it will take firm control of facial muscles to look an America with 47 million citizens without health insurance and argue over-indulged guys like me need a "safety net" - but not potato farmers and certainly not other citizens such as umm, non-farmers. And I think the old "all the other kids are getting a subsidy" argument may be where we are going.

This will work right up until Pres. Bush gives the farm (subsidies) away at the WTO.

I became a farmer because of a comet?...

I have developed an abiding interest the dawn of agriculture, and this idea certainly makes for fascinating pondering.

There is little doubt that a megaflood of glacial meltwater cascading off the North American continent into the Atlantic Ocean spurred the birth of agriculture and civilisation in the Middle East around 12,900 years ago. What was not known until recently is that this event, known as the Agassiz megaflood, may have been triggered by a comet exploding above or plunging into the ice sheet north of the modern Great Lakes.

According to two geologists at the University of Oregon, Dr Douglas Kennett and Dr Jon Erlandson, there is reason to believe a large chunk of a comet exploded above or crashed directly into the Laurentide ice sheet, rupturing the ice dams on the easterly margin of Lake Agassiz and causing frigid water to flood into the North Atlantic. [More]

I just ordered the book cited in the article: The First Farmers. Expect a review in a couple of weeks.

Or whenever I post the three others I have half finished.

Must...resist...posting...

Oh, what the heck. If you haven't seen it already, here is what happens when your mind goes blank and your mouth isn't told.


I was not going to post this - I genuinely felt sorry for the young woman. But she may be experiencing a William Hung flirtation with fame, which may or may not be a good thing in itself.

But most amazing is the website that fired up immediately to capitalize on this "maps for South Africa" blithering: mapsforus.org

Here's a sample of what you can find there:


The lesson here (if any) is how fast the Internet responds to any cultural stimulus. Don't tell me newspapers have an answer to this.

Imperialist? Who me?...

Boy, it is difficult to look at Africa (for the most part) and not wonder if a more enlightened colonial rule wouldn't give a better outcome. Say what you will about the English in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) but at least the economy functioned and corruption was held to a genteel level. And the farms produced.

Mugabe will go but it will take decades for the Zimbabwean society to rid themselves of Mugabe fostered environment of corruption, greed and selfishness. Its common knowledge that the delivery of basic services in Zimbabwe is dependent on your political allegiance and who you know. Even if Mugabe has gone the corruption culture is deeply interred in the edifices of the structures that MDC will inherit when they get to power. A mechanic at CMD (Government controlled motor vehicle repair service) drains petrol from a government vehicle and sells it on the black market leaving the tax payer to pick up the bill. A state security agent stationed at Harare Airport waves in goods imported by his friends without paying import duty preventing the government to earn money to use to improve people's lives. A policeman stops a driver on suspicion of drink-driving which is an offence in Zimbabwe, his suspicions are correct the guy is over the legal limit to drive instead of arresting him, he accepts a bribe to turn a blind eye again denying the government a chance to earn money through fines that in turn could be used to improve the police deliver better service for its citizens. A utility company ignores the official waiting list for anyone with a better colour of money, so a provision of land-line telephone depends if you are prepared to bribe. For many Zimbabweans stealing from the government is ok they view it a victim-less crime not knowing that delivery of service depends on it and that they the tax-payers are stealing from themselves. [More]

Not so with the unceasing tribal self-destruction and institutionalized gangsterism that passes for government today in too many African nations. All of this would be simply a cause for rock concerts if it was not for the timing.

In one great global coincidence, the urgent need for energy, improving incomes in China and India, climate change, and the failure of African governments are combining to create a perfect storm for food production.

The threat of a food crisis is exacerbated by fears over energy security, with many countries opting to plant biofuel crops in place of traditional food crops. India, for example, has pledged to meet 10% of its vehicle fuel needs with biofuels.

Andres Arnalds, of the Icelandic soil conservation service, said the pressures on food production would have knock-on effects all over the world because of the international links in food supply.

Mr Campbell said: "If we can improve agricultural practices across the board we can dramatically increase our food production from existing lands, without having to clear more or put more pressure on soils. Simple things like good crop rotation, sowing at the right time of year, basic weed control, are what is needed. They're very well known but not always used." [More]

We need more output of calories from every arable acre, and we can scarce afford to lose any more of those acres. Without significant improvement in growing and allocating food resources, untold millions especially in Africa will perish.

The trouble is for those of us in the First World is simply getting past the incomprehensible bloodshed in places like Darfur. Establishing political structures to allow economic development seems hopeless without de facto occupation and colonial rule. This admittedly could be a nostalgic mirage, as we have learned in Iraq. The natives aren't quite as cowed by guns and technology as the good old days.

The failure of poor-country governments is not universal, of course. Many, especially in Asia are booming and raising the standard of living of their citizens. But in what is almost becoming digital in outcome, the losers are losing everything. Africa is moving the wrong way.

Colonialism is not a modern option of course. But it would be wrong to ascribe only base motives and mercantilism as the impetus behind the British or similar empires. India, Jamaica, and the good ol' USA have much to show for their period of colonial rule.

We are today forced to play with the cards we have been dealt, but the cost of losing more acres where they can hardly be afforded along with increasingly inhuman loss of life leaves the West with the option of watching a wretched end and writing off part of the globe, or intervening in a more vigorous way than we presently can stomach.



[Thanks, Greg]

This is for Jan...



My current wife and major Taco Bell fan.

[via Neatorama]

Sometimes things go right...

To my resounding gratitude and amazement, my upgrade to faster satellite broadband was accomplished with only the now-standard "Son-of-a-Vista" difficulty. I was able to get online with the first helpline call to "Mark" in India (I'm guessing) and he rectified the issues that were not covered in the instructions because they don't have Vista versions out yet.

Vista never lets up, guys.

Anyhoo, I am now clocking about 1.4 Mbps vs. 700 kps previously (as clocked by PCPitstop.com). That's download, by the way - I still am only about 200K up, but even that is noticeably faster. All in all, it's the best $20/mo. [ProPlus] I have spent in a while.

This may be the only answer for many of us in rural America. It looks like the telcos have found ways to avoid providing broadband to the last few percent of us. And frankly, I'm OK with that. We are so few, and our tradition of expecting urban folks to pay for services comparable to theirs is way past its sell date.

As population density drops outside of metropolitan areas, it's impossible for telecommunications companies or cable service providers to justify the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per mile it can cost to bring fiber to every rural community, let alone every home. The result: Today, just 17% of rural U.S. households subscribe to broadband service, according to the Government Accountability Office. And a recent report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says the U.S. dropped from fourth in the world in broadband penetration in 2001 to 15th place in 2006. Communications infrastructure is widely seen as the biggest driver of economic growth, yet 21% of Americans — the nearly 60 million people who live in rural areas — are often underserved. [More]

While cheap access to broadband would arguably help many lower income rural residents, the number is so tiny and the odds of big returns so small, I think satellite or WiMax is enough alternative.

Sprint has bet their future on WiMax, so I will be keeping a close eye on developments there, along with my son Jack, who works in the industry.

Working together with Intel, Motorola and Samsung, Sprint Nextel will develop a nationwide network infrastructure as well as mobile WiMAX-enabled chipsets that will support advanced wireless broadband services for computing, portable multimedia, interactive and other consumer electronic devices. These efforts are intended to allow Sprint Nextel customers to experience a nationwide mobile data network that is designed to offer faster speeds, lower cost, and greater convenience and enhanced multimedia quality.

The Sprint Nextel 4G mobility network will use the company's extensive 2.5GHz spectrum holdings, which cover 85 percent of the households in the top 100 U.S. markets - the most of any wireless carrier in any single spectrum band. To access that network, Sprint Nextel will work with Intel, Motorola and Samsung to incorporate WiMAX technology for advanced wireless communications and help make chipsets widely available for new consumer electronics devices, connecting consumers to the Internet and to each other while providing them with the flexibility to do what they want or need to do regardless of time or place. [More]

I think we can all guess who is in the 15% not covered.

Broadband will be our own responsibility, and maybe a real badge of honor for small, independent rural tel-coops who have invested and whose customers are the fortunate winners to date.

It could also be we will look back and recognize that the international broadband competition was essentially lost because of our firm refusal to back one solution for all.


[Thanks, Aaron]

Time is apparently full...

Blogging will be a little sparse as I just pulled some 22% ears out of a field, and I'm not really sure where my combine is.

Let's be careful out there.