Milton Freidman said:
"The ballot box produces conformity without unanimity; the marketplace, unanimity without conformity"- Free to Choose
and as Don Boudreaux writes:
"The dispersion of knowledge and experience is one of the most important
reasons for relying on free markets. Politicians and bureaucrats,
despite their pretenses, know next to nothing about the all-important
details of the economic affairs that they regulate. This reality means
that government regulation is the displacement of expertise by
ignorance."- http://triblive.com/mobile/9979317-96/affairs-ignorant-economics
All of the statements above are testaments for why democracy, if left unchecked, can be just as detrimental to a society as so called unrestrained or unregulated markets. Perhaps more so than the critics of capitalism would ever imagine or be willing to admit.
There is a lot of contention about whether we should nominate a new justice now, or wait until after the next election. Much of this has to do with the fact that the supreme court has not played a very effective role acting as a brake slowing the pace of unrestrained democracy. The effect is that many micro level personal decisions in our lives are becoming subject to the votes, opinions and interpretations made by these justices. The stakes are high for a lot of reasons.
In Judicial Activism Reconsidered, Economist Thomas Sowell describes our Constitution:
“The
federal Constitution is "the supreme law of the land," not because it
is more moral than state constitutions or state or federal legislative
enactments, but because it represents a larger and more enduring
majority.107 Minorities receive their constitutional rights from that
enduring majority to which transient majorities bow, not from whatever
abstract moral rights are imagined to exist as a brooding omnipresence
in the sky.”
Once we start making heroic ‘modern’ interpretations
of words in the constitution like ‘general welfare’ or ‘regulate
commerce,’ the constitution is weakened, and minorities are forced to
give power over to whatever transient majority prevails at the time. The
short term gain from being able to bypass the amendment process (which
requires obtaining the consent of the governed) via the courts or legislative process comes at a long term cost to our
liberty and national well being. Every step we take away from the
limited role of government defined by the specifically enumerated powers
of the Constitution, we concentrate more power and wealth in our
central government. This increases the incentives for large corporations
and special interests to influence our lawmakers, and provides the
means for ever more concentration of power and transfer of power away from the people. This outcome is what game theorists refer to as a prisoner's dilemma, (a nash equilibrium) and the solution or means of escape was proposed by our founders: a binding Constitution that limits the power of all players.
“in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man,
but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution” —Thomas Jefferson
We've broken the chains, and so these nominations have become a much bigger deal than they need be, or our founders envisioned them to be....and we will continue to send lawyers and lobbyists to Washington, offer up our candidates to the highest bidder, and freak out over court appointments all the while proposing band-aid fixes like campaign finance reform or new parliamentary rules and procedures around nomination processes. It's democracy out of control.
For some deeper dives into these issues see: Public Choice Theory for Agvocates
Monday, February 15, 2016
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Can Science or Evidence Change Your Mind?
I was recently listening to an EconTalk podcast with Russ Roberts and Adam Ozimek, about why economists change their minds or don't and the impact or role of evidence. In general it is hard to find good examples of people changing their minds about
ideologically firm beliefs in the face of strong contradicting evidence.
Outside of the specifics of issues related to microeconomic theory (like
the impacts of minimum wages on unemployment) or macroeconomics (are
fiscal stimulus policies effective?) one example of a couple a couple of fairly well known
people that have changed their minds in this regard include Mark Lynas
and Bill Nye the Science Guy.
"There is an equivalent level of scientific consensus on both issues, I realized, that climate change is real and genetically modified foods are safe. I could not defend the expert consensus on one issue while opposing it on the other." - Mark Lynas, How I Got Converted to GMO Food, NYT April 24,2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/opinion/sunday/how-i-got-converted-to-gmo-food.html?_r=0
“I went to Monsanto,” Nye said, “and I spent a lot of time with the scientists there, and I have revised my outlook, and I’m very excited about telling the world. When you’re in love, you want to tell the world.” - Proof he’s the Science Guy: Bill Nye is changing his mind about GMOs by Washington Post March 3, 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/03/proof-hes-the-science-guy-bill-nye-is-changing-his-mind-about-gmos/
On a personal note, rather than change my mind about issues related to economics/markets/prices I find that the evidence has made me less dogmatic, and more skeptical or borderline agnostic. Despite Leamer's influence, and the credibility revolution, I find issues like what Andrew Gelman refers to as the garden of forking paths and researcher degrees of freedom weigh pretty heavily on my mind, no matter how solid the identification strategy or methodology as presented in a polished 'study' or paper.
"There is an equivalent level of scientific consensus on both issues, I realized, that climate change is real and genetically modified foods are safe. I could not defend the expert consensus on one issue while opposing it on the other." - Mark Lynas, How I Got Converted to GMO Food, NYT April 24,2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/opinion/sunday/how-i-got-converted-to-gmo-food.html?_r=0
“I went to Monsanto,” Nye said, “and I spent a lot of time with the scientists there, and I have revised my outlook, and I’m very excited about telling the world. When you’re in love, you want to tell the world.” - Proof he’s the Science Guy: Bill Nye is changing his mind about GMOs by Washington Post March 3, 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/03/proof-hes-the-science-guy-bill-nye-is-changing-his-mind-about-gmos/
On a personal note, rather than change my mind about issues related to economics/markets/prices I find that the evidence has made me less dogmatic, and more skeptical or borderline agnostic. Despite Leamer's influence, and the credibility revolution, I find issues like what Andrew Gelman refers to as the garden of forking paths and researcher degrees of freedom weigh pretty heavily on my mind, no matter how solid the identification strategy or methodology as presented in a polished 'study' or paper.
Climatarians
I recently caught the February 4th Agritalk podcast with Mike Adams, and heard Jeff Stier and Julie Kelly discussing their article in National Review about 'climatarians.'
"climatarian (n.) A diet whose primary goal is to reverse climate change. This includes eating locally produced food (to reduce energy spent in transportation), choosing pork and poultry instead of beef and lamb (to limit gas emissions), and using every part of ingredients (apple cores, cheese rinds, etc.) to limit food waste."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429966/climatarians-crusade-stop-eating-meat-save-planet
Climatarians "want every meal to be a political statement on topics such as farm workers’ rights or the carbon footprint of your family’s dinner." I think that's been true for a lot of anti-agribusiness and anti-family farm activists for a long time, as well as the mantra of a number of foodies that know little about modern agricultural technology and production.
"climatarian (n.) A diet whose primary goal is to reverse climate change. This includes eating locally produced food (to reduce energy spent in transportation), choosing pork and poultry instead of beef and lamb (to limit gas emissions), and using every part of ingredients (apple cores, cheese rinds, etc.) to limit food waste."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429966/climatarians-crusade-stop-eating-meat-save-planet
Climatarians "want every meal to be a political statement on topics such as farm workers’ rights or the carbon footprint of your family’s dinner." I think that's been true for a lot of anti-agribusiness and anti-family farm activists for a long time, as well as the mantra of a number of foodies that know little about modern agricultural technology and production.
They go on to discuss a lot of important issues related to meat and cancer, as well as the resource intensity of organic production systems, as well as the implications of the Carnegie Mellon study that indicate that a climatarian influenced diet might actually be worse for the environment than one containing more meat. Of course, science is not central to the dogma of a climatarianist agenda, as the article states: "Regardless of science to the contrary, these activists promote the organic, local, non-GMO diet as the most eco-friendly."
For a deeper dive on some related issues see:
Saturday, February 6, 2016
How Big Data and Genomics are Crushing the Myth of Monoculture
From: Multi-hybrid corn planter trials in Corn and Soybean Digest (link):
"If multi-cultivar planters gain significant market share in coming years, farmers could see a big shift in the corn hybrids and soybean varieties available to plant in unique field environments, says Jason Webster, Beck’s Hybrids research agronomist…….“We may have customized hybrids for certain soils that never would have been released in the past,” he says."
This is in line with what I have said before (see Big Data + Genomics ≠ Your Grandparent's Monoculture):
"the disruptions of new technology, big data and genomics (applications like FieldScripts, ACRES, MyJohnDeere or the new concept Kinze planters that switch hybrids on the go etc.) will require the market to continue to offer a range of choices in seeds and genetics to tailor to each producer's circumstances of time and place. There are numerous margins that growers look at when optimizing their seed choices and it will require a number of firms and seed choices to meet these needs as the industry's focus moves from the farm and field level to the data gathered by the row foot with each pass over the field."
The convergence if big data and genomics is driving more diversity into every seed in every field across every acre.
"If multi-cultivar planters gain significant market share in coming years, farmers could see a big shift in the corn hybrids and soybean varieties available to plant in unique field environments, says Jason Webster, Beck’s Hybrids research agronomist…….“We may have customized hybrids for certain soils that never would have been released in the past,” he says."
This is in line with what I have said before (see Big Data + Genomics ≠ Your Grandparent's Monoculture):
"the disruptions of new technology, big data and genomics (applications like FieldScripts, ACRES, MyJohnDeere or the new concept Kinze planters that switch hybrids on the go etc.) will require the market to continue to offer a range of choices in seeds and genetics to tailor to each producer's circumstances of time and place. There are numerous margins that growers look at when optimizing their seed choices and it will require a number of firms and seed choices to meet these needs as the industry's focus moves from the farm and field level to the data gathered by the row foot with each pass over the field."
The convergence if big data and genomics is driving more diversity into every seed in every field across every acre.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Memories of Jack
I started working for him as he was winding down his CASE IH farm equipment dealership, helping him on his farm (dairy, beef, and alfalfa hay) and propane business, as well as maintenance and construction projects associated with his son's rental properties and several houses he was involved in building. Jack was a WWI veteran and at this time he was in his 70's and that was 20 years ago; it never struck me how old he was to speak of his agelessness. Lots of fun filled after school and summer adventures.
Here are a few quotes (they may not be originally his own but I associate them with him) and experiences:
- The first time helping him in the hay field, he would not let me start until I could demonstrate tying a square knott
- "a fool and his money soon part"
- "behind the 'at'" he would say if I ever asked "where is it at" - not even my English teacher taught me that....
- Lessons on work ethic, the labor markets, regulation, and entrepreneurship that made economics course work come naturally appealing later in college, I probably could not have learned more from Hayek himself.
- There is so much more to compensation than what can be quoted in an 'hourly' rate.
- "a cat can't catch mice in mittens"
- "don't butcher me up"- anytime I got a little reckless driving any number of things I probably should have had a license to operate
- Two people can put up a lot of alfalfa hay.
- You can paint a 10,000 gallon propane tank with a 2" brush.
- "if half the decisions in life you make are correct, you'll do OK"
- How to drive anything from a forklift, tractor, bobtail propane truck, to an eighteen wheeler.
- How to use sand to move an 18 wheeler up a 6% grade covered in snow and ice
- Cutting power lines with a bolt cutter from a forklift and living to tell about it
- He told me a story once about one of his top tractor mechanics. When folks came into the shop and started loitering and distracting to work, he started stepping on their feet so they knew it was time to move on. That might be a great tip these days in the distracting open floor plan office spaces of corporate America
- Taking a short cut down mainstreet while pulling a manure spreader on Halloween night is not a good idea.
- Even on the most frustrating days, and after I may have made the worst of mistakes, I never saw the man get angry....but he never let a teachable moment go to waste
Monday, January 4, 2016
How Chipotle Can Have Their Food with Integrity and Eat it Too
This article from The Wall Street Journal sums things up pretty well I think, A Chipotle Education.
I also recommend Jayson Lusk's take on this:
"Marketing aside, there is a real trade-off to be made between selling "clean", fresh, food sourced from small-local vendors and food safety. There are likely some taste benefits with fresh, unfrozen food and there is nothing inherently wrong with being willing to pay a bit more for wares from smaller more local providers. But, choosing these options may make ensuring food safety a bit more challenging."
I think there is a possible way out for Chipotle. As suggested in the WSJ article, rebrand with a PR campaign promising to bring Chipotle into the 21st century, with a commitment to strict food safety standards (maybe talk about some high tech apps that help better manage food sources,safety, food handling etc. to address the recent issues) but also embracing modern food supply chains and technologies including GMOs. Maintain a commitment to 'local' food sources where possible, but make this very much a specialty offering brought to market under only the strictest standards. Or instead, maybe redirect the 'local' aspect of food through community investments and promotions of local producers and sponsorship of farmers markets etc. vs actually incorporating them into their direct supply chain. Or, highlight key suppliers and their practices, concentrate on the people vs. the geography. McDonald's is doing something like this, but Chipotle could really get the message out there. Maybe in the future, the beef or lettuce in your Chipotle burrito won't come from the farm a mile down the road, but emphasize the real people behind the food, and note, they are 'local' to someone somewhere.
Finally, issue a statement indicating the change in direction:
We at Chipotle have undergone exhaustive research and investment in order to make our products better, safer, and more sustainable than ever before. After consulting with our customers, suppliers, and leading scientists, we are revamping our supply chains and product technologies in ways like never before. etc..
They can go on to explain perhaps how incorporation of GMOs will lead to reduced emissions and pesticide use and improve biodiversity, how optimized animal feeding operations maximize animal welfare and minimize air quality issues etc. They can be as specific or nuanced as need be, there are plenty of PR people to figure it out. But the improved perceptions, cost savings from supply chain improvements etc. might even give Chipotle the opportunity to offer something better at an even lower price!
There are plenty of producers, industry experts, researchers, and agvocates out there that might be willing to help, if only, instead of demonizing the industry that supports it, Chipotle open mindedly embraces it with a spirit of genuine integrity.
Of course this is all somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think the unfolding of events at Chipotle should give other food products and services firms a little pause about how they want to front their product in the face of the science and economics involved. Acknowledging these trade offs certainly could provide some insight to truly sustainable strategies going forward.
“In other words, Mr. Ells promises to bring his restaurants into the 20th century. One reason large chains dice foodstuffs in a central kitchen is to avoid contamination. And while Chipotle derides “factory farming”—last year the company put out a comedy series about the “utterly unsustainable world of industrial agriculture”—such economies of scale exist to deliver safer food at a lower price....Chipotle’s anti-GMO and locavore advertising has been part of a commercial strategy to differentiate from competitors and make a buck. Perhaps no longer: On Tuesday the stock tumbled below $500 for the first time since May 2014, with the price down about 25% for the year. Sales are expected to drop precipitously this quarter. The market is a brutal teacher when customers and investors realize a company isn’t practicing what it preaches.”
-The Wall Street Journal, Dec 22, 2015
"Marketing aside, there is a real trade-off to be made between selling "clean", fresh, food sourced from small-local vendors and food safety. There are likely some taste benefits with fresh, unfrozen food and there is nothing inherently wrong with being willing to pay a bit more for wares from smaller more local providers. But, choosing these options may make ensuring food safety a bit more challenging."
I think there is a possible way out for Chipotle. As suggested in the WSJ article, rebrand with a PR campaign promising to bring Chipotle into the 21st century, with a commitment to strict food safety standards (maybe talk about some high tech apps that help better manage food sources,safety, food handling etc. to address the recent issues) but also embracing modern food supply chains and technologies including GMOs. Maintain a commitment to 'local' food sources where possible, but make this very much a specialty offering brought to market under only the strictest standards. Or instead, maybe redirect the 'local' aspect of food through community investments and promotions of local producers and sponsorship of farmers markets etc. vs actually incorporating them into their direct supply chain. Or, highlight key suppliers and their practices, concentrate on the people vs. the geography. McDonald's is doing something like this, but Chipotle could really get the message out there. Maybe in the future, the beef or lettuce in your Chipotle burrito won't come from the farm a mile down the road, but emphasize the real people behind the food, and note, they are 'local' to someone somewhere.
Finally, issue a statement indicating the change in direction:
We at Chipotle have undergone exhaustive research and investment in order to make our products better, safer, and more sustainable than ever before. After consulting with our customers, suppliers, and leading scientists, we are revamping our supply chains and product technologies in ways like never before. etc..
They can go on to explain perhaps how incorporation of GMOs will lead to reduced emissions and pesticide use and improve biodiversity, how optimized animal feeding operations maximize animal welfare and minimize air quality issues etc. They can be as specific or nuanced as need be, there are plenty of PR people to figure it out. But the improved perceptions, cost savings from supply chain improvements etc. might even give Chipotle the opportunity to offer something better at an even lower price!
There are plenty of producers, industry experts, researchers, and agvocates out there that might be willing to help, if only, instead of demonizing the industry that supports it, Chipotle open mindedly embraces it with a spirit of genuine integrity.
Of course this is all somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think the unfolding of events at Chipotle should give other food products and services firms a little pause about how they want to front their product in the face of the science and economics involved. Acknowledging these trade offs certainly could provide some insight to truly sustainable strategies going forward.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Big Jobs in Big Ag
I recently ran across an article on Forbes by Jeffrey Dorfman, Want a Job? Study Food and Agriculture. This is one of the first articles I have ever read in a popular media outlet that gets ag right! Usually people think of agriculture as a narrow field, comprised mostly of on farm labor. But its the single largest employing sector! Just think McDonalds and Wal-mart. Yes those burger flipping and cashier jobs count. If the industry is not paying attention to what happens at the checkout counter, or behind it in the kitchen, its in trouble (Chipotle is learning that lesson now) . When it comes to the ag industry, there is a lot more here than meets the eye.
Some highlights:
"these jobs are not all in direct production agriculture (that is, farming), which accounts for only 15% of these jobs. The other 85% are in the broader food and fiber industry. In fact, 50% of these jobs are in business and management. For example, food processors such as Campbell’s Soup or Tyson Food need people to manage their production facilities, marketing campaigns, and finances. Twelve percent of the jobs are in agricultural education, communication or government agencies that regulation and support the food and fiber industries. As agriculture becomes more global, there are good jobs available for students with an interest in international finance and policy and also for those who can speak a foreign language."
"The remaining 27% of these agricultural jobs are in the STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math). These jobs require strong scientific, quantitative, and technical training and employers are also looking for familiarity with agricultural and food systems. For example, a large meat or poultry processing company will likely prefer a geneticist who is an animal or poultry science major with genetics training. A food processing company looking for a food safety specialist will choose a food science major over a microbiologist with no specific training in food safety."
I would think some of these STEM related fields would include jobs related to Big Data.
See also-why study agricultural and applied economics.
Some highlights:
"these jobs are not all in direct production agriculture (that is, farming), which accounts for only 15% of these jobs. The other 85% are in the broader food and fiber industry. In fact, 50% of these jobs are in business and management. For example, food processors such as Campbell’s Soup or Tyson Food need people to manage their production facilities, marketing campaigns, and finances. Twelve percent of the jobs are in agricultural education, communication or government agencies that regulation and support the food and fiber industries. As agriculture becomes more global, there are good jobs available for students with an interest in international finance and policy and also for those who can speak a foreign language."
"The remaining 27% of these agricultural jobs are in the STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math). These jobs require strong scientific, quantitative, and technical training and employers are also looking for familiarity with agricultural and food systems. For example, a large meat or poultry processing company will likely prefer a geneticist who is an animal or poultry science major with genetics training. A food processing company looking for a food safety specialist will choose a food science major over a microbiologist with no specific training in food safety."
I would think some of these STEM related fields would include jobs related to Big Data.
See also-why study agricultural and applied economics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)