Blogging on bureaucracy, organizations, USDA, agriculture programs, American history, the food movement, and other interests. Often contrarian, usually optimistic, sometimes didactic, occasionally funny, rarely wrong, always a nitpicker.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Tip of Hat to Rep. Tom Davis
I do my best not to compliment Republicans, but Rep. Davis (who once was my representative, before some redistricting) has done a good job as chair of the House Government Reform Committee, particularly in its report on Katrina. The Dems boycotted, saying it would be a partisan whitewash and the White House wasn't particularly cooperative, but the report has gotten respect in the mainstream media. It's perhaps noteworthy that the NYTimes didn't mention Davis' name in its discussion of the report. If I were a Rep, I'd cite it as bias. As a Dem, I'd say it's proof that Davis didn't grandstand.
Handling Future Katrinas--Ideas
As a bureaucrat and experienced Monday morning quarterback, I've some ideas on how FEMA/DHS should handle future disasters. First, I'd acquire ID packages--consisting of a digital camera and laptop with software to work with RFID ID bracelets. Each operative in the field would, as soon as possible (ideally when they first rescue people, etc.) snap digital pictures of the person, provide them with a RFID ID bracelet, and record a conversation with them (hopefully giving name, address, and similar info). The software would associate the ID bracelet to the picture and to the location, such data to be uploaded to a central database when wireless data communications are available.
[updated--published too fast] The recorded conversations could be transcribed into a database that could be matched against public information.
The bottomline is that as the bureaucracy kicks into gear with the provision of emergency help: grants, loans, shelter, whatever, the processing center can read the ID bracelet and match the person to the data in the database. This has many benefits:
[updated--published too fast] The recorded conversations could be transcribed into a database that could be matched against public information.
The bottomline is that as the bureaucracy kicks into gear with the provision of emergency help: grants, loans, shelter, whatever, the processing center can read the ID bracelet and match the person to the data in the database. This has many benefits:
- Finding lost children and reuniting families--because everyone is in the database with some sort of identification (even if only 1-year infant found near X), people could be speedily reunited. That would save much effort and more emotional strain.
- Avoiding fraud--while there could still be fraud it would remove the biggest causes of abuse in Katrina.
- Providing information--you'd have a much faster flow of more accurate information as to the extent of the disaster and its impact. That means much better management of relief efforts.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight?
Sorry, I couldn't resist the Cheney story [the title is a reference to an old Jimmy Breslin book]. For a more sober reaction, read the Stephen Hunter take in the Post.
Thoughts on Corn, and Farming
USDA's Economic Research Service does a lot of good publications. From the summary for one--
Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S. Corn Farms, 2001: "Corn production costs per bushel vary considerably among U.S. producers, depending on yields, farm location, tillage practices, irrigation, previous field usage, enterprise size, and weather. In 2001, the operating and ownership costs per bushel for corn ranged from an average of $1.08 for the 25 percent of U.S. producers with the lowest costs to an average of $2.98 for the 25 percent with the highest costs. Heartland corn producers had the lowest costs per bushel on average. Corn producers with small corn enterprises had the highest costs per bushel due to their lower-than-average corn yields. Operators of part-time and low-sales corn farms had higher production costs per bushel than operators of farms with higher sales. In 2001, 59 percent of corn producers earned a positive net return per bushel after covering their operating and ownership costs from the market value of corn. "
My thoughts--note the range of costs. While GM's costs are higher than Toyota's or Hyundai's, there's not nearly the range. The big range means that lots of discussion of agricultural programs is misleading, if not unfounded. There's apt to be a big disconnect between the pictures in our head and the reality.
If the cash price for corn is in the area of $2, how can anyone stay in business if it costs them $3? Obviously government programs help, but since the benefits tend to correlate to bushels produced, and the smaller producers are the high cost ones, that's not the entire answer. Another part of the answer is the older farmers, who have no mortgage, have low out-of-pocket ownership costs for land. That makes a big, big difference. To economist, someone with a million dollars worth of land (which is a smallish field crop farmer these days) needs to account for the cost of that land capital. But to a farmer, cash flow is critical. The fact he could sell out and get $40,000 a year by investing the proceeds is irrelevant.
Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S. Corn Farms, 2001: "Corn production costs per bushel vary considerably among U.S. producers, depending on yields, farm location, tillage practices, irrigation, previous field usage, enterprise size, and weather. In 2001, the operating and ownership costs per bushel for corn ranged from an average of $1.08 for the 25 percent of U.S. producers with the lowest costs to an average of $2.98 for the 25 percent with the highest costs. Heartland corn producers had the lowest costs per bushel on average. Corn producers with small corn enterprises had the highest costs per bushel due to their lower-than-average corn yields. Operators of part-time and low-sales corn farms had higher production costs per bushel than operators of farms with higher sales. In 2001, 59 percent of corn producers earned a positive net return per bushel after covering their operating and ownership costs from the market value of corn. "
My thoughts--note the range of costs. While GM's costs are higher than Toyota's or Hyundai's, there's not nearly the range. The big range means that lots of discussion of agricultural programs is misleading, if not unfounded. There's apt to be a big disconnect between the pictures in our head and the reality.
If the cash price for corn is in the area of $2, how can anyone stay in business if it costs them $3? Obviously government programs help, but since the benefits tend to correlate to bushels produced, and the smaller producers are the high cost ones, that's not the entire answer. Another part of the answer is the older farmers, who have no mortgage, have low out-of-pocket ownership costs for land. That makes a big, big difference. To economist, someone with a million dollars worth of land (which is a smallish field crop farmer these days) needs to account for the cost of that land capital. But to a farmer, cash flow is critical. The fact he could sell out and get $40,000 a year by investing the proceeds is irrelevant.
Monday, February 13, 2006
The Limits of Libertarianism
I don't know for sure, but I'd consider Ben Stein to be a libertarian type conservative, believing in the virtues of free markets and less government. But current events strain his convictions, as witness yesterday's column in the Times:New Front: Protecting America's Investors.
He writes on executive compensation in Delphi and United Airlines, cites his father-in-law's war medals, then segues to this--
He writes on executive compensation in Delphi and United Airlines, cites his father-in-law's war medals, then segues to this--
"But my favorite communication, the one that made me stay up nights, was from a United States Army sergeant who has done two combat tours in Iraq and two more in Afghanistan, and is now home in Georgia training others to serve in those wars. I have been pals with this man for a couple of years now, and we talk on the phone. He has been following my articles online, and he simply asked, 'Was this what I was fighting for in Iraq?'He concludes with a message from another soldier, making the same point, that the America of Kenny Boy and Tyco isn't an America she feels comfortable fighting for.
The question haunts me, not only because of UAL and Delphi, but also because there is something deeply broken about the corporate system in America. Long ago, my pop was pals with Harlow H. Curtice, the president of General Motors in its glory days in the 1950's. Mr. Curtice presided over a spectacularly powerful and profitable G.M.
For that, in his peak year as I recall from my youth, he was paid about $400,000 plus a special superbonus of $400,000, which made him one of the highest-paid executives in America. At that time, a line worker with overtime might have made $10,000 a year. In those days, that differential was considered very large — very roughly 40 times the assembly line worker's pay, without bonus; very roughly 80 times with bonus. A differential of more like 10 to 20 times was more the norm.
Now C.E.O.'s routinely take home hundreds of times what the average worker is paid, whether or not the company is doing well. The graph for the pay of C.E.O.'s is a vertical line in the last five years. The graph for workers' pay is a flat line — in every sense.
Now, my fellow free-market fans may well say: 'Hey, stop your whining. This is the free market at work.' Only it isn't the free market at work. It's a kleptocracy at work. (I am indebted to another of my correspondents for the word.) What's happening here is that the governance system for many — by no means all — corporations has simply stopped working."
Saturday, February 11, 2006
If All Else Fails, Read the Manual
I should know better. I sent off a message to Blogger complaining, actually two messages, about missing posts. Then I read their help messages, tried Internet Explorer (instead of Firefox), found that the website worked fine in IE, went to Firefox and cleared the cache per Blogger's instructions and it works fine in Firefox.
Self, read the damn manual.
Self, read the damn manual.
Immigrants Get Houses
The Post has an interesting article on how recent Hispanic immigrants are buying houses in
American Dreams, Realized:
American Dreams, Realized:
"The Teoses and many other immigrants see their homes as the physical manifestation of the hope that they carried with them upon arrival in the United States. Home equity accounts for two-thirds of the average net worth of Hispanic households, studies show. According to 2000 Cenus data, 41.2 percent of Latin American immigrants own homes and other real estate, up from 38 percent in 1997.The theme seems to be people taking advantage of opportunities. My impression is that homeowning is also furthered because families, relatives, and friends share houses, thus combining incomes and because immigrants can get good deals on home repairs (they know someone who does the work and can and will do a job on the side cheaply).
In the Washington area, Latin immigrants have become active real estate investors with rental properties and well-thought-out strategies, said Jose Luis Semidey, president of the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals in Northern Virginia and of the Vienna real estate firm ERA Semidey & Associates. Last year, Semidey's company sold 900 homes; 90 percent of his clients were Latino.
'Our community has been changing, but people have not been realizing that. We are very entrepreneurial, with a lot of expendable income,' Semidey said. 'We are here. We are here to stay. We want to progress and to be successful.'"
Friday, February 10, 2006
Revamping Bureaucracies
An earlier post and comments on the Farm Service Agency leads to broader consideration of how you revamp an old bureaucracy.
Via Kevin Drum (Washington Monthly) is a link to a proposed alternative to Rumsfeld's Quadrennial Defense Review. Rummy wants more special forces, but doesn't cut major weapons systems, even though there's no military threat to us in the world.The difference is that Oracle's workers have nowhere to go, while the DOD programs (and the FSA offices) are supported by Congress. And of course, there's no Representative from Russia to tell Secretary Rice to what to do. A Senator Helms can play hob with the way an administration wants to run foreign policy, but there's lots more freedom in managing posts in foreign countries.
Meanwhile the State Department is revamping its overseas posts--from today's Post: U.S. to Shift Envoys to China, India: "China and India have emerged as the big winners -- and Russia and Germany as the top losers -- in the first round of a broad restructuring of U.S. diplomatic posts ordered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice."
Oracle is firing 2,000 workers after its takeover of Siebel. (Seems like just yesterday they took over Peoplesoft--what happened to the monopoly concerns?)
Searching for the Right Parallels to Cartoons
I posted yesterday agreeing that a parallel to cartoons of Mohammed was the burning of the flag. I post today to disagree with Martin Peretz in The New Republic (registration required).
I was brought up to be sensitive to others' feelings, but as a liberal I believe in equal opportunity for everyone to offend everyone.
I don't agree with his specifics. Offensive cartoons of Jews, whether of Anne Frank or whoever, are parallel to offensive cartoons of Muslims (or Lutherans [by the way, a Lutheran would believe in Christ and God]. Offensive cartoons of U.S. Presidents are parallel to offensive cartoons of Saddam Hussein or the ayatollah. An offensive cartoon of Moses or Abraham or God would parallel one of Mohammed.
What the cartoons have revealed: "Muslims are just plain forbidden from depicting the prophet. So, let them not depict him. But Christians and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists are not prohibited, and I assume that the Danish cartoonists were not Muslims but Lutherans (an overwhelming majority of whom assert that they do not believe in God) or from that cool breed of Scandinavian rationalists. Another cartoon shows the prophet greeting some martyrs at the entrance to heaven, and he shouts to them, 'Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins.' When you compare the most offensive of these caricatures to the vile and inciting images of Jews routinely shown on government-owned television all over the Muslim world (forget about the ugly role of caricature in the long history of Christian anti-Semitism) you wonder what all the fuss is about. OK, Bill Clinton doesn't wonder. He's referred to them as 'these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam,' although I myself doubt whether he's ever bothered to look at them. Is he for free expression or for that sloppy multiculturalism that forbids you from raising anyone's hackles? This is the liberal's dilemma. By the way, a European-Arab website--in retaliation, I suppose--has just put out a cartoon showing Anne Frank and Hitler in bed."
I was brought up to be sensitive to others' feelings, but as a liberal I believe in equal opportunity for everyone to offend everyone.
Blogger Problems--Apologies for Duplication
Blogger was having some problems republishing its blogs. That appears to have resulted in two duplicate posts here but I'm not able to delete the duplicates. My apologies.
There also appears to be a problem in counting comments--there's a comment on the FSA post
but the count shows "zero".
Maybe it's time to look at Typepad??
There also appears to be a problem in counting comments--there's a comment on the FSA post
but the count shows "zero".
Maybe it's time to look at Typepad??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)