Changing Times--History

Walter Jeffries at Sugar Mountain Farm has a post about the ruins to be found on the mountain--not Indian but the remnants of life from the 19th century. It's all too easy to assume that history is a linear progress (there were even paintings from the 19th century showing the "march of progress", from wilderness to settled civilization). But, at least in the U.S., it's an ebb and flow.

Markets, Revisited

Ann Althouse provides a set of Fox News videos, showing the wisdom of the mavens of the financial markets (as compared to one Peter Shiff).

Competition and Free Markets and Rationality

Two pieces in the NY Times today relating to a market-based economy.

Robert FRank writes on whether competition in free markets does away with discrimination. He argues, it doesn't, except in cases where the markets are very good and very competitive. That may have been the case in the 2008 election. He cites Jackie Robinson as a case

"During Mr. Robinson’s 10-year career with the team, the Dodgers went to six World Series and he was voted to the National League All-Star team six times. In retirement, he was elected to Baseball’s Hall of Fame on the first ballot. Shortly after Mr. Robinson’s arrival in the major leagues, it became clear to all that failure to field the best possible team, irrespective of color, was a sure recipe for failure."

As a youthful Yankees fan (who only knew his older sister rooted for the Dodgers), I beg to differ--the Yankees mostly beat the Dodgers, despite Jackie (and Roy, and Junior, and Newk, et. al) in the Series throughout the 40's and 50's, even though they were very late to integrate their team. So it wasn't "clear to all" at the time. And irrational prejudice overrode reason.

And in the Week in Review, there's an article discussing research on the role of testosterone and cortisol (i.e., maleness) in the ups and downs of market. An academic believes "raging hormones might explain why the men who rule the global markets send them rocketing up when they’re on a roll, and swooping down when they get scared, exhibiting judgment that can remind you of the guys in an Adam Sandler movie."

Makes sense to me.

Transparency in Government II

John Dickerson of Slate is dubious over Obama's transparency promises, particularly his Saturday video broadcast.

The bottom line is few people (outside of the relevant bureaucrats and lobbyists and interest groups) are really interested in the nitty-gritty of government. I'm not aware C-Span puts up high ratings. In terms of feeding the beast, any government has to hope to catch the attention of filters, whether a news media type, or now a blogger type, which can start to amplify the information.

FSA Is Better Than EU

At administering farm program payments and getting them accurate. At least, that's a possible conclusion from this quote:

As Wyn Grant has observed, the Court of Auditors annual report on the 2007 EU budget published on Monday identified a clutch of weaknesses associated with the controls on spending on EU farm policies. The Court observes that “Some 20 percent of payments audited at final beneficiary level and revealed incorrect payments, a limited number of which had a high financial impact.” It concludes that farm subsidies remained “affected by a material level of error of legality and/or regularity”.

In its worst days, FSA never had that high a rate of erroneous payments (and even that was partially a matter of definition).

On Whole Foods

My investment in Whole Foods looks sicker by the moment. And the idea that as times become harder people will pay a premium for better food is foolish as well. But there's a straw of hope, in this post from Treehugger

Transparency in Government

Slate has a good post summarizing 10 ways in which Obama can make government more transparent (drawn from various think-tank proposals), and the drawbacks of each. Because I've blogged in the past about transparency, I feel an obligation to comment on some of Slate's comments.

2. Lobbyist disclosure. I favor disclosure, but not prohibitions. (There was a piece in the paper, perhaps the Post, this week reporting academic research that said lobbyists gave the most money to the committee members who asked the best (i.e., not grandstanding) questions in committee hearings.

3. Broadcast cabinet meetings. That's idiotic. Not broadcasting, but the idea of having cabinet meetings. The meetings which matter are not formal meetings of the full cabinet, but the meetings the cabinet member has with the director of OMB at budget time, the meetings the President has with his staff, with maybe one or two Cabinet secretaries.

5. Get rid of pseudo classifications. I agree. Each piece of paper should have two attributes: its bureaucratic distribution (i.e., Eye-only, etc.) and its classification level.

6 Make all filings electronic. Yes. Also all documents.

How Congress Works

By smoke and mirrors and stuff buried in the weeds. The POGO blog has a post describing what happened over 20 years ago. To save money, Congress changed the formula for determining hourly wages for CS employees from dividing by 2080 hours in a year to dividing by 2087. (2080 would be 52 weeks in a year, or 364 days in a year. 2087 allows for the 365th and 366th days.) So the change was more accurate, but it had the effect of lowering hourly rates, which would slightly lower budget expenses. The thing is, they've allowed government contractors to use the 2080 figure all along, which POGO objects to.

Nickels and dimes over years add up to real money (although not by Sen. Dirksen's definition).

On Being Too Brief

I assume the writer, or at least the sources, know better than this:

For instance, nitrogen—which comes from fertilizers—in the form of nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

I'm no chemist but nitrogen, if I remember, is about 80 percent of the atmosphere. And "nitrogen" fertilizer is not nitrogen, but nitrates (that's why it takes energy to make chemical fertilizer). Wikipedia may be reliable,, or not:

Nitrous oxide is emitted by bacteria in soils and oceans, and thus has been a part of Earth's atmosphere for eons. Agriculture is the main source of human-produced nitrous oxide: cultivating soil, the use of nitrogen fertilizers, and animal waste handling can all stimulate naturally occurring bacteria to produce more nitrous oxide. The livestock sector (primarily cows, chickens, and pigs) produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide. ^[1] Industrial sources make up only about 20% of all anthropogenic sources, and include the production of nylon and nitric acid, and the burning of fossil fuel in internal combustion engines. Human activity is thought to account for somewhat less than 2 teragrams of nitrogen oxides per year, nature for over 15 teragrams.^[2]

If I understand, chemical "nitrogen" fertilizers are mostly anhydrous ammonia, ammonia nitrate, and urea.

May Farmers and FSA Live in Interesting Times

John Phipps notes the problems of the ACRE program--handling a multi-year program contract when cash leases can change year to year. And Uof Illinois's farmgate has a discussion of the problems in getting lease terms which are fair to both owner and leasor. Things don't get any easier for FSA, or farmers.