History and Food, a Dissenting View

John Phipps recommends this article by a historian who challenges some foodie myths; I concur. It's good, although she paints with too broad a brush.  It's true that the rural residents in past realms didn't eat well, just look at the diet of black Americans in the ante-bellum South.  "High on the hog" implies a "low on the hog". But it's true some areas in some times ate well.  Colonial Pennsylvanians were significantly taller on average than the British troops who opposed them in the Revolution.  That's nit-picking, though.  The article is worth reading by anyone interested in food.

What Costs the Most, Labor to Make a Car or Wheat to Make Bread

According to this: "First, labor only accounts for only about 7 percent of the cost of a car." Interview with Steven Rattner quoted at Ezra Klein.

That surprising fact reminds me of a similar observation:: "A $2.59 loaf of white bread contains 14 cents worth of wheat."  That won't prevent bakers from raising prices based on higher wheat prices.

I Tip Well, Because I Had Food Service Experience

As such, I fit the result of a study described here.

What are the proverbs about walking a mile in the other person's shoes?  Not that I ever got tips, but serving food in a college dormitory is an educational experience.

This Must Be Wrong, Though Tyler Cowan Cites It

Marginal revolution refers to this paper (it's not free, so I'm not getting it):

This paper investigates the institutional causes of China’s Great Famine. It presents two empirical findings: 1) in 1959, when the famine began, food production was almost three times more than population subsistence needs; and 2) regions with higher per capita food production that year suffered higher famine mortality rates, a surprising reversal of a typically negative correlation. A simple model based on historical institutional details shows that these patterns are consistent with the policy outcomes in a centrally planned economy in which the government is unable to easily collect and respond to new information in the presence of an aggregate shock to production.

I can't believe the first sentence: a country of some 500-600 million people had food sufficient for 1.5 billion? No way, no how. [Update: according to Wikipedia, food production in 59-60 was 70 percent of pre-famine levels.]

Our Weak Federal Government

From a Post story today comes another reminder of why I firmly believe our Federal government is weak. The story is about the problems states face in implementing the health care law.  Lots of people in 50 states plus the territories have to do lots of different things.  That's because HHS won't deal directly with health care providers or the public, all the dealing is done via the medium of the states and their departments. 

I say "they won't deal directly" but that's only partially true.  Go to healthcare.gov and you'll find explanations of the new rules.  But, and it's an important but, prominent in the upper left of the page is a box: "Pick Your State", because the stuff which really matters is dependent on the decisions made by governors and state legislatures, and implemented, or not, by the state healthcare bureaucracy.

By compare, in a bureaucracy like FSA, the federal bureaucracy is dealing directly with farmers, through the medium of county offices.  Granted, that simple statement hides a bunch of complexity, but if you're going to have fast and efficient implementation of decisions, that's the way you go.  As a nation, however, we think it's better to waste time and money in favor of giving more power to state and local levels.  We feel that will improve the quality of the decisions being implemented.  

Over at the NYTimes Tom Friedman has a column on the differences between China and the U.S., noting they're able to build impressive things in a short time, while we take years and years to do things, like build at Ground Zero.  Or India, another democracy, which is having problems building the infrastructure for the Commonwealth Games, as compared to China's preparations for the Olympics. 

A Funny Site? Not for a Farmer

For some reason, Professor Soltan at University Diaries thinks this is a funny site, at least that's my inference.

The Cotton Wife Is in the Money Now

I love her pictures, even though they load slow......ly. Her husband is picking cotton now, and this shows the process. (Just an aside: compare what's shown with historical photos of people, usually black, in the fields picking cotton.) I observe that the price of cotton is now up, close to $1, which is about a historical high, the result of bad floods in China which is the biggest producer.  That's a change from the years and years when the price was in the $.55-.60 neighborhood, so we can assume that the Cotton Wife and her cute redheaded kids (usually featured in her photos) will enjoy a good Christmas.

Symptoms of Growing Old

When you and your wife go from sharing a pitcher of beer, to drinking a beer each and splitting a third, to skipping the third.

When you go from drinking a pot of coffee of leaded  to a partial pot, to a partial pot that's half decaf, half the good stuff.

When you go from Starbucks vente bold to Starbucks half and half.

Who Says Educational Standards Have Gone to Hell?

At Tufts, Dan Drezner is teaching Thucydides.  He has an interesting post, including a long quote from the historian, from which I'll excerpt two sentences:

"Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any."

Tea Party Candidate: Country Was Better Off Under Democrat

From a story on the Republican candidate for Senate in Alaska, who received farm program payments in Kansas during part of the 1990's:

"DeSoto [Miller's spokesman] said that it was standard practice for farmers to receive the subsidies in Kansas and that the nation was in a much better financial situation at the time that Miller received the funds.

“This was back in the 90’s, the situation the country was in was far different than now,” he said."

In all fairness to Miller, DeSoto is right.  Miller bought a quarter section while he was in the Army and must have leased it on shares to the farm operator, thereby qualifying for payments (probably deficiency payments). The operator would have enrolled the farm, although Miller would have had to sign the contract to receive the payments.  

And of course DeSoto is absolutely right, the country was in much better shape under Clinton than it was under Bush.



As for the other story linked to, on Mudflats, (saying Miller got payments on some Alaska land, which the spokesman denied), that story links to the Environmental Working Group's farm subsidy database. Even in Alaska there may be multiple Joe Millers.   There's a discrepancy; the spokesman says Miller owned Alaska land since 1999, but the EWG data shows payments since 1995, some barley direct and DFC payments (which might or might not mean barley was being grown in those years), some marketing loan payments (which would require barley to be grown) and some agricultural conservation program (long term agreement) payments.  If the Joe Miller in the EWG is the same as the candidate and he bought the land in 1999, he possibly would have gotten an obligation under the ACP LTA when he bought, although a new owner might have the opportunity to terminate an agreement.