Reading Abundance, the Future is Better Than You Think, by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler. It's an easy read, bringing into one place descriptions of a lot of the recent innovations which the authors believe will make the future better than the present.
Unfortunately, from my view, because they cover so much ground, everything from 3-D printing to DIY bioengineering to agriculture, they fall victim to some fads, including Despommiers and his vertical farming. In the appendices they include references for some of the ideas found in the text: for vertical farming it's a url from www.the-edison-lightbulb.com, a website containing ideas mostly from the young. The vertical farming bit is a Chicago fifth graders pitch for vertical farming. Pretty sad.
Having dissed that portion of the book, the bulk of it is a fast overview of all the reasons to be optimistic about everything. I strongly recommend it if you're depressed about the future, though I wouldn't bet on the accuracy of any specific ino. (Diamandis offered the "X Prize" for private spaceships.)
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Price Loss Coverage III
Okay, finally read the farm bill as of July 9 (link) re: price loss coverage.(See previous post here.)
The provision:
The line numbers carry over in the copy process. There's two considerations in determining acreage accuracy: (1) potentially exceeding a limit, which is what my previous posts discussed; (2) the accuracy of payment acreage. Based on the above, I was wrong on (1)--there's no program limit to be violated. The only thing which looks like a limit is the farm base acreage, but if it's exceeded you just prorate out, so no big deal.
(2) however looks a bit different. If I under report my planted acreage, I get less payment, so no harm to the program. But if I over report, because my payments are calculated on planted acreage, there's overpayment, so FSA would need to handle that and deter such over reporting.
The provision would mean that reports of planted acreage are needed, which was a big battle back in Freedom to Farm days (bureaucrats always worry about workload).
The provision:
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
13 subparagraphs (B) through (D), the term ‘‘pay-
14 ment acres’’, with respect to the provision of
15 price loss coverage payments and revenue loss
16 coverage payments, means—
17 (i) 85 percent of total acres planted
18 for the year to each covered commodity on
19 a farm; and
20 (ii) 30 percent of approved total acres
21 prevented from being planted for the year to each covered commodity on a farm.
23 (B) MAXIMUM.—The total quantity of pay24
ment acres determined under subparagraph (A)
25 shall not exceed the farm base acres.
(C) REDUCTION.—If the sum of all pay
2 ment acres for a farm exceeds the limits estab
3 lished under subparagraph (B), the Secretary
4 shall reduce the payment acres applicable to
5 each crop proportionately.
6 (D) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘‘payment
7 acres’’ does not include any crop subsequently
8 planted during the same crop year on the same
9 land for which the first crop is eligible for pay10
ments under this subtitle, unless the crop was
crop was
11 approved for double cropping in the county, as
12 determined by the Secretary.
The line numbers carry over in the copy process. There's two considerations in determining acreage accuracy: (1) potentially exceeding a limit, which is what my previous posts discussed; (2) the accuracy of payment acreage. Based on the above, I was wrong on (1)--there's no program limit to be violated. The only thing which looks like a limit is the farm base acreage, but if it's exceeded you just prorate out, so no big deal.
(2) however looks a bit different. If I under report my planted acreage, I get less payment, so no harm to the program. But if I over report, because my payments are calculated on planted acreage, there's overpayment, so FSA would need to handle that and deter such over reporting.
The provision would mean that reports of planted acreage are needed, which was a big battle back in Freedom to Farm days (bureaucrats always worry about workload).
20 Percent of Farmers Have Their Rear Hanging Out
That's the message I take from this Illinois extension piece on crop insurance coverage in IL. It will be a big test: can politicians resist the pleas of the 20 percent uninsured for some federal help.
Billions and Billions and...
That's not Carl Sagan and stars (though he didn't really say that), it's Stu Ellis and crop insurance indemnities in this Farmgate piece.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Price Loss Coverage II
Still too lazy to read the text of the bill, but I got to thinking on my way to the garden. When I moved to the production adjustment side of ASCS, we had programs which limited the planted acreage to some figure. I'm not sure when that changed and how drastically it did.
Assume with me that since 1997 FSA hasn't been enforcing any acreage limitations--that may be true, may not be. Back in the day we had "measurement variance", which recognized the ways we determined acreages were not 100 percent accurate. If you ran the planimeter on your aerial photography, you might be off a tad. And we also had a "tolerance" figure, which recognized the farmer might be trying to limit her planted acreage to the exact figure, but wouldn't have the tools to be exact. Roughly speaking, if the farmer were supposed to plant only 100 acres of corn and he planted 103 acres, he was probably "within tolerance" and in full compliance with the program.
Finally we had "failure to fully comply". If you the farmer planted more than you were supposed to by more than the tolerance (say 106 acres), then the county committee had to determine whether you were acting in "good faith". If you were, the payment would be reduced. If you weren't, you were ineligible.
I recite these provisions first because they fascinated me as I tried to figure them out. My co-workers had all come from county offices so they had absorbed the provisions; I had to figure out their logic and how they related.
The provisions are interesting because, if there is no limit, as there hasn't been for a while (think I'm safe in saying that), they all go away. But if the Price Loss Coverage program, which seems to reinstate a limit, the situation may change.
Damn, I really need to read the bill's language.
[Updated: this may be interesting as history, but probably inapplicable to the proposed program. More to follow]
Assume with me that since 1997 FSA hasn't been enforcing any acreage limitations--that may be true, may not be. Back in the day we had "measurement variance", which recognized the ways we determined acreages were not 100 percent accurate. If you ran the planimeter on your aerial photography, you might be off a tad. And we also had a "tolerance" figure, which recognized the farmer might be trying to limit her planted acreage to the exact figure, but wouldn't have the tools to be exact. Roughly speaking, if the farmer were supposed to plant only 100 acres of corn and he planted 103 acres, he was probably "within tolerance" and in full compliance with the program.
Finally we had "failure to fully comply". If you the farmer planted more than you were supposed to by more than the tolerance (say 106 acres), then the county committee had to determine whether you were acting in "good faith". If you were, the payment would be reduced. If you weren't, you were ineligible.
I recite these provisions first because they fascinated me as I tried to figure them out. My co-workers had all come from county offices so they had absorbed the provisions; I had to figure out their logic and how they related.
The provisions are interesting because, if there is no limit, as there hasn't been for a while (think I'm safe in saying that), they all go away. But if the Price Loss Coverage program, which seems to reinstate a limit, the situation may change.
Damn, I really need to read the bill's language.
[Updated: this may be interesting as history, but probably inapplicable to the proposed program. More to follow]
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Price Loss Coverage
Been lazy so haven't looked up the actual provisions of this program as included in the House farm bill. Looks like a target price/counter cyclical type program, but based on planted (and prevented planted) acreage and with updated yields. If I get ambitious I'll do some research. It strikes me though that such a program will have problems with WTO rules--farm programs aren't supposed to encourage plantings.
Flashback Time
Ann Althouse links to a 1984 post-election piece by the Times. I was struck by these paragraphs:
As Mr. Reagan watched tallies of the vote on television, reporters asked him about the possibility of a summit meeting with the Soviet Union.I guess he did foreshadow the summit meeting at which he proposed doing away with such weapons entirely. Not something most conservatives like to remember.
''Yes,'' he said, ''it's time for us to get together and talk about a great many things and try to clear the air and suspicions between us so we can get down to the business of reducing, particularly, nuclear weapons.''
Friday, July 13, 2012
Farm Bill Progresses?
House Agriculture has passed its version of the 2012 farm bill, but speculation provided by Keith Good at Farm Policy suggests it may not get to the floor. Instead there'd be a temporary extension of current legislation and action later, after the election. Sounds likely to me--Good quotes an expert on how seldom the new farm bill is passed on time.
The problem for FSA is they don't know what to prepare to implement, the House version, the Senate version or something new which the conference committee comes up with. As the time gets tighter, the less we know.
Gee, I'm glad I'm retired.
The problem for FSA is they don't know what to prepare to implement, the House version, the Senate version or something new which the conference committee comes up with. As the time gets tighter, the less we know.
Gee, I'm glad I'm retired.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
From Favor to Process: USDA Disaster Designation
Here's yesterday's USDA press release about changes in the process for designating disaster process. One change is automatic designation for counties which are drought-affected for 8 weeks according to U.S. Drought Monitor, and the governors do not have to initiate the request.
That's one small step on the way to taking the life out of politics. In the good old days governors could make a big show of standing up for the home folks by bragging about his request for designation and blasting the Washington bureaucrats for delays in approving it. It's also a small step towards de-bureaucratization. In the bad old days the paper request from the state went to bureaucrats in the northwest corner of the South Building, the offices with the great view of the Mall, the Washington Monument, and the White House. There could be back and forth between the bureaucrats and the states, particularly when the governor's aides weren't familiar with the process. Then the paperwork would go up the line, some stopping at the Secretary's office, some going to the White House. Of course those offices could also grandstand about how they were acting to help needy, hardworking folks.
So, if I'm feeling cynical, the Obama administration cashed in a long term asset for politicians for maximal gain in this presidential election year. If I'm feeling idealistic, the administration rationalized the process and made the government more efficient and less bureaucratic. Take your pick.
That's one small step on the way to taking the life out of politics. In the good old days governors could make a big show of standing up for the home folks by bragging about his request for designation and blasting the Washington bureaucrats for delays in approving it. It's also a small step towards de-bureaucratization. In the bad old days the paper request from the state went to bureaucrats in the northwest corner of the South Building, the offices with the great view of the Mall, the Washington Monument, and the White House. There could be back and forth between the bureaucrats and the states, particularly when the governor's aides weren't familiar with the process. Then the paperwork would go up the line, some stopping at the Secretary's office, some going to the White House. Of course those offices could also grandstand about how they were acting to help needy, hardworking folks.
So, if I'm feeling cynical, the Obama administration cashed in a long term asset for politicians for maximal gain in this presidential election year. If I'm feeling idealistic, the administration rationalized the process and made the government more efficient and less bureaucratic. Take your pick.
Child Labor on the Farm
Here's a piece on the hazards of having children work on the family farm. As I often am, I'm of two minds. One thing not emphasized in the article is a recognition of the hazards of farm work. Last I knew farming was one of the more hazardous occupations in the U.S. Of course, there aren't many occupations other than farming where a child can reasonably make a contribution. I suppose a family-owned grocery or restaurant would be another, but the point remains.
And what's the value to the child of having made a contribution? I think it's great, though perhaps it's easy to romanticize. The fact that I could drive tractor, carry feed bags, or clean hen houses didn't really build my confidence in dealing with strangers. Still, it's better to know you're capable at something than not know whether you can do anything.
How good are parents at bringing children into farm work, as claimed by one person quoted? It's easy to romanticize parents, but everyone has blind spots, and it's hard to resist the wishes of a child. I might ask how good are parents at bringing children into driving cars? I think everyone would agree there's a lot of variation.
The article notes a big reduction in injuries in this century. I wonder how much is the better job farmers are doing, and how much relates to the prosperity on the farms during the 2000's, meaning old equipment has been replaced by newer, safer equipment. Look at the picture of the kid driving a 40-year old tractor. There's no roll bar to protect the driver if the tractor flips backward--it's very scary when the front wheels start lifting off the ground, though I never flipped ours.
How protective do we want society to be? I'm a firm believer in helmet laws for motorcyclists, and seat belt laws for drivers. I want off-road vehicles to be safe and regulated. And I support the child-labor laws of the last century. So I understand why people want to extend the laws, but at least today I think it's a bridge too far. At least in some contexts I believe in tradeoffs, and in this case incurring a few preventable accidents are the price I'm willing to pay for retaining child labor on the farm.
And what's the value to the child of having made a contribution? I think it's great, though perhaps it's easy to romanticize. The fact that I could drive tractor, carry feed bags, or clean hen houses didn't really build my confidence in dealing with strangers. Still, it's better to know you're capable at something than not know whether you can do anything.
How good are parents at bringing children into farm work, as claimed by one person quoted? It's easy to romanticize parents, but everyone has blind spots, and it's hard to resist the wishes of a child. I might ask how good are parents at bringing children into driving cars? I think everyone would agree there's a lot of variation.
The article notes a big reduction in injuries in this century. I wonder how much is the better job farmers are doing, and how much relates to the prosperity on the farms during the 2000's, meaning old equipment has been replaced by newer, safer equipment. Look at the picture of the kid driving a 40-year old tractor. There's no roll bar to protect the driver if the tractor flips backward--it's very scary when the front wheels start lifting off the ground, though I never flipped ours.
How protective do we want society to be? I'm a firm believer in helmet laws for motorcyclists, and seat belt laws for drivers. I want off-road vehicles to be safe and regulated. And I support the child-labor laws of the last century. So I understand why people want to extend the laws, but at least today I think it's a bridge too far. At least in some contexts I believe in tradeoffs, and in this case incurring a few preventable accidents are the price I'm willing to pay for retaining child labor on the farm.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)