Ta-Nehesi Coates blogs about the Chris Hayes book on meritocracy, which I have to read sometime. I gather part of the thesis is the growth of exams at every stage along the line of bringing up kids--NYC parents even have their pre-K kids tested because getting into the right nursery school leads to the right k-6 school, and so on and so on. And Hayes says meritocracies become oligarchies--the children of meritocrats become good on tests themselves.
As I commented, the rise of the civil service in 1883 meant a diminishing of the influence of politics, patronage, and fraud, which was mostly good. And the military is pretty meritocratic: everyone starts as an E-1 or O-1, except maybe lawyers, doctors, and ministers.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Charitable Giving
The state of Utah gives over 10 percent of income to charity. That's from this interactive website which allows you to search down to ZIP code.
Richest Adherents of Religion
It seems that adherents of Judaism tend to have the most money, but adherents of Hinduism are close behingd.
Monday, August 27, 2012
A Famous Fed
Tom Shoop at Government Executive notes Neil Armstrong was a federal employee. I won't claim him as a bureaucrat, though.
Why Do Farmers Deserve Federal Help?
My title is a question which is often asked, particularly by fiscal conservatives and free market types. Why help farmers when we don't help restaurants or dry cleaners or other small businesses which fail.
The simple answer is: they don't deserve Federal help..
But simple is often wrong.
The heart tugging answer is: family farms are the cornerstone of the country.
But that's easy emotion, based on an agrarian myth which doesn't work these days.While most field crops are still grown on family farms, even though the family may be a corporation or partnership, those families are spread rather thinly over the landscape, so rural churches and organizations are at best on life support. See Prof. Putnam's Bowling Alone.
The historical answer is: because they used to have lots of political power and they still have enough to get legislation passed.
But that answer isn't one of principle, it's one of power: farmers deserve help because they're powerful enough to get it.
So is there an answer which is principled, or at least plausibly principled?
Yes, I think so. You start with the idea that we're one nation, one society, and part of that means we care for each other. You add in the contrary principle that we believe in freedom and the market, so people should stand on their own two feet. The free market principle says we shouldn't keep restaurants from failing (which they do at very high rates) because their success or failure is market-driven. There are exceptions, of course: when the oil well blew out in the Gulf, BP and we compensated the businesses hurt by the oil spill. When a hurricane comes through, FEMA will help to rebuild. Those exceptions serve to clarify the rule: when success or failure is due to the efforts of the individual operating within the constraints of the free market, then no federal help is warranted. So if the failure is from exogenous causes, events outside the system, then one can argue for federal aid. Hence the long history of disaster aid, which gradually has consolidated into crop insuance.
Going further, I can argue for help based on the structure of the market system in which farmers find themselves, or at least found themselves in the past. As commodity producers with no power to set prices, they were at the mercy of the market. (Airlines are also commodity producers with no power to set prices individually, but they're so few of them they can signal each other when they're ready to raise prices. Even so, I understand over its history the airline industry has never made a net profit.) Consequently it was justified for the government to use its power to permit cartels to be formed, as in the "marketing orders" for various fruits and vegetables and the classical production adjustment programs of the last century.
For the last argument, I can question whether, with modern means of information and marketing, hedging the risks, government intervention is still required. It is true, I think, a disaster like this year's drought will cause oscillations in the supply/demand for field crops next year.
The simple answer is: they don't deserve Federal help..
But simple is often wrong.
The heart tugging answer is: family farms are the cornerstone of the country.
But that's easy emotion, based on an agrarian myth which doesn't work these days.While most field crops are still grown on family farms, even though the family may be a corporation or partnership, those families are spread rather thinly over the landscape, so rural churches and organizations are at best on life support. See Prof. Putnam's Bowling Alone.
The historical answer is: because they used to have lots of political power and they still have enough to get legislation passed.
But that answer isn't one of principle, it's one of power: farmers deserve help because they're powerful enough to get it.
So is there an answer which is principled, or at least plausibly principled?
Yes, I think so. You start with the idea that we're one nation, one society, and part of that means we care for each other. You add in the contrary principle that we believe in freedom and the market, so people should stand on their own two feet. The free market principle says we shouldn't keep restaurants from failing (which they do at very high rates) because their success or failure is market-driven. There are exceptions, of course: when the oil well blew out in the Gulf, BP and we compensated the businesses hurt by the oil spill. When a hurricane comes through, FEMA will help to rebuild. Those exceptions serve to clarify the rule: when success or failure is due to the efforts of the individual operating within the constraints of the free market, then no federal help is warranted. So if the failure is from exogenous causes, events outside the system, then one can argue for federal aid. Hence the long history of disaster aid, which gradually has consolidated into crop insuance.
Going further, I can argue for help based on the structure of the market system in which farmers find themselves, or at least found themselves in the past. As commodity producers with no power to set prices, they were at the mercy of the market. (Airlines are also commodity producers with no power to set prices individually, but they're so few of them they can signal each other when they're ready to raise prices. Even so, I understand over its history the airline industry has never made a net profit.) Consequently it was justified for the government to use its power to permit cartels to be formed, as in the "marketing orders" for various fruits and vegetables and the classical production adjustment programs of the last century.
For the last argument, I can question whether, with modern means of information and marketing, hedging the risks, government intervention is still required. It is true, I think, a disaster like this year's drought will cause oscillations in the supply/demand for field crops next year.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
The Northern Sea Route and Global Warming
This article from Iceland reports the arrival of the Chinese icebreaker Xuelong which took the "Northern Sea Route" from China--i.e. going through the Arctic Ocean across the top of Russia.
Searching on "Northern Sea Route" gets this report: "Cargo shipping along the Northern Sea Route is expected to double this year. Nordic Bulk Carriers plan to transport 6-8 shipments of ore from Murmansk to China."
Searching on "Northern Sea Route" gets this report: "Cargo shipping along the Northern Sea Route is expected to double this year. Nordic Bulk Carriers plan to transport 6-8 shipments of ore from Murmansk to China."
Farmers: Why Vote for Obama?
Perhaps two reasons: to punish Republicans in the House for not moving the farm bill and because Obama seems more favorable to immigration of farm workers than the Republicans.
Not that I'm predicting any Obama victories because of this, though Harry Truman won in part because of farmer opposition to the Republican farm policy proposals.
Not that I'm predicting any Obama victories because of this, though Harry Truman won in part because of farmer opposition to the Republican farm policy proposals.
Friday, August 24, 2012
NASCOE--A Friend at AEI?
After this beginning, I'm surprised that this guest at the American Enterprise Institute comes out somewhat friendly to NASCOE:
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency (FSA) is often described as overstaffed and inefficiently structured for its mission, which is to deliver and monitor a variety of federal subsidy and conservation programs"Hint: he likes crop insurance just as little.
The Changing Country Scene: Aldie Country Store
Aldie is a little country town on Route 50 west of here. Emily Wax has a nice article in the Post today on the changes the country store has seen over the years: notably the people running it now are a Hindu couple who employ a Hindu vegetarian to cook their barbecue.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Reason from the Conservatives
Occasionally the conservatives write true things. This is one--the wrong side absolutely must not win this election. and another
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)