When Did the "East" Become the "North"

Brad DeLong blogs the American Revolution.  Today 
he quotes Washington's letter to the Continental Congress, his second in two days, on the dire situation of his army, now camping for the winter at Valley Forge:

We have, by a field return this day made no less than 2898 Men now in Camp unfit for duty because they are bare foot and otherwise naked and by the same return it appears that our whole strength in continental Troops (Including the Eastern Brigades which have joined us since the surrender of Genl. Burgoyne)....

You should read the whole thing if you're interested in history, but what catches my interest is the reference to the "Eastern Brigades".  The context makes it apparent that he's referring to men from NY and New England, people whom we today would call "Northerners" or "Yankess".  A glance at the map shows why the reference: New England does lie to the (north)east of the mid-Atlantic states.  (Maine is still known as "downeast".)

So why and when did the "North" become the "North", rather than the "East"?  I suppose the change in terminology would be associated with the rise of sections in the new nation, perhaps even accentuating sectional tensions.

Ag Policy and Crop Insurance

An Agpolicy piece on crop insurance, somewhat stale, discussing moves to have payment limitation on insurance and cut insurance subsidies.

Armed Forces Competition in Vietnam

Was channel surfing yesterday and found a professor, author of a book on bombing in the Vietnam War, talking about his conclusion. If the house weren't so full of books now, I'd buy it.

One of his themes was the competition between the Navy and Air Force over the bombing, including sending planes against a key bridge (which took 700 sorties to bring down) with no bombs, just to add another sortie to the scorecard.  That's sick.  It's also bureaucratic.

Dehorning Cattle and GMO

We mostly dehorned our dairy cows.  Why?  For safety, both for us (dad) and for the cows.   A cow has a whole lot of strength.  Cows have different personalities: some are affectionate, some are reserved, some are plain nasty.  Pair a nasty cow with horns and you have a risk of a bad injury.  Even a nice cow might injure you; it'd be an accident but still an injury.

So we dehorned our cows.  As soon as we could feel the nubbin of the developing horn we'd apply caustic paste which would burn away the growing point.  It really hurt the calf, but it was for everyone's good.  Kill dad and the cows would go for slaughter.  Keep him healthy and the cows would have more years of life, before going to slaughter. Such is the logic of the dairy farm.

Now CRISPR, gene editing, promises to eliminate that source of pain.  All good to my mind, but it's genetic modification. See this Mother Jones article

The World Is Getting Better

Charles Kenny in the Atlantic writes on this subject, providing a number of metrics to support his case.

President Obama weighs in on 2015 here.

No End to Payment Limitation Fights

From Agri-pulse on the omnibus bill:

Cotton growers win relief from payment limit
Here are some key provisions for food and agriculture in the omnibus:
Cotton assistance - The bill would reinstate the use of commodity certificates, which provide a way around the $125,000-per-person limit on marketing loan gains and other forms of subsidies. The provision would help producers “sell their cotton on a more orderly basis, and it keeps us from having to take ownership of the cotton,” said Conaway.
The use of certificates ended in 2009 when Congress eliminated a limit on marketing loan gains. The 2014 farm bill restored a limit on marketing loan gains by including them in the $125,000 limit and didn't restore certificates. But the cotton industry argues that the $125,000 limit ($250,000 per married couple) has created challenges for individual growers while threatening to disrupt cotton marketing.

Bottom line.  Despite the actively engaged change I discussed yesterday, a well-organized interest group has ways to advance their interests which don't involve the farm bill.

Actively Engaged Regulations Finalized--Is the 30-Year Struggle Over?

FSA published the final rule on "actively engaged" in farming determinations here.

"No major changes are being made in response to comments, because FSA has determined that the comments support the definitions and requirements for ‘‘actively engaged in farming’’ specified in the proposed rule and support limiting eligibility for farm payments. Also, there was no consensus amongst the comments for any alternative payment eligibility provisions that would address the 2014 Farm Bill requirements. FSA has made minor changes from the proposed rule in this final rule to respond to commenters’requests for clarifications of certain provisions"

 With age I've diminished interest and ability in parsing FSA regulations, so I'll leave that to others.

My reference in the title of this post is to the 1985 farm bill, which I believe IIRC added the actively engaged provision to the payment limitation regulations There's been a long political fight over how to define the term.  Perhaps the fight is now ended, given the declining importance of FSA programs, and the focus will shift more to the rules on the crop insurance side?  We'll see. 

Discrimination and Who Discriminates

From a piece on a study of discrimination among Airbnb hosts:

They found remarkably consistent effects: The discrimination appeared to come from both black and white hosts, men and women, hosts renting entire properties and those sharing rooms in their homes. It came from hosts listing expensive properties as well as cheap ones. And the neighborhood didn't seem to matter either — hosts in diverse neighborhoods discriminated about as much as hosts in homogenous places.
There was one exception to this broad pattern: Black female hosts didn't appear to discriminate against black female guests.

I don't understand the exception: do black females share a feeling of sisterhood based on their race and gender--if so,why?  Is it an expectation based on church-going, that single ladies who are traveling are likely to be churchgoers and therefore okay? 

The Surprising Globalization of Pre-Revolution American Trade

My title says it all.  Boston 1775 quotes a 1765 letter from the head of the British customs service for America to his bosses, describing the implications of the protests against the Stamp Act--no stamps meant no legal exports and: 

But the Evils necessarily occasioned by a Stop to the internal business and Police of the Colonies, are not equal to the Consequences of shutting up their Ports at this season of the year—permit me briefly to enumerate a few of them.

Thousands of Seamen and Others whose sole Dependance is on Navigation not only rendered Useless to their Country but deprived of the Means of Subsistance, Provisions for which there are at this time large Orders, particularly for Corn for France, Spain, Portugal, the Mediterranean &c. must perish on hand, while famin may spread itself through our West India Islands by being suddenly cut of from their usual Supplies; Ireland would be greatly distressed by the Want of flax seed from hence, on which her linen Manufacture depends; Other Articles of Produce by which Remittances may be made to Britain detained in the Country—the Revenue lessened, and trade and Navigation the Source of Wealth and the Support of a Maritime and Commercial Nation, entirely stopped, which must be attended with Ruin to Multitudes and distress to All

 Go to Boston 1775 for a series of posts describing the events as the Stamp Act was adopted, protested, and eventually disposed of.

Technological Advances and Mass Shootings

Tyler Cowen asked why the increase in mass shootings over the last 50 years or so.  He elicited a lot of comments.  I suggested there was a gain in available firepower over the years.  That in the 1960's you saw a lot of revolvers.  Even pistols didn't have big magazines.  And rifles were mostly hunting rifles.  So a shooter had more difficulty in getting a lot of shots off in a short period of time.  One of the most deadly mass shooters in our history was the Texas man, who used a rifle from a library tower, quite different setup than our usual scenario these days.


I got some push back but nothing which convinces me.  The changes in the weapons which are available don't cause mass shootings, but they make them more feasible.

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760