Eggs: the Vindication of My Mother on Her Birthday

The Post has an article today on the increased consumption of eggs along with the revival of their reputation, recovering from concerns about dietary cholesterol.

My mother died shortly after her birthday, which was March 1, 1898, some 30 years ago.  She had an origin story for her chickens: dad came home one day in the 20's or 30's, not clear which, and said they were going to add chickens to their small dairy operation.  The way she told the story she clearly was not happy about the decision.  But she lived with it, and  she became a fierce partisan of small flocks.  She griped about "city folks" coming out and going into the egg business when prices were good which created an oversupply and depressed the prices.

Given our supply of eggs, naturally we ate eggs for breakfast regularly (unless she did pancakes or french toast).  2 eggs a piece for dad and me, perhaps less for my sister who never would eat as well as mom wanted her to.

IIRC the 1960's saw the big concerns about cholesterol and a focus on eggs as one factor in arteriosclerosis.  That made my mother vent.  Eggs were the "perfect food". (You can google the phrase and find that is trending,.)  She was very defensive. I ddn't dare tell her I'd gradually lost the 2 eggs for breakfast habit over the years.

Happy birthday Mom--you were right all along.

Deja Vu All Over: India vs Pakistan

It was 40+* years ago that India and Pakistan last fought a war,, but in my youth such conflicts, and the rumors and threats of conflicts, were a constant in international affairs. 

*  It turns out it's just 20 years, at least according to Wikipedia--there was a 1999 conflict in Kargil.  They count 4 wars, and innumerable confrontations and conflicts of a lesser nature.

It seems there are fewer such conflicts since the end of the Cold War--not sure there's any causal relationship but 1989 is a convenient date.  Obviously there's Iraq I and Iraq II and Agfhanistan forever but I buy Steven Pinker's thesis of a gradual decrease in violence over the ages.

Korean War--Who Fought

Feeling nitpicky today so this Times piece upset me.  It's a discussion of Vietnam and Korea relationships, quite good in most resspects.  But this:

Vietnam’s ties with North Korea were strengthened during the Vietnam War, when North Korea dispatched dozens of fighter pilots to combat the Americans. At least 14 North Korean military personnel were killed in action in Vietnam. (About 300,000 South Koreans fought on the American side.)

What's wrong? The last sentence.

Those of us old enough to remember know that technically the United Nations fought against the North Koreans and later the Chinese.  (The Soviets had been boycotting the Security Council so were not around to veto a resolution authorizing UN action against the invaders.)   It was a UN coalition fighting, including British and Turkish troops as I remember it.  (Wikipedia) 

But what really jars is the idea that South Korea fought on the American side.  The war was sold to the U.S. and UN as a fight against the North Korean invaders in which the UN was coming to the aid of South Korea, so we were fighting on South Korea's side.  Since then there have been challenges to that narrative by some historians, but I think the consensus still generally supports the original take on the situation.

Nixon: China::Trump: North Korea?

"Who lost China?" was a cry of right wing politicians in my youth.  It referred to the Chinexe Communist victory in their civil war with the Kuomingtaing, which eventually fled to Taiwan to rule there for some decades.  The allegation was that communists and pinkos in the State Department had undermined the the Chiang Kai-shek regime and weakened our support for him.

After the Communists took over the mainland we refused to recognize their regime, and kept them out of the UN.  That was a cornerstone of American foreign policy for 25 years.  No Democratic president or candidate could afford to propose to recognize the Reds, for fear of being "soft" (much like being "soft on crime" in a somewhat later time frame.

Then came Nixon, and Kissinger.  Despite much criticism from the right (Bill Buckley et. al) they were able to recognize China simply because Nixon's history gave him credentials as anti-communist.  Jimmy Carter completed the job of de-recognizing Taiwan and exchanging ambassadors with the People's Republic of China.

I wonder wherher there is a parallel between Trump and Nixon vis a vis North Korea.  As with China, our North Korean foreign policy has been mostly frozen in stone for 65 years. There have been attempts at breakthroughs; Clinton came the closest but he couldn't get enough support to fully carry out his agreement so it teetered and then collapsed, with GWBush finally killing it. 

As with China, there's a vocal group attacking any attempt to normalize relations.  Also as with China, there are geopolitical game-playing reasons not to deal; I mean the idea that a deal undermines policies (non-proliferation and human rights) we generally support and can't be seen to back away from.

Trump in many ways is Nixon's opposite in terms of style and decision making process, but it's possible that he ends up making a poor deal with North Korea, "poor" at least in the view of the policy establishment who've spent their careers on the issues, but a deal which over a period of time turns out to be acceptable to the US and the world.  If "period of time" is less than 18 months, such a deal might be enough to re-elect him.

Wisconsin Dairy

Here's a good  piece on the Wisconsin dairy situation, more in detail than many media reports. Many farmers going out of business, other farmers expanding their herds so the number of farms is way down (close to half in 4 years) but the number of cows is about even.  What strikes me is even though herds have doubled in size, they're still below 200 cows per herd average.  None of the Wisconsin counties are in the top 13 counties in the US in production (most are California), likely mostly because the big dairies (1,000+ ) aren't  in Wisconsin.

I suspect from a birdseye view the same forces which are leading to the big increase in the income of the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent are also leading to the big increase in the size of dairy herds and the big increase in the value of the top companies in the US.  That's just a hunch, without supporting arguments now, maybe later.

Brazil Grows Two Corn Crops?

Who knew that?  Saw a reference to it, probably from John Phipps or Chris Clayton's feed.  Here's the brief description:

Brazil’s second corn crop, or safrinha, has gained attention in world markets because this year’s dry growing season likely hurt yields. Safrinha corn accounts for about 65% of the country’s corn production.

It's planted in January to March after early-crop soybeans are harvested.  

The fact it's doable on a massive scale suggests to me Brazil has an advantage over US farmers, who are limited in their doublecropping to soybeans after wheat, mostly.   Of course, with global warming we may be able to change that in the future.  We still have an infrastructure advantage over Brazil, if I understand correctly--we've the transportation--rail and barge--to move crops to export ports easier than they currently do.  But that too will change.

Slow on the Uptake

Megan McArdle is just one of the commentators who are using the Justsie Smollett  "fake racist attack" episode to caution people to go slow in making judgments. The quick reaction of some Democratic politicians now looks foolish, as does the reaction of the left to the Sandmann video of last month.

Going slow is always good advice.  But advice is often ignored. Daniel Kahneman wrote a good book on the subject.  We all jump to conclusions and less often are we willing to reconsider, to apply reason and/or wait for more evidence.

Anyone remember McVeigh?  IIRC President Clinton cautioned going slow and not blaming international terrorists.  (That was before 9/11, but if my memory is correct we were hyper aware of terrorists even then.)

But then it's possible to overreact to the overreaction, which is the interesting take here.

Beneficial Ownership for All, Not Just Farms

If I correctly understand current payment limitation rules (dubious, at my age it's questionable what I correctly understand) farmers are required to identify the beneficial owners of the legal entities which receive farm program payments.  "Beneficial owner" meaning the live body, as we used to say, who actually gets the money in the end.

That seems to me to be right and proper, so right and proper I come to agree with AEI, not something a good Dem often does, that this should be required for all legal entities.  Without such a requirement the rich and powerful can hide behind a paper veil of dummy corporations, fake partnerships, and trusts.

From the Ag Outlook Conference

Some items from this year's Ag Outlook conference  via Illinois extension--Farm Policy..  For those who might not know, there's an annual confab in DC where USDA types and ag people get together to assess where agriculture is and where it's going.  Typically the chief economist for the department gives an overview (I think this is one of the positions proposed to be moved from DC under the plans for relocating ERS , etc.)

From the slides we see that the states with the highest rate of bankruptcies for 2018 are ME, NY, and WI, with GA fourth.  I think this is likely the result of the consolidation of dairy farms, a subject on which I've posted fairly often recently.

Also interesting is this graph I copied from the Farm Policy.  While the line depicting the Chinese share of our export sales drops sharply, the total values don't.  This may reflect the higher value of the dollar in 2018/9--our sales volume drops but the money we get stays flat?  (I don't know, just guessing.)

Advice to Trump: Don't Play Games With Congressional Appropriators

When I joined ASCS one of the things to learn was the relationship of ASCS and CCC.  Essentially the Commodity Credit Corporation was a way for USDA to put on another persona, a corporate one, allowing it to bypass the annual appropriations process.

It had the most impact for me when we were trying to impact new farm legislation and were on a very tight schedule.  Lew Calderone, the head of printing, would ask whether the program specialists could justify the rush job as fitting under the CCC's responsibilities.  When the answer was "yes", he could bypass requirements to go through the department and GPO and send the work to a printing contractor. (At least, that's the way I remember it.)

I was also aware that CCC and ASCS had separate inventories of personal property, depending on whether the item had been bought with appropriated funds (ASCS) or corporate funds (CCC).

The agency's ability to switch between ASCS and CCC personas was the envy  of other agencies,like SCS and FmHA.  

In the mid-80's through into the 90's ASCS and USDA began to use the CCC authority more widely, which is where the agency came to grief.  As I understand it, the procurement and automation people used CCC funds to buy a lot of computer gear.  What's worse, the computer projects didn't work out--success might have had a different result

Anyhow, the bottom line was the House Appropriations Committee put restrictions, tight restrictions, on ASCS and USDA on their spending, including spending of CCC money.  As far as I know those restrictions remain in the current law.

This leads to my advice to Trump: any effort to reprogram money to build your wall runs the risk of stepping on the toes of the appropriators.   If that happens, and I'm sure DOD will try to avoid touching anything in the districts of the members of House appropriations, the committee is perfectly capable of putting tight clamps in the appropriation act.