Clayton on Farm Loans and ARPA

 Chris Clayton who writes for Progressive Farmer has more clout than I do, or is smarter in the ways of USDA press.  He got data from USDA on the size and number of farm loans which FSA has made or guaranteed, plus the breakdown by socially disadvantaged farmers. Here's his writeup.

If you're interested, you should read it.  Things which strike me now:

• He lists the top states in socially distanced loans. As always, assumptions will mislead--Oklahoma, California, and Wisconsin are on the list, but Alabama and the Carolinas aren't, and Mississippi is the last one listed.  I've nothing better to do than speculate, but my guess is some states, like Oklahoma, jumped on the legislative changes for such loans, and promoted them (or maybe they had especially active NGO's among minority groups).  With that in mind you can guess that many loans have not gone to black farmers, but other groups.
• Much of the publicity around the debt forgiveness payments seems to have been centered around black farmers associated with the Pigford suits. I haven't seen any discussion of a seeming paradox: farmers claiming their loan applications were denied because of discrimination but now working for forgiveness of their loans.  (I wrote "seeming" because I can imagine circumstances in which it would make sense, at least for some.)
• I wonder if women's groups will push for a "correction" to the law to include them as "socially disadvantaged". 
• I hope there will be good data from the implementation of this provision. If my speculation is right will there be discontent among the black advocates for it? I remember seeing one activist commenting that the lawyers made out well from the Pigford suits, but not the farmers. He might find a similar problem now--other minorities getting more money and black farmers less than they had expected.

Freedom Versus Fairness--the Pandemic and Fischer

 Some time ago David Hackett Fischer wrote a book comparing the USA and New Zealand.

I thought of that book when I read this Post opinion piece. 

As you might understand from the title, Fischer sees the societies as different.  Although they're both "settler societies", the key to the US is "freedom", the key to New Zealand is "fairness".   I remember his argument was in part based on the histories--we fought the British to establish autonomy, freedom; New Zealand was settled later when the UK had learned better to deal with their colonies.  Also, in the years between the settling of America and the settling of New Zealand the nature of British society had changed from a hierarchical aristocratic society to one with the urban working class arising. 

While I remember Fischer dealing with the Maori influence on the overall society, I can't say he saw the same factors as in the op-ed.  But the overall effect is the same--concern about the impact of one's actions on others, particularly the fairness of the impacts.  

So, in the pandemic we have lots of resisters to the masks and lockdowns here, because people say it impairs our freedoms.  In NZ they could impose restrictions because infecting others would be unfair. 

Smaller Houses

 According to a memoir by my grandfather, his family occupied a house in frontier Illinois of about 450 square feet on the first floor, not clear whether there was a second floor, but probably.  In that house there were my great great grandmother, my great grandfather and grandmother, and 4 children.  

One of my gripes with modern times is the evergrowing size of American houses--new houses are somewhere in the 2000+ range.  Back when I was looking for a house in Reston, I was aware the developers had built some smaller houses, trying to lower the cost of entering the market.  IIRC houses in my townhouse development ranged from $45K to 55K for 1,000 to 1250 sq. ft.  The smaller separate houses were about 950 sq. ft.  and cost roughly $45K. 

Just checked prices on Zillow--now the small house is $450K or so, while in my development houses are running about $100-125K lower.

Apparently Americans put a premium on detached housing.

The Amount of Outstanding Farm Loans

 Trying to find out the total dollars of farm loans FSA/CCC has on the books, which might be subject to the provisions for debt forgiveness payments under ARPA.

There's this quote:

FSA farm loan programs provide an important safety net for producers, by providing a source of credit when they are temporarily unable to obtain credit from commercial sources. The majority of FSA’s direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loans are targeted to underserved populations such as beginning farmers and socially disadvantaged producers, who generally have had a more difficult time obtaining credit to maintain and expand their operations. In 2019, FSA provided 32,240 direct and guaranteed loans to farmers and ranchers, totaling more than $5.7 billion

And this chart:

Both from this 2021 Budget document. 

I'm not sure what to make of the data--it seems that the forgiveness might cover more than half the outstanding loans.

More on ARPA

 According to the Post article yesterday, the Farm Bureau estimates the cost of the 120 percent payments to indebted socially disadvantaged farmers will be $4 billion.

One of my frustrations is the difficulty of finding  current CCC financial data.  IIRC once I found it over in the Treasury website, but it's definitely not a user-friendly process. 

I would like to find the basis for the estimate--what's the total outstanding debt for all farmers in the categories eligible for the forgiveness payments?  Just sent USDA a request for the data--will see if they can respond.

FSA and American Rescue Plan Act Provisions

 Looks to be a couple provisions of the American Rescue Plan  which impact FSA:

• a provision for paying 120 percent of outstanding indebtedness for loans made or guaranteed by USDA to socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers.  My guess is it might be easy to administer, assuming FSA records currently record a farmer's status as disadvantaged or not.  The problem will be with those with outstanding loans who aren't disadvantaged, and will yell at the counter clerk  program tech.  Need to have the numbers of the local offices of the Congressional representatives handy.
• the other provision provides $1 billion for things which seem to be outlined in the Sen. Booker and Sen. Warnock "Justice for Black Farmers" bill.  

There is provision for $47.5 million for expenses (which won't all be FSA, but some might be.

Interest Rates Are Rising

I don't know how many more billions of dollars taxpayers might have to pay because the 10-year note rate has jumped up recently.  Probably just rounding errors now, but as someone who lived through the inflation of the late 60's through early 80's it's a bit disturbing. 

Am I Getting More Conservative?

 Maybe I am.

Consider these issues:

• I'd prefer to see bipartisan support for big initiatives, like the child allowance in the new stimulus bill, which Noah Smith describes as the most important feature of the bill. What I'm afraid is the Republicans get control of Congress in 2022 and undo what Biden's doing now, leading to more loss of faith in the capacity of government to do good things.
• I've some reservations about various changes made or proposed in the student loan program.  There's inequity there when people, like my wife, paid off her student loans and others may get breaks of various kinds. (Looking back, I think we'd have been better off if we expanded the number and maximum amounts of Pell grants.)
• I don't like "defund the police".  I'd rather see a boost in police funding paired with a program to move some responses to 911 calls to social services. IMHO you won't get police cooperation and buy-in without some sweetening for them.
• I'm not really on board with trans-women competing with cis-women (hope I have the terminology right), at least not when they're able to win.  Again I'm concerned for the tone of society, more than the philosophical approach to rights. 

Mobility in the Past

 Just finished "Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art".  As I've written before, it's more technical and detailed than I needed, but interesting.  I come away from it, as I did from an earlier book on DNA results from testing homo sapiens from various archaeological sites, knowing the images I grew up with are wrong. 

Among the differences what stands out is the variety and mobility of past humans. In the case of Neanderthals they moved a lot, being hunter-gatherers and therefore following the game.  Lots of new science in the field, both DNA and other. Tracing tools back to the beds of rock where the stones originated from shows a lot of movement.  Looking at the isotopes of minerals in teeth which record diets and locations also show movement.

One of the things harder for me to grasp is the idea that 2 percent of Euro-Asian genes are Neanderthal.  I take the scientist word for it, but my mind skitters away from trying to figuring out the steps of the analysis which would reveal that.

Interesting--a footnote reminds that African genomes are richer in variety than Euro-Asian genomes, because of a bottleneck we experienced during the exodus from Africa. 

On an unrelated note, except it's mobility, Tom Ricks in a NYTimes book review notes that a Roman captain served both in the Middle East and in England.

Basic Income Test

 Annie Lowrey has a piece in TheAtlantic about a basic income experiment in Stockton, CA. Using private donations, some individuals got $500 a month to spend as they wished.  She asserts it worked out well.

"Stockton has now proved this [a hand up is better than a handout] false. An exclusive new analysis of data from the demonstration project shows that a lack of resources is its own miserable trap. The best way to get people out of poverty is just to get them out of poverty; the best way to offer families more resources is just to offer them more resources."

I like the idea of experiments, but it's hard for government to run them. I like this one and the result, but I'm put off by the first two sentences:

Two years ago, the city of Stockton, California, did something remarkable: It brought back welfare.

Having lived through Reagan's demonizing of welfare queens, and the attacks on ADC for disrupting parental relations, I've a knee-jerk reaction to "welfare".  Similarly, when Sen. Romney proposed his Family Plan I had an initial positive reaction, but then when I saw someone comparing it to welfare I grew concerned. My mind's still open on the issue, but judging by my gut I fear for the viability of such proposals.