Remember, the monetary base is the amount of money in the economy that can be used for the exchange of goods and services. Look at the this graph...look at this graph! This is like flying a helicopter and dropping thousands of dollar bills in every American town.
Friday, December 12, 2008
I told you the money supply doubled!
Remember, the monetary base is the amount of money in the economy that can be used for the exchange of goods and services. Look at the this graph...look at this graph! This is like flying a helicopter and dropping thousands of dollar bills in every American town.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Money Supply Has Doubled!
When our economy was on the gold standard, the amount of gold dictated the supply of money. The U.S. abandoned the gold standard in 1971, yet money is still valuable because there is a limited supply of money and it is accepted as a means of exchange.
In reality, the monetary base is our money. The Monetary Base is the amount of currency and reserves at the Federal Reserve Bank (FED). Only the FED can change this base, and just like the amount of gold determines the level of prices on a gold standard, the size of Monetary Base determines our prices level.
During a Cato Institute podcast on 12/9/08, economist Lawrence H. White noted that the Monetary Base has more than doubled in the last year!
More than doubled! In some settings, wouldn't this double prices (like in MV = PQ if V, and Q are unchanged)? Am I missing something?
In reality, the monetary base is our money. The Monetary Base is the amount of currency and reserves at the Federal Reserve Bank (FED). Only the FED can change this base, and just like the amount of gold determines the level of prices on a gold standard, the size of Monetary Base determines our prices level.
During a Cato Institute podcast on 12/9/08, economist Lawrence H. White noted that the Monetary Base has more than doubled in the last year!
More than doubled! In some settings, wouldn't this double prices (like in MV = PQ if V, and Q are unchanged)? Am I missing something?
Thoughts on Austrian Economics
Austrians tend to think of markets as an incredibly wise mechanism for allocating resources. Austrians also tend to think that increasing the money supply produces tough economic adjustments and perverse prices. Resources are not allocated well as a result, which is why they champion the gold standard.
But if markets are so wise, shouldn't markets be able to accomodate an increase in the money supply quickly and painlessly? If the money supply doubles, markets should quickly double all prices.
It often appears Austrian thinking is less about economic theory and more about political ideology.
But if markets are so wise, shouldn't markets be able to accomodate an increase in the money supply quickly and painlessly? If the money supply doubles, markets should quickly double all prices.
It often appears Austrian thinking is less about economic theory and more about political ideology.
Michael Pollan Stars in Atlas Shrugged
In the thought-provoking novel Atlas Shrugged, the mother of a politician dreams of converting the world to soybeans. Emma Chalmers, the mother's name, was a sociologist, whose judgment was held in high regard by politicians.
She considered the soybean a more nutritious and economical plant than more traditional food crops such as wheat. Her thoughts are best illustrating through her remark, "and if all of us were compelled to adopt soybeans as our staple diet, it would solve the national food crisis and make it possible to feed more people. The greatest good for the greatest number--that's my slogan."
Consequently, vast sums of money were directed by politicians into Project Soybean. Another consequence was that the soybeans were harvested prematurely due to inexperience with such large acres of soybeans in new areas. The politicians diverted railroad cars to receive the shipment of the inedible soybeans, causing wheat farmers in other areas to have no market for their product. That nutritious, edible wheat rotted in piles on the ground, awaiting rail cars that never came. Farmers rioted, and people starved.
Of course, Atlas Shrugged is fictional, and took place a long time ago, when many people mistakenly thought a socialist-type of economy might work. But it provides lessons for today. Consider the following.
Bill Moyers recently interviewed Michael Pollan, the author of books about food. While championing the local food movement, Pollan states, "And let's require that a certain percentage of that school lunch fund in every school district has to be spent within 100 miles to revive local agriculture." (transcript available here)
What hubris, and what insanity. Michael Pollan is a smart guy and makes some great insights. He is well-intentioned. It is true that people should eat more vegetables, and it is true that government should not subsidize foods such as corn syrup. But this suggested requirement is insane. It is okay to claim that we need to provide healthier school lunches, but it should not be Michael Pollan's job to determine how the healthier lunch is provided. Efforts to increase healthy vegetables and fruits in school lunches should give schools more money to do so and requirements regarding the nutritional content of the food, but let the schools and the food market determine where and how the food is produced.
Can you imagine the insanity of requiring a small, rural North Dakota school to provide 25% of its food from local sources?
Pollan is commended for his knowledge and efforts to education the public. But he is not so smart as to tell each individual school where their food should be grown. This hubris is not laughable, it is dangerous. This is why Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged.
She considered the soybean a more nutritious and economical plant than more traditional food crops such as wheat. Her thoughts are best illustrating through her remark, "and if all of us were compelled to adopt soybeans as our staple diet, it would solve the national food crisis and make it possible to feed more people. The greatest good for the greatest number--that's my slogan."
Consequently, vast sums of money were directed by politicians into Project Soybean. Another consequence was that the soybeans were harvested prematurely due to inexperience with such large acres of soybeans in new areas. The politicians diverted railroad cars to receive the shipment of the inedible soybeans, causing wheat farmers in other areas to have no market for their product. That nutritious, edible wheat rotted in piles on the ground, awaiting rail cars that never came. Farmers rioted, and people starved.
Of course, Atlas Shrugged is fictional, and took place a long time ago, when many people mistakenly thought a socialist-type of economy might work. But it provides lessons for today. Consider the following.
Bill Moyers recently interviewed Michael Pollan, the author of books about food. While championing the local food movement, Pollan states, "And let's require that a certain percentage of that school lunch fund in every school district has to be spent within 100 miles to revive local agriculture." (transcript available here)
What hubris, and what insanity. Michael Pollan is a smart guy and makes some great insights. He is well-intentioned. It is true that people should eat more vegetables, and it is true that government should not subsidize foods such as corn syrup. But this suggested requirement is insane. It is okay to claim that we need to provide healthier school lunches, but it should not be Michael Pollan's job to determine how the healthier lunch is provided. Efforts to increase healthy vegetables and fruits in school lunches should give schools more money to do so and requirements regarding the nutritional content of the food, but let the schools and the food market determine where and how the food is produced.
Can you imagine the insanity of requiring a small, rural North Dakota school to provide 25% of its food from local sources?
Pollan is commended for his knowledge and efforts to education the public. But he is not so smart as to tell each individual school where their food should be grown. This hubris is not laughable, it is dangerous. This is why Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged.
Unintended Consequences
Economics professors love to make themselves look smart and policy makers look stupid. Hence, we love the Law of Unintended Consequences. This article provides a great overview of the law and examples. Below is a new example I found from the Journal of Public Economics.
U.S. counties which enacted smoking bans has experienced a 13% increase in fatal alcohol-related car accidents, as smokers drove further to find a bar that allows them to smoke. Which would you rather experience, second-hand smoke or a car accident?
U.S. counties which enacted smoking bans has experienced a 13% increase in fatal alcohol-related car accidents, as smokers drove further to find a bar that allows them to smoke. Which would you rather experience, second-hand smoke or a car accident?
Saving for Retirement
I would bet that very few individuals, even the most savy, know how much they "should" save to reach their retirment goals, or know what their expected retirement income is. The recent edition of The Economist provides a great rule of thumb we should relay to our students.
That approach will be hopelessly inadequate for those who want to build a decent pension, especially in defined-contribution, or money-purchase, schemes, where the employee bears all the investment risk. The average American scheme member contributes just 7.8% of salary to his pension scheme. His employer, on average, contributes only 4.4%. He has a pot worth only $68,000. A rule of thumb is that total contributions need to be around 20% of wages to match a traditional final-salary scheme.
The Economist, 12/6/08, page 13
That approach will be hopelessly inadequate for those who want to build a decent pension, especially in defined-contribution, or money-purchase, schemes, where the employee bears all the investment risk. The average American scheme member contributes just 7.8% of salary to his pension scheme. His employer, on average, contributes only 4.4%. He has a pot worth only $68,000. A rule of thumb is that total contributions need to be around 20% of wages to match a traditional final-salary scheme.
The Economist, 12/6/08, page 13
Put your money under the mattress
From the 12/6/08 edition of The Economist
Any American who has diligently put $100 a month into a domestic equity mutual fund for the past ten years will find his pot worth less than he put into it; a European who did the same has lost a quarter of his money.
It is depressing that owners of capital cannot make money, even within a 10 year period.
The article also suggests a concept we should be teaching students. In times, such as these, we should buy, buy, buy! The Economist says,
If savers treated financial assets as they do other goods, they would sell them when they are expensive and buy them when they are cheap. Actually, they do the opposite.
Any American who has diligently put $100 a month into a domestic equity mutual fund for the past ten years will find his pot worth less than he put into it; a European who did the same has lost a quarter of his money.
It is depressing that owners of capital cannot make money, even within a 10 year period.
The article also suggests a concept we should be teaching students. In times, such as these, we should buy, buy, buy! The Economist says,
If savers treated financial assets as they do other goods, they would sell them when they are expensive and buy them when they are cheap. Actually, they do the opposite.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Wealth of Nations: Part 1
While reading the first two chapters of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, I am struck by his frequent use of the word "opulence" when discussing the wealth generated by the division of labour. He could have just said wealth, or possessions, or living standard, but he chose what is a rather dramatic word. The use of "opulence" reveals just how large the benefits to the division of labour are, and how impressed he was.
I am also awestruck by his superb writing.
I read these chapters while watching my students take my final exam. They are a beautiful group of people, and quite diverse in their natures and talents. They will go into a variety of careers, and all do well. It is the division of labour, I learned, that results in these differing talents, and these differing talents that help make the division of labour so valuable -- produce such opulence! Consider these superb Smith quotes...
The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education.
As it is this disposition which forms that difference of talents, so remarkable among men of different professions, so it is this same disposition which renders that difference useful.
I am also awestruck by his superb writing.
I read these chapters while watching my students take my final exam. They are a beautiful group of people, and quite diverse in their natures and talents. They will go into a variety of careers, and all do well. It is the division of labour, I learned, that results in these differing talents, and these differing talents that help make the division of labour so valuable -- produce such opulence! Consider these superb Smith quotes...
The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education.
As it is this disposition which forms that difference of talents, so remarkable among men of different professions, so it is this same disposition which renders that difference useful.
Can Obama Create Jobs?
This nice Reason article talks about how Obama wanting to "create" 5 million green jobs really means 5 million jobs will be transferred from something else. If green jobs are less productive than non-green jobs, it is akin to the Broken Window Fallacy. Nice job, Reason, I haven't thought of it like that.
In the long-run, the supply of jobs is perfectly inelastic. You cannot change the number of jobs, only the allocation of jobs across sectors.
Understanding Exchange Rates
Exchange rates can be difficult to understand. The whole idea of exchanging currencies before one can exchange goods makes international trade more complicated than domestic trade.
I find it helpful to view a currency as consisting of two parts. First, currency, as we are used to thinking about it, can be used to exchange goods and services. If all countries used the same currency, trade would be simpler. The second component of a currency can be viewed as a right to buy and sell in a particular country. It is like an admission ticket into a country. Let me explain.
The dollar is the currency of choice in the U.S. For foreigners to obtain the "right" to buy and sell in the U.S., they must purchase dollars. The dollar is then like an admission ticket into America. Once inside the U.S., the foreigners use those dollars the same way they use their currency as they proceed with buying and selling.
Thus, when an American imports a good from another country, and when it pays in dollars, it is giving two things. Those dollars given in payment give that country the right to trade in the states plus something of value to trade with.
So, suppose that we import tea from Sri Lanka. Further, suppose that America comes out of its recession and once again becomes the preferred place of investment for people in other countries, including Sri Lanka. Sri Lankans (is that what you call them) have a greater demand for American investments, and to purchase those investments, they need dollars. They want more access to the U.S., and will pay a higher admission fee into the U.S. When an American gives dollars for tea, it is now giving something of greater value, because the "right" to enter the U.S. is valued more. Consequently, Americans can obtain the same amount of tea for less dollars. The dollars are worth more.
I have learned that by viewing the dollars as a combination of these two parts -- a medium of exchange in the U.S. and an admission ticket into the U.S. -- in combination with the Indifference Principle, international trade and exchange rates become easier to think about.
Worst Intro Ever
Finally, after saying I was going to do it for years, I am reading Wealth of Nations front to back. Have you noticed that Adam Smith gave absolutely no introduction to this voluminous book? He just went straight to talking about the division of labour without telling us anything about the purpose or outline of the book.
Best book ever, worse intro ever...
Best Economic Quote Ever
There is no grand narrative, only little stories. But the need for grand narrative is so firmly ingrained in human thinking that the fruitless search for it will never end. This book is dedicated to those for whom a partial understanding of complex reality is better than the reassurance of false universal explanations.
--John Kay, last remark in Culture and Prosperity
BTW, Culture and Prosperity is one of the best books about economic thought I have ever read. If I live to an old age, I will read it at least seven times.
Monday, December 8, 2008
I have this friend, who...
Years of survey work has taught researchers that people misrepresent themselves on surveys. How do we accurately portrary people through research then? My colleague Jayson Lusk and I have started accumulating evidence (references below) that instead of asking people, "what would you do...", we should ask them, "what would the average American do...". When people answer this second question, they are really telling you more about themselves than they do in the first question.
It is kinda like, when someone begins a question with, "I have this friend, who...", you know they are really asking for themselves.
I recently learned from Tyler Cowen's superb book Discover Your Inner Economist that people are sometimes more rational about choice when it concerns other people. He states, "The more personal the choice, the more likely that fear drives out reason" (page 129). For example, people make more rational choices about whether to take a vaccine when making the choice for others than themselves.
Lusk, Jayson L. and F. Bailey Norwood. “Bridging the Gap between Laboratory Experiments and Naturally Occurring Markets.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Forthcoming
Lusk, J. L. and F. B. Norwood. “An Inferred Valuation Method.” Land Economics. Forthcoming.
New Era of Ag Econ
Last week I had the honour of being invited to the University of Nebraska to present my research on farm animal welfare. At a party afterwards, I had a conversation with a researcher who received his PhD the year I was born. He was, you could say, an economic behaviorist before his time; much of his research concerned violations of a standard rational utility function (what Diedre McCloskey calls the Max U framework). In all those years, he was never able to get those studies published in an ag econ journal, because it violated Max U, but had to seek other journals.
Because my research on farm animal welfare assumed people may care for humans and animals other than themselves, he asked me if I had the same problem. The answer is a definite no. Perhaps ag econ has drastically changed over the years, taking the Max U framework too seriously in the past when the economics profession never did.
Example: Jayson Lusk and I have a behavioral economics paper coming out in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, where we show that contrary to the Max U framework, there can be a thing as too much choice (duh!). The paper consists of four experiments, one of which shows that a significant portion of people are willing to voluntarily forgo choice and opt for a smaller choice set size, solely for the purposes of making the decision task easier.
The question is: are we behind the curve in the classroom as well? Are we at least mentioning some of the results of behavioral economics?
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Finance and the Macro
The internet is a specatular institution. The financial chaos and employment woes are resulting in one of the most difficult economic times of my generation, and I am able to follow what the great minds are thinking through blogs.
For example, talking heads on the news keep stressing how important the financial sector is for the economy as a whole -- but why? They never say. I doubt they really know.
But the gents at EconLog do. See this posting for a superb economic story demonstrating the role of ordinary banks in creating economic wealth.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
We are finally saving more money
Everyone is talking about nominal prices, money supply, blah blah blah. Everyone says all we need is more money, just hoping we can take our economy somewhat back to where it was.
What I like about the Austrian folks is that they tend to talk more about the real economy. They talk about real prices, not just nominal prices. They note that the economy is trying to get to a new equilibrium, and that causes some pain. We need to save more, and that is what people are doing now. See the graph below. This will hurt. But we are heading in the right direction.
Look again at the graph below. Shouldn't we be punished for a zero savings rate?
What I like about the Austrian folks is that they tend to talk more about the real economy. They talk about real prices, not just nominal prices. They note that the economy is trying to get to a new equilibrium, and that causes some pain. We need to save more, and that is what people are doing now. See the graph below. This will hurt. But we are heading in the right direction.
Look again at the graph below. Shouldn't we be punished for a zero savings rate?
The Importance of California for Animal Rights Movement
Don't downplay the effect that Proposition 2 in California may have. When California committed to cut greenhouse gas emissions down to 1990 levels within 12 years, 17 other states followed. So did Congress and Britain.
One big difference: Schwarzenegger is against Prop 2.
One big difference: Schwarzenegger is against Prop 2.
Pilgrim Socialism
After arriving at Plymouth Rock in 1620, and after learning how to hunt and farm in current-day Massachusetts, the Pilgrims puruse a socialist economic plan for two years. Everything was owned by everyone. The pastures were held in no man's deed, so any person could place any cow on any plot of land at any given time. Yet who would want to make sure the cow eats, when its milk and meat will not be the product of one's labour, but instead shared with the colony. The colony's governor, William Bradford, wrote the following in his diary.
"community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objectived to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men's wives and children, without any recompense. The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc. than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustic."
Bradford then turned to a more capitalistic form of economic order. How did it fair? Let's hear again from Governor William Bradford.
"every family was assigned a parcel of land"...[and each man was allowed to]..."plant corn for his own household." ..."This was very successful."..."It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction."
Source: Dutcher, Brandon. "Give Thanks for Private Enterprise." Stillwater NewsPress. November 26, 2008. A4.
"community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objectived to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men's wives and children, without any recompense. The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc. than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustic."
Bradford then turned to a more capitalistic form of economic order. How did it fair? Let's hear again from Governor William Bradford.
"every family was assigned a parcel of land"...[and each man was allowed to]..."plant corn for his own household." ..."This was very successful."..."It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction."
Source: Dutcher, Brandon. "Give Thanks for Private Enterprise." Stillwater NewsPress. November 26, 2008. A4.
I Hate Aggregate Supply / Demand
Many economists are using aggregate supply and demand models to prescribe economic cures to our recent woes. At one time I knew AS / AD well, but never liked it or really felt comfortable with it. The AS / AD model using the concept of equilibrium to model disequilibrium, in a way. Thus, I was heartened recently to see these words from Gregory Mankiw, whose textbooks from which I learned AS / AD.
As a general matter, the state of aggregate demand depends on an amorphous variable called confidence. Anything that threatens to screw up AS in the long run most likely reduces confidence and AD in the short run. The textbook separation of AD and AS is useful for focusing discussion in the undergraduate classroom, but events in the real world are rarely so clean.
Entry Here
As a general matter, the state of aggregate demand depends on an amorphous variable called confidence. Anything that threatens to screw up AS in the long run most likely reduces confidence and AD in the short run. The textbook separation of AD and AS is useful for focusing discussion in the undergraduate classroom, but events in the real world are rarely so clean.
Entry Here
Blog Medley
Recent blog entries I like...
Teacher sells advertising space on his exams.
Thomas Sowell appropriately fires off at school administrators who seek to force students to perform community service.
Foreigners in Saudi Arabia get Farm Subsidies.
Great video explaining Collateralized Debt Obligations
Hank Williams Jr. plans to run for Senate in 2010.
Teacher sells advertising space on his exams.
Thomas Sowell appropriately fires off at school administrators who seek to force students to perform community service.
Foreigners in Saudi Arabia get Farm Subsidies.
Great video explaining Collateralized Debt Obligations
Hank Williams Jr. plans to run for Senate in 2010.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
What OK College Kids Listen To
Below is a list of what my Oklahoma agricultural college students are listening too. Artist on the left, album on the right.
If you're wondering, I'm listening to Panic at the Disco's spectacular new album Pretty.Odd, and as always, Wilco. I'm also trying the new Ryan Adam's album, but haven't made judgement yet.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Making Fun of Students
Here is a sentence from one of my student's papers. I added the underline.
Three quarters of them actually checked that they were more concerned after being presented the information, that's seventy-five percent.
Three quarters of them actually checked that they were more concerned after being presented the information, that's seventy-five percent.
Smoke'em if you got'em
For almost thirty years America has waged its war on drugs alongside South American governments. The result has only been the wasting of millions of dollars and a large prison population.
A number of politicians in South America are now proposing the legalization of drugs. If they do, we can finally see if it really works as expected.
Source: Cato Daily Podcast - Dec 1, 08
A number of politicians in South America are now proposing the legalization of drugs. If they do, we can finally see if it really works as expected.
Source: Cato Daily Podcast - Dec 1, 08
Blogs are awesome, and prestigious
I love blogs. They allow me to see what the great minds are thinking, and consequently, makes me a better economist. It appears blogs are becoming a legitimate and prestigious means of academic publishing. Tyler Cowen's book, Discover Your Inner Economist, like many books, tries to make the author appear to be one of the leading thinkers of the day. This is how they describe Tyler on the first page of the book.
TYLER COWEN is a professor of economics at George Mason University. His is a prominent blogger at marginalrevolution.com, the world's leading economics blog....
At no place do they mention Cowen's journal articles.
TYLER COWEN is a professor of economics at George Mason University. His is a prominent blogger at marginalrevolution.com, the world's leading economics blog....
At no place do they mention Cowen's journal articles.
Unemployment During the Great Depression
Most economists know by heart the unemployment rate during the Great Depression: 25%. Today, I learned this number is a good number, but it is debatable whether it is the best number.
The government didn't take official statistics on unemployment back then, but one person, Stanley Lebergott, worked with the government to come up with some numbers. They are good numbers, but what I didn't know is that Stanley did not count temporary jobs in emergency programs. He only counted "regular work" like a government official or a full-time job in the private sector.
Other economists have argued these temporary jobs should count, and they address unemployment by including these jobs and also looking at the number of hours worked. Doing this, unemployment goes as high as 16% and as low as 9% during the Depression. Total hours worked during the Great Depression was down by 1/5, relative to 1929 levels.
More here.
The government didn't take official statistics on unemployment back then, but one person, Stanley Lebergott, worked with the government to come up with some numbers. They are good numbers, but what I didn't know is that Stanley did not count temporary jobs in emergency programs. He only counted "regular work" like a government official or a full-time job in the private sector.
Other economists have argued these temporary jobs should count, and they address unemployment by including these jobs and also looking at the number of hours worked. Doing this, unemployment goes as high as 16% and as low as 9% during the Depression. Total hours worked during the Great Depression was down by 1/5, relative to 1929 levels.
More here.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
2008 AGEC 4213 Nerd of the Year!
Congratulations to Alex Davied, the 2008 AGEC 4213 Nerd of the Year!Each year in my regression class we hold a forecasting contest. The second day of class we go outside and hit softballs, measuring the distance each person hit. We then develop regression to explain why some people hit further than others. See this blog entry discussing the activity in more depth.
To test whether they can really put together a good regression model, we hold a forecasting contest. Using data from their class, and previous classes if they wish, students are asked to construct a regression model. Then, we return to the field, hitting balls again, measuring distance again. But this time, before the person hits, students must take their regression equation and predict how far the batter will hit. Note this is an out-of-sample forecast. The student whose regression model has the lowest sum-of-square errors across all other students wins. This year's winner was Alex.
She wins $30 in cash and an obnoxiously large and tacky trophy, that yes, states 2008 AGEC 4213 Nerd of the Year.
One lesson that always emerges from the contest is the importance of parsimony. The winning student always has a simple regression model. Alex's model was distance = a0 + a1(male) + a2(experience) + a3(experience squared) where male is a male dummy variable and experience is the number of years the student has played on a softball or baseball team. Inevitably some students will construct a horribly complex regression with all types of quadratic and interaction terms, quite similar to our "locally flexible functional forms", and those regressions inevitably perform poorly. Usually, the winning model is: distance = a0 + a1(male) + a2(experience).
The contest is fun and educational. Moreover, it gets students outside, which is always popular with them and always good for evaluations.
Trust Me: I'm Good For It
The recent financial troubles have taught me the importance of loans in the everyday running of business. The fact that loans are needed for large capital investments, like building a factory, is obvious. What is not obvious is that a majority of businesses seem to need loans on a constant basis for operating costs as well.
I had always assumed that a well managed business would keep reserves of cash handy to help smooth out the rough spots between the purchasing of inputs and the receiving of revenue. But apparently they don't. When the financial world was being brought to its needs, the business world seemed unable to turn their lights on at work. It seems finance has gone far beyond helping businesses acquire capital and upstart money. They are now as important to daily activities as management.
(1) I asked a business person sitting next to me on the plane why this was the case. He indicated he didn't know, but it certainly was. Virtually every business relies on frequent loans for day-to-day activities.
(2) One of my former graduate students now works at a bank. I shared these thoughts with him and he indicated he felt the same way before he worked at a bank. But he sees many businesses taking loan after loan for little things like buying inputs and paying employees. Loans, not cash reserves, are used for smoothing out revenues and expenses.
(3) I was greatly relieved to see an article from The Economist help clarify this issue. From All You Need is Cash in the 11/22/08 issue, they state...
SELDOM has corporate strategy been turned on its head so quickly. Barely a year ago, cash was a dangerous thing to accumulate: activist investors stalked companies, urging boards to return it to investors, to pay special dividends or to buy back shares. Ever since the 1980s the fashion had been to make companies as lean as possible, outsourcing all but your core competencies, expanding your just-in-time supplier system around the globe, loading up with debt to “leverage” your balance-sheet. Old-style defensive conglomerates, such as Arnold Weinstock’s General Electric Company, were dismantled. Companies that hoarded cash—even ones as good as Toyota and Microsoft—were viewed with suspicion.
No longer. For many big American companies, the day of reckoning came two months ago when the deepening financial crisis brought about the abrupt closure of the overnight commercial-paper market. This briefly sent even the most solid companies into a desperate scramble to find money to meet such basic obligations as paying their staff. Since then, the guiding principle for managers everywhere has been to gather up whatever cash they can find, and then do their damnedest to keep as much of it as possible for as long as possible.
I had always assumed that a well managed business would keep reserves of cash handy to help smooth out the rough spots between the purchasing of inputs and the receiving of revenue. But apparently they don't. When the financial world was being brought to its needs, the business world seemed unable to turn their lights on at work. It seems finance has gone far beyond helping businesses acquire capital and upstart money. They are now as important to daily activities as management.
(1) I asked a business person sitting next to me on the plane why this was the case. He indicated he didn't know, but it certainly was. Virtually every business relies on frequent loans for day-to-day activities.
(2) One of my former graduate students now works at a bank. I shared these thoughts with him and he indicated he felt the same way before he worked at a bank. But he sees many businesses taking loan after loan for little things like buying inputs and paying employees. Loans, not cash reserves, are used for smoothing out revenues and expenses.
(3) I was greatly relieved to see an article from The Economist help clarify this issue. From All You Need is Cash in the 11/22/08 issue, they state...
SELDOM has corporate strategy been turned on its head so quickly. Barely a year ago, cash was a dangerous thing to accumulate: activist investors stalked companies, urging boards to return it to investors, to pay special dividends or to buy back shares. Ever since the 1980s the fashion had been to make companies as lean as possible, outsourcing all but your core competencies, expanding your just-in-time supplier system around the globe, loading up with debt to “leverage” your balance-sheet. Old-style defensive conglomerates, such as Arnold Weinstock’s General Electric Company, were dismantled. Companies that hoarded cash—even ones as good as Toyota and Microsoft—were viewed with suspicion.
No longer. For many big American companies, the day of reckoning came two months ago when the deepening financial crisis brought about the abrupt closure of the overnight commercial-paper market. This briefly sent even the most solid companies into a desperate scramble to find money to meet such basic obligations as paying their staff. Since then, the guiding principle for managers everywhere has been to gather up whatever cash they can find, and then do their damnedest to keep as much of it as possible for as long as possible.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Encyclopedia of Economic and Business History
The best overview of the Great Depression I have seen. This site also has a superb Encyclopedia of Economic and Business History, covering topics from advertising bans to tractors to weather forecasting.
Green Energy
Subsidies always distort. In this case, we have wind energy farms paying consumers to take their power. They are generating wind energy that has a negative value, and paying people (from the subsidy money) to take the power off their hands.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Interesting Ag Facts
Dark chicken meat for exports accounts for 18% of chicken meat production.
The breakeven price for chicken breast meat is $1.45 / lb.
The breakeven price for chicken breast meat is $1.45 / lb.
Interesting Ag Facts
An 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains 12.9 ounces of corn. If corn prices rise 50%, and these costs were passed through to the consumer, the price of corn flakes would rise 1.6 cents.
4.1% of U.S. corn is used to make corn syrup. A 2-liter bottle of soda contains 15 counes of corn. A 50% increase in the price of corn raises the price of this bottle of soda (assuming 100% of costs are passed to the consumer) by 1.9 cents.
55% of U.S. corn is used as animal feed.
It takes 7 lbs of corn to produce one lb of beef, 6.5 lbs for a lb of pork, and 2.6 lbs for a lb of chicken.
A 10% increase in the price of corn increases food prices by less than 1%.
-- From Corn Prices Near Record High, But What About Food Costs? by Ephraim Leibtag in Amber Waves.
4.1% of U.S. corn is used to make corn syrup. A 2-liter bottle of soda contains 15 counes of corn. A 50% increase in the price of corn raises the price of this bottle of soda (assuming 100% of costs are passed to the consumer) by 1.9 cents.
55% of U.S. corn is used as animal feed.
It takes 7 lbs of corn to produce one lb of beef, 6.5 lbs for a lb of pork, and 2.6 lbs for a lb of chicken.
A 10% increase in the price of corn increases food prices by less than 1%.
-- From Corn Prices Near Record High, But What About Food Costs? by Ephraim Leibtag in Amber Waves.
Explaining Price Indices
Here is one of my students explaining price indices in a paper:
A person cannot compare an apple to an orange, and the same principle holds to numbers, so basically the price index turns the orange into an apple so the numbers can be compared.
A person cannot compare an apple to an orange, and the same principle holds to numbers, so basically the price index turns the orange into an apple so the numbers can be compared.
Beef, Pork, Chicken, and Egg Consumption: 1910-2006
The increase in chicken consumption during the last century is amazing. Over the years chicken prices have fallen and chicken quality has vastly improved. I am guessing the rise in beef consumption is due to rising income, beef production technologies, but also the change in food culture such as the integration of the hamburger into American society. There have not been many new pork products like there have been beef products, but people still like pork and technological progress has allowed pork prices to remain low, keeping its consumption fairly stable. Egg consumption has fallen over the years, despite the large decrease in egg prices (see this graph). This article provides an interesting discussion about egg consumption, arguing health concerns are a main reason for its decline in consumption, but also arguing those concerns are both false and dissipating.
Corn and Gasoline Prices
Great graph showng the relationship between gas and corn prices. Would be a nice teaching tool, if students can understand the graph, they understand much of basic economics. Nicely displays behaviour in both equilibrium and disequilibrium.
From Feedstuffs, Nov 3, 2008.
The Great Depression - Maybe We Learned Something
On Nov 18 I argued it feels like we didn't really learn anything from the Great Depresssion because everyone seems to read into it what they want. If information doesn't change at least one mind, perhaps it is not even information.
I retract my claim. Tyler Cowen published a fantastic NY Times editorial describing what did and did not work in the New Deal response to the Great Depression. For the first time, an economist appears objective and open-minded when discussin the Great Depression. Congratulations Tyler!
I retract my claim. Tyler Cowen published a fantastic NY Times editorial describing what did and did not work in the New Deal response to the Great Depression. For the first time, an economist appears objective and open-minded when discussin the Great Depression. Congratulations Tyler!
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Keynesian Perspective
Economists are better at describing things in equilibrium than disequilibrium. It is the disequilibrium that is beginning to interest me more, and the passage below struck me as worth sharing.
The freeing of capital movements in the 1980s combined with the collapse of communism, releasing billions of new workers into the world economy, has recreated a global reserve army of labour. That in turn has contributed to a rise in the share of world GDP accounted for by profits and an accompanying decline in the share accounted for by wages. Such a development easily leads either to over-investment by businesses or a shortfall of aggregate demand. When wages lag, spending can keep up with output only by an expansion of consumer debt.
--Gerald Holtham in Prospect Magazine: "Workers of the World Compete".
The freeing of capital movements in the 1980s combined with the collapse of communism, releasing billions of new workers into the world economy, has recreated a global reserve army of labour. That in turn has contributed to a rise in the share of world GDP accounted for by profits and an accompanying decline in the share accounted for by wages. Such a development easily leads either to over-investment by businesses or a shortfall of aggregate demand. When wages lag, spending can keep up with output only by an expansion of consumer debt.
--Gerald Holtham in Prospect Magazine: "Workers of the World Compete".
With Real Poets, It is Hard To Tell
This Prospect Magazine article suggests Palin is really a poet at heart, suggesting that some of her dialogue can be feasibly parsed into magnificent poetry.
Modern poetry is so horrible that I cannot tell if the author is being serious, is mocking Palin, or is mocking modern poetry.
Modern poetry is so horrible that I cannot tell if the author is being serious, is mocking Palin, or is mocking modern poetry.
Ag Career Info
Interesting Canadian website about agricultural careers here. Do we have anything like this in the U.S.?
Why Neoclassical Theory is Important
All economists are well-versed in neoclassical economic theory, the theory where decisions are made at the margin and marginal values and costs slope downward and upward, respectively. The recent cow tax (discussed previously here) provides a perfect opportunity to demonstrate the usefulness of this theory.
The American Farm Bureau has announced that they oppose this tax because it would force some producers out of business (read more here). If the cow tax is based on any economic logic, it is supposed to force some producers out of business.
The basic idea is that the value of one more pound of beef to consumers declines the more beef you already have. It is like saying the first bite of a hamburger tastes better than the 100th bite. Conversely, the cost of greenhouse gases emitted from cows rises the more beef that is produced. At some point, the value of one more pound of beef becomes so low that it is less than the cost imposed by the greenhouse gases.
The solution is to produce less beef, to keep decreasing beef production until the value of each pound of beef produced is now higher than the environmental cost (and, of course, the production cost). To produce less beef, someone has to go out of business. The beauty of the cow tax is that it forces the least efficient producer to cease production. So if the cow tax is to produce benefits for society, if it is to correct the problem that some pounds of beef are valued less than the cost they impose, it must be high enough to force some producers out.
A final note: neoclassical economics asserts that this does not mean we should cease all beef production. As beef production falls, the value of each pound rises, and it will likely fall to some point where the value of beef is greater than the cost, even if beef still produces some pollution.
This post is written under the assumption that climate change is real and that small changes at the U.S. level have real benefits. I am not smart enough to know the correct answer to these two questions; I can only say I am open-minded and skeptical.
The American Farm Bureau has announced that they oppose this tax because it would force some producers out of business (read more here). If the cow tax is based on any economic logic, it is supposed to force some producers out of business.
The basic idea is that the value of one more pound of beef to consumers declines the more beef you already have. It is like saying the first bite of a hamburger tastes better than the 100th bite. Conversely, the cost of greenhouse gases emitted from cows rises the more beef that is produced. At some point, the value of one more pound of beef becomes so low that it is less than the cost imposed by the greenhouse gases.
The solution is to produce less beef, to keep decreasing beef production until the value of each pound of beef produced is now higher than the environmental cost (and, of course, the production cost). To produce less beef, someone has to go out of business. The beauty of the cow tax is that it forces the least efficient producer to cease production. So if the cow tax is to produce benefits for society, if it is to correct the problem that some pounds of beef are valued less than the cost they impose, it must be high enough to force some producers out.
A final note: neoclassical economics asserts that this does not mean we should cease all beef production. As beef production falls, the value of each pound rises, and it will likely fall to some point where the value of beef is greater than the cost, even if beef still produces some pollution.
This post is written under the assumption that climate change is real and that small changes at the U.S. level have real benefits. I am not smart enough to know the correct answer to these two questions; I can only say I am open-minded and skeptical.
Friday, November 21, 2008
It is more than that...
The worst thing livestock agriculture can do is to misunderstand its enemy. One of my favorite podcasts, Loos Tales for Feedstuffs, discussed the issue of farm animal welfare on Nov 19. The title of the program was "It's about more than animal welfare."
The thrust of the commentary was that the animal rights activists seeking more humane treatment of farm animals have an ultimate goal of complete freedom for animals, and complete veganism for humans.
It is true that many activists are simply opposed to meat and milk consumption. However, many of these activists oppose the raising of animals for food because they do not believe someone raising animals for money will treat the animals kindly. So long as the animals are given a nice life, not all of the activists oppose animal food products.
It is always nice to pretend that there is an enemy who is pure evil, an evil who will oppose us no matter what. It makes us feel innocent. But part of the reason people are against animal food products is because whenever they see us raising animals for food they see only animals in cramped cages with no natural life. We have not given them "more humane" products and placed the onus on them to pay more for the better animal life.
We are part of that problem. Pretending we are not will only lead to our demise.
The thrust of the commentary was that the animal rights activists seeking more humane treatment of farm animals have an ultimate goal of complete freedom for animals, and complete veganism for humans.
It is true that many activists are simply opposed to meat and milk consumption. However, many of these activists oppose the raising of animals for food because they do not believe someone raising animals for money will treat the animals kindly. So long as the animals are given a nice life, not all of the activists oppose animal food products.
It is always nice to pretend that there is an enemy who is pure evil, an evil who will oppose us no matter what. It makes us feel innocent. But part of the reason people are against animal food products is because whenever they see us raising animals for food they see only animals in cramped cages with no natural life. We have not given them "more humane" products and placed the onus on them to pay more for the better animal life.
We are part of that problem. Pretending we are not will only lead to our demise.
King Camp Gillette: Hero of Capitalism
Today, the superb blog Hereos of Capitalism honors King Camp Gillette, the inventor of the disposable razor, helping us get "as best a man can get." It took him six years to develop the razor - a spectacular example of perseverance!
Gains From Trade...And Love
An interesting example to illustrate the prevalence of economic forces across a variety of settings: from trade between countries to falling in love.
In 1974, Gary Becker developed an economic theory of marriage that suggests marriage provides advantages through comparative advantage, the same concept that provides advantages from trade with neighbors, other states, and other countries. The U.S. exports soybeans to China because we are better* at growing soybeans, and China exports textiles to us because they are better at textiles. When two countries are skilled at producing different products, they can both be made better off by trading.
Becker suggested that gains from trade can also be found when individuals with different wage rates (or salaries) marry. One person has skills more valued by the market place, and the other has skills less valued by the market place. This means they are skilled at different things, which suggests trade can make both better off. Trade, here, refers not to the trading of bodily fluids but as roles in the household. One goes to work and makes a high salary, and the other stays at home and makes sure the children receive constant love and attention. As a result, everything that needs to get done for a happy family gets done with the utmost efficiency.
Recent research into happiness suggests the theory is correct. As the graph above shows, couples with large differences in wage rates receive larger jumps in happiness from getting married than couples with similar wage rates. Comparative advantage is present, and important, between countries and couples.
* "Better" is defined here in terms of opportunity costs of production
In 1974, Gary Becker developed an economic theory of marriage that suggests marriage provides advantages through comparative advantage, the same concept that provides advantages from trade with neighbors, other states, and other countries. The U.S. exports soybeans to China because we are better* at growing soybeans, and China exports textiles to us because they are better at textiles. When two countries are skilled at producing different products, they can both be made better off by trading.
Becker suggested that gains from trade can also be found when individuals with different wage rates (or salaries) marry. One person has skills more valued by the market place, and the other has skills less valued by the market place. This means they are skilled at different things, which suggests trade can make both better off. Trade, here, refers not to the trading of bodily fluids but as roles in the household. One goes to work and makes a high salary, and the other stays at home and makes sure the children receive constant love and attention. As a result, everything that needs to get done for a happy family gets done with the utmost efficiency.
Recent research into happiness suggests the theory is correct. As the graph above shows, couples with large differences in wage rates receive larger jumps in happiness from getting married than couples with similar wage rates. Comparative advantage is present, and important, between countries and couples.
* "Better" is defined here in terms of opportunity costs of production
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Importance of Insurance
We are at the point in my data analysis class where I am teaching students how to calculate insurance premiums. The example we are using in class is yield insurance, where farmers get paid money if their crops experience low yields. Using the methods outlined in these notes, I teach them how insurance companies decide how much to charge.
Insurance markets are becoming increasingly important. Weatherproof is a company that makes coats, and people buy more coats when the weather is cold. If winters are increasingly warm, they stand to lose lots of money. To protect against this loss, they purchased an insurance policy that pays out $10 million in the month of December if the average daily temperature exceeds 40 degrees. Read more.
My father used to make money by putting on rodeos. He would pay a rodeo contractor to put on the show, and my father sold tickets to the show. If the weather was bad and people didn't show up to purchase tickets, he still had to pay the contractor. If he was still in the rodeo business, he could protect himself about bad weather by purchasing a customized weather insurance policy from CSI Entertainment Insurance.
Thriving insurance markets are important for society as a whole. Without affordable home insurance, one accident could plunge a normal family into financial ruin. I need not describe the importance of health insurance. For insurance markets to thrive, we must have people who can understand the economics of insurance and the basic of statistics to calculate what premiums they should charge. It is important for both insurance companies and societies. That is why we subsidize students to learn statistics and economics!
One of the reasons our economy is sick is that AIG (American International Group) started selling insurance on home mortgages. If you own home mortgages as part of your investment portfolio, you run the risk that some of those homeowners will default. AIG sold people insurance that pays out in the case default does occur. Yet they didn't crunch the numbers correctly. They underestimated the probability of a home default, and as a consequence, ran their company and our economy into the ground. (more on AIG here)
Note: an interesting NY Times article on the importance of weather forcasting in fashion can be found here.
Oklahoma where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
As new energy sources are being sought, wind is becoming less of a nuisance and more of a resource. Below is an awesome map, given to me by my friend Shannon Ferrell, which shows the wind conditions in Oklahoma. This map is akin to a map showing water resources, where the blue means water. Here, the colors mean wind strength, where red is windy, windy, windy, and perhaps, profitable, profitable, profitable.
I think the presence of wind corridors is especially interesting.
I think the presence of wind corridors is especially interesting.
Hereos of Capitalism
In a capitalistic system, one only generates wealth for oneself if one generates wealth for others. To generate large profits, one must give the consumer something other people cannot. Whether it be a new invention, a lower priced product, or a higher quality product, the contributions of successful capitalists are the primary source of our great wealth.
Who has done more to help the poor: Henry Ford who gave us the modern car and assembly line, allowing us to produce every good cheaper, or former NC Senator John Edwards, the self-apppointed Patron Saint of the poor?
By the definition of a capitalistic system, the ones who generate wealth for themselves are the ones who generate wealth for all. These capitalists are the real Patron Saints of the poor. Who are all these people? The superb blog Hereos of Capitalism features one of these Patron Saints each day. Let us pay homage.
Who has done more to help the poor: Henry Ford who gave us the modern car and assembly line, allowing us to produce every good cheaper, or former NC Senator John Edwards, the self-apppointed Patron Saint of the poor?
By the definition of a capitalistic system, the ones who generate wealth for themselves are the ones who generate wealth for all. These capitalists are the real Patron Saints of the poor. Who are all these people? The superb blog Hereos of Capitalism features one of these Patron Saints each day. Let us pay homage.
Bird Spectacles
I learn something new everyday. Here is one of my first lessons for today.
Bird hunting is big business, and some hunting preserves breed and raise birds to be set free and subsequently hunted. Pressures to keep costs low are the same for these farms as the farms that raise animals for food. Many house the animals in tightly confined facilities in large groups. Whenever you cram any large group of animals together, they get ornery and fight.
To prevent fighting, some of these preserves place "spectacles" on the birds, as shown below. They cut a hole in the beak perpendicular to the face, stick a metal pen through the whole, and attach a plastic device that limits the vision of the bird. The idea is that if a bird cannot see other birds, it cannot try to fight other birds.
Farm Animal Welfare: A Rare Statement of Truth
It is rare you see a reasonable and truthful statement regarding the issue of farm animal welfare -- from either side of the debate. Here are a two from an excellent story by the JAVMA News.
Multiple factors must be looked at when considering how to house an animal to ensure its well-being, according to Dr. Gail C. Golab, director of the AVMA Animal Welfare Division. "We agree that more attention needs to be paid to the behavioral well-being of production animals," she said. "In doing so, we don't want to be singularly focused on just providing additional space, as is the case with Prop 2.
"For example, moving laying hens to free-range production systems may allow them to engage in more species-typical behaviors, but it also increases the hens' risks of illness and injury because it increases their exposure to disease vectors and predators."
California voters call for changes in livestock housing - JAVMA News
Multiple factors must be looked at when considering how to house an animal to ensure its well-being, according to Dr. Gail C. Golab, director of the AVMA Animal Welfare Division. "We agree that more attention needs to be paid to the behavioral well-being of production animals," she said. "In doing so, we don't want to be singularly focused on just providing additional space, as is the case with Prop 2.
"For example, moving laying hens to free-range production systems may allow them to engage in more species-typical behaviors, but it also increases the hens' risks of illness and injury because it increases their exposure to disease vectors and predators."
California voters call for changes in livestock housing - JAVMA News
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Explaining "Stimulus Package" to Students
The government is considering another stimulus package to avoid a prolonged recession. I believe that most people believe that when the government gives consumers a rebate to increase spending, people view that rebate as "new" spending.
Yet, ask your students where the money for that rebate check comes from. The check is paid for, of course, by taxpayers. So in a sense, taxpayers are writing themselves a check. How does writing yourself a check for $100 increase spending? You receive $100, but you pay $100. Its not like you now have more money.
The answer has to do with money demand. For the stimulus package to work, the rebate must cause some people to hold onto less money than they would have held without the rebate check. If it works, it works as follows. I am the government and I pay you $100 in a rebate check, and you go out and spend that money on beer and goldfish crackers. To get the money I don't raise your taxes by $100, as that would negate the impact of the crackers. Instead, I borrow the money.
Out in the economy are some people who are savers and have a certain amount of money they are holding onto. To borrow this extra money, I must convince these people to save more, and I do so by offering a higher interest rate. So these people now hold onto less money, because the opportunity cost of holding onto the money (i.e. the interest rate) is now higher. Thus, I induced people who were holding onto money to hold onto less through the higher interest rate. Those savers give up some of the money they were holding, and pass it to you indirectly. You then spent that money and saved the economy.
Thus, if you get a rebate check for $100, not all of that $100 is new spending. Some of it would have been spent by the person the government borrowed the $100 from.
Yet, ask your students where the money for that rebate check comes from. The check is paid for, of course, by taxpayers. So in a sense, taxpayers are writing themselves a check. How does writing yourself a check for $100 increase spending? You receive $100, but you pay $100. Its not like you now have more money.
The answer has to do with money demand. For the stimulus package to work, the rebate must cause some people to hold onto less money than they would have held without the rebate check. If it works, it works as follows. I am the government and I pay you $100 in a rebate check, and you go out and spend that money on beer and goldfish crackers. To get the money I don't raise your taxes by $100, as that would negate the impact of the crackers. Instead, I borrow the money.
Out in the economy are some people who are savers and have a certain amount of money they are holding onto. To borrow this extra money, I must convince these people to save more, and I do so by offering a higher interest rate. So these people now hold onto less money, because the opportunity cost of holding onto the money (i.e. the interest rate) is now higher. Thus, I induced people who were holding onto money to hold onto less through the higher interest rate. Those savers give up some of the money they were holding, and pass it to you indirectly. You then spent that money and saved the economy.
Thus, if you get a rebate check for $100, not all of that $100 is new spending. Some of it would have been spent by the person the government borrowed the $100 from.
The Cow Tax
Agricultural blogs and lobbyists are busy condemning a "cow tax" being considered by the Environment Protection Agency. See here and here and here. I tried looking for the original EPA document but it was taking to long. Derivative articles said the tax would be be $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per head for beef cattle and a little more than $20 per pig.
Agricultural industries are condemning the tax, of course, as any industry opposes government action that hurts it and favors government action that benefits it. I'm told that people and professors are the same way.
However, if you think that global warming is a problem we must confront, and if you believe in capitalism, you should not oppose the cow tax. No champion of capitalism believes taxpayers should help firms pay for their cost of production. If a firm cannot sell a good for more than it costs them to produce, they should not be in business. If firms should pay the cost of the labor they use, they should also pay the cost of the pollution they emit. That includes pollution from cows, if such pollution exists.
Agricultural industries are condemning the tax, of course, as any industry opposes government action that hurts it and favors government action that benefits it. I'm told that people and professors are the same way.
However, if you think that global warming is a problem we must confront, and if you believe in capitalism, you should not oppose the cow tax. No champion of capitalism believes taxpayers should help firms pay for their cost of production. If a firm cannot sell a good for more than it costs them to produce, they should not be in business. If firms should pay the cost of the labor they use, they should also pay the cost of the pollution they emit. That includes pollution from cows, if such pollution exists.
The Market for Organic Eggs
Recently I came across a superb set of data containing egg purchases for 1,652 respresentative U.S. households for 52 weeks ending July 6, 2008. From these data, I found the following interesting results.
- The average price of nonorganic eggs is $2.30
- The average price of organic eggs is $3.63
- The market share (in terms of eggs sold) of organic eggs is 0.8911%, so less than 1% of eggs produced are organic eggs
- 92% of households bought only nonorganic eggs
- 3% of households bought both nonorganic and organic eggs
- 5% bought neither egg types
- only 1 household bought organic eggs exclusively
Note that nonorganic eggs includes varieties such as cagefree eggs
For Misplaced Southerners
Are you a Southerner who now lives in an area that doesn't serve sweet tea? Have you noticed that you can't just add sugar to tea that has already been brewed and chilled? Do you get angry when you ask a waitress if the restaurant serves sweet tea and she replies, "no, but I can bring you sugar with your iced tea"?
I have found the solution! There is a sugar called Baker's sugar which contains much finer particles of suger. Simply carry it with you and stir it into unsweetened tea and it works great. You can't find it at Wal-Mart, but some specialty grocery stores carry it. It will change your life :)
Long live sweet tea!
I have found the solution! There is a sugar called Baker's sugar which contains much finer particles of suger. Simply carry it with you and stir it into unsweetened tea and it works great. You can't find it at Wal-Mart, but some specialty grocery stores carry it. It will change your life :)
Long live sweet tea!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Utility of Positive Emotion
Negative emotion serves a clear purpose. A painful back warns us to take it easy, sadness warns us we need to change something in our lives, and envy helps us perform better than others and increase our presence in the gene pool.
But what about positive emotion? Is it just a nice by-product of the accomplishments we achieve by responding to negative emotions? The book Authentic Happiness by Martin Seligman has an interesting take on the role of positive emotion. Perhaps negative emotion helps us avoid and/or perform well win-loss games, while positive emotion helps pursue and perform well in win-win games.
Example, win-lose games: Teaching assessment is a win-lose game for me. I have to collect data on how our undergraduates are learning and write an assessment report. It doesn't provide me or my department with any useful information, so I lose by participating. The university wins by claiming it collects all this great data on how our students are learning to ensure quality teaching. Whenever I have to work on assessment I get aggravated and bitter that I must take time away from valuable things and use it to produce something of no value. I experience negative emotions, which discourages me from pursuing this type of win-lose game. I put forth little effort due to the negative emotion, which is actually good for me because it doesn't benefit me or my department.
Example, win-win games: Researching with my friend Jayson Lusk is win-win. We work well together, feeding off each other's thoughts in a way to generate new ideas that we never would have produced in isolation. With both win by working together, and produce much better research. Consequently, working with Jayson is one of my favorite parts of my job. I truly enjoy the work and the collaboration. I experience positive emotions, which encourages me to continue pursuing this type of win-win game. I consider our research collaborations my top priority due to the positive emotions I receive, which benefits me from the great research we produce.
Interesting...
But what about positive emotion? Is it just a nice by-product of the accomplishments we achieve by responding to negative emotions? The book Authentic Happiness by Martin Seligman has an interesting take on the role of positive emotion. Perhaps negative emotion helps us avoid and/or perform well win-loss games, while positive emotion helps pursue and perform well in win-win games.
Example, win-lose games: Teaching assessment is a win-lose game for me. I have to collect data on how our undergraduates are learning and write an assessment report. It doesn't provide me or my department with any useful information, so I lose by participating. The university wins by claiming it collects all this great data on how our students are learning to ensure quality teaching. Whenever I have to work on assessment I get aggravated and bitter that I must take time away from valuable things and use it to produce something of no value. I experience negative emotions, which discourages me from pursuing this type of win-lose game. I put forth little effort due to the negative emotion, which is actually good for me because it doesn't benefit me or my department.
Example, win-win games: Researching with my friend Jayson Lusk is win-win. We work well together, feeding off each other's thoughts in a way to generate new ideas that we never would have produced in isolation. With both win by working together, and produce much better research. Consequently, working with Jayson is one of my favorite parts of my job. I truly enjoy the work and the collaboration. I experience positive emotions, which encourages me to continue pursuing this type of win-win game. I consider our research collaborations my top priority due to the positive emotions I receive, which benefits me from the great research we produce.
Interesting...
The Great Depression - We Learned Nothing
The Great Depression is the single most important and useful event of study for economists. Yet, I cannot help but think we do not really understand what caused it and what cured it, and we never will.
This Sunday on This Week With George Stephanopoulos, the panel began discussing the economy with references to the Great Depression. George Will, a conservative, argued it was caused by a federal government who couldn't make up its mind on how to combat the depression. Consequently, businesses didn't know the "rules of the game" and therefore were reluctant to make investments. Paul Krugman, a liberal, argued it was because of a demand shock and the government simply needed to spend more or get more dollars in people's hands. Krugman argued businesses did not make investments because consumers were not buying anything.
I have noticed this trend among all economists. Their beliefs about the Great Depression can be predicted almost perfectly based on one variable: a dummy variable indicating whether they lean conservative. It is saddening that, because of this, it seems we can learn nothing from The Great Depression.
Note: Krugman is a great economist, but the fact that he possesses a Nobel Prize does not mean he necessarily knows more than George Will. George Will is more talented than the vast majority of Ph.D economists, despite the fact that he has a Ph.D in philosophy.
This Sunday on This Week With George Stephanopoulos, the panel began discussing the economy with references to the Great Depression. George Will, a conservative, argued it was caused by a federal government who couldn't make up its mind on how to combat the depression. Consequently, businesses didn't know the "rules of the game" and therefore were reluctant to make investments. Paul Krugman, a liberal, argued it was because of a demand shock and the government simply needed to spend more or get more dollars in people's hands. Krugman argued businesses did not make investments because consumers were not buying anything.
I have noticed this trend among all economists. Their beliefs about the Great Depression can be predicted almost perfectly based on one variable: a dummy variable indicating whether they lean conservative. It is saddening that, because of this, it seems we can learn nothing from The Great Depression.
Note: Krugman is a great economist, but the fact that he possesses a Nobel Prize does not mean he necessarily knows more than George Will. George Will is more talented than the vast majority of Ph.D economists, despite the fact that he has a Ph.D in philosophy.
Politically [un]Popular Ethanol
Price controls today are not popular politically, probably because so many individuals remember the price controls of the 1970's. I was only born in 74, but I still have heard many stories, and none of those stories lamented the demise of gasoline price controls. Hopefully, given all we have recently learned about ethanol (see below), having the government choose "winners" in the energy debate will now become politically unpopular.
Congress stipulated that ethanol be cleaner than gasoline and handed the job of measuring emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency, which has found itself under ferocious pressure. The ethanol industry wants its product shown in the best possible light. Environmentalists want an honest accounting, which the public deserves but which they do not think an industry-friendly Bush administration is capable of.
The most contentious question involves the emissions caused by direct and indirect changes in land use associated with growing biofuels. Until late last year, corn ethanol had been seen as at least carbon neutral ...But then came a spate of new studies arguing that earlier calculations had failed to account for the emissions caused when land is cleared and tilled, releasing large quantities of stored carbon.
from Honesty About Ethanol, NY Times editorial, today.
we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.
from Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change, Science magazine, Feb 08.
Congress stipulated that ethanol be cleaner than gasoline and handed the job of measuring emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency, which has found itself under ferocious pressure. The ethanol industry wants its product shown in the best possible light. Environmentalists want an honest accounting, which the public deserves but which they do not think an industry-friendly Bush administration is capable of.
The most contentious question involves the emissions caused by direct and indirect changes in land use associated with growing biofuels. Until late last year, corn ethanol had been seen as at least carbon neutral ...But then came a spate of new studies arguing that earlier calculations had failed to account for the emissions caused when land is cleared and tilled, releasing large quantities of stored carbon.
from Honesty About Ethanol, NY Times editorial, today.
we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.
from Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change, Science magazine, Feb 08.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Food Tales
Food prices are expected to rise 8% in 2009. Feedstuffs Foodlink, Nov 17, 2009.
The number of hungry children in the U.S. rose 50% in 2007, increasing by 700,000 people. Source: Associated Press Article.
Many blame this, at least partially, on the U.S.'s absurd ventures into ethanol. It is important to remember that subsidies represent far more than a few wasted dollars spread over millions of taxpayers. Subsidies force people to divert resources in a way they do not wish, often away from things people really find important. The Economist recently described a German subsidy venture in solar energy as follows .
Germany’s generous solar subsidies covered the roofs of one of the world’s most sunless countries with solar cells, thus pushing up the price of silicon and reducing the cost-effectiveness of solar power in countries where it actually makes sense.
The number of hungry children in the U.S. rose 50% in 2007, increasing by 700,000 people. Source: Associated Press Article.
Many blame this, at least partially, on the U.S.'s absurd ventures into ethanol. It is important to remember that subsidies represent far more than a few wasted dollars spread over millions of taxpayers. Subsidies force people to divert resources in a way they do not wish, often away from things people really find important. The Economist recently described a German subsidy venture in solar energy as follows .
Germany’s generous solar subsidies covered the roofs of one of the world’s most sunless countries with solar cells, thus pushing up the price of silicon and reducing the cost-effectiveness of solar power in countries where it actually makes sense.
An Omnivore's Solution
Recent environmental activists have been proposing that Michael Pollan* be appointed Secretary of Agriculture. They don't seriously think it could happen, but just the thought excites them. (example here)
My impression is that they believe should Pollan become Secretary of Ag, he would take actions to force individuals into something closer to veganism. Pollan described to a large readership that much of the grains we grow are fed to animals, before fed to us, producing what he calls large amounts of waste. Since economic activity naturally uses fossil fuels, this "waste" is a contributor towards global warming.
This group of activists believe that if I decide to pay the added costs of fossil fuels (e.g. more fertilizer, more gasoline), to convert corn into beef, instead of eating corn, that I am committing an environmental crime. They wish to dictate in certain terms how fossil fuels are used to produce the goods that I consume.
I prefer an alternative philosophy. Fossil fuels are used in everything, to produce different goods for different people. Some people use more of those fuels than others, and they consequently pay a higher price the more of those fuels they use. Instead of dictating to people how they use fossil fuels, try to price fossil fuels right, and let people choose the goods (including food) that they prefer to eat.
Also, consider this thought. Suppose that we forgo meat consumption, using less land, fuels, fertilizer, and hence fossil fuels to produce our food. We save lots of money in the process through a lower grocery bill. We will certainly spend that extra money. How do we know these "other" things purchased will not use more fossil fuels than the meat we once ate?
* If you are not aware, Michael Pollan is a talented story teller who writes about food. His book The Omnivores Dilemma attempts to describe why the "true" costs of our food is not apparent at the grocery store. His understanding of markets and social coordination is poor, but then, he is not an economist. For a superb and fair critique of the book, see this one by George Mason economist Tyler Cowen.
My impression is that they believe should Pollan become Secretary of Ag, he would take actions to force individuals into something closer to veganism. Pollan described to a large readership that much of the grains we grow are fed to animals, before fed to us, producing what he calls large amounts of waste. Since economic activity naturally uses fossil fuels, this "waste" is a contributor towards global warming.
This group of activists believe that if I decide to pay the added costs of fossil fuels (e.g. more fertilizer, more gasoline), to convert corn into beef, instead of eating corn, that I am committing an environmental crime. They wish to dictate in certain terms how fossil fuels are used to produce the goods that I consume.
I prefer an alternative philosophy. Fossil fuels are used in everything, to produce different goods for different people. Some people use more of those fuels than others, and they consequently pay a higher price the more of those fuels they use. Instead of dictating to people how they use fossil fuels, try to price fossil fuels right, and let people choose the goods (including food) that they prefer to eat.
Also, consider this thought. Suppose that we forgo meat consumption, using less land, fuels, fertilizer, and hence fossil fuels to produce our food. We save lots of money in the process through a lower grocery bill. We will certainly spend that extra money. How do we know these "other" things purchased will not use more fossil fuels than the meat we once ate?
* If you are not aware, Michael Pollan is a talented story teller who writes about food. His book The Omnivores Dilemma attempts to describe why the "true" costs of our food is not apparent at the grocery store. His understanding of markets and social coordination is poor, but then, he is not an economist. For a superb and fair critique of the book, see this one by George Mason economist Tyler Cowen.
Cage Versus Cage Free
You can play a role in animal treatment GuelphMercury.com - Opinions - You can play a role in animal treatment TimeSincePublished("2008-11-17-04:30:00","2008-11-17","Nov. 17, 2008");-->Karen Levenson
Dear Editor - Re: "Mutts comic strip unfair to farmers" (Guelph Mercury, Oct. 28).
Though farmers may not believe they are cruel to their animals, there is overwhelming evidence that intensive confinement severely compromises the animals' welfare. Canada's voluntary codes of practice codify practices where animals cannot turn around or stretch a limb.
yada yada yada
Consumers want cheap food, perhaps not realizing the cost to animals -- sensitive beings that suffer. Consumers can play a key role in the treatment of farm animals by buying eggs from cage-free hens and pork from sows kept in group housing.
-- Karen Levenson, director, Animal Alliance of Canada, Guelph
Unfortunately, if you are opposed to conventional egg and hog production, the two alternatives presented by the author above are not the answer. Animal scientists are unsure as to whether the cagefree alternatives are any better for the animal, and some argue they are worse. In the conventional system there are 5 hens cramped in a small cage. In a cagefree system there are thousands of birds cramped, but a little less cramped, in a barn. In the former, the birds have virtually no room to move but do not suffer much injuries from other birds. In the latter, due to the large flock sizes, birds are very frequently injured, cannibalized, and suffocated from swarming.
Would you prefer being jailed in a cell with one roommate, or set free in the jail-yard to be repeatedly beaten and raped? That is an illustration of the choice between cage and cagefree eggs, if you believe the cage system is inhumane. The story for the sows is similar. Note that I am not saying the cage system is akin to prison, I'm just trying to provide a useful analogy for consumers who are unhappy with modern cage systems.
Fortunately, there is a solution, and it is called furnished cages for eggs, and shelter-pasture systems as described by the Animal Welfare Institute for sows. If you are unhappy with modern livestock agriculture as it currently exists, these are unambiguous improvements.
Dear Editor - Re: "Mutts comic strip unfair to farmers" (Guelph Mercury, Oct. 28).
Though farmers may not believe they are cruel to their animals, there is overwhelming evidence that intensive confinement severely compromises the animals' welfare. Canada's voluntary codes of practice codify practices where animals cannot turn around or stretch a limb.
yada yada yada
Consumers want cheap food, perhaps not realizing the cost to animals -- sensitive beings that suffer. Consumers can play a key role in the treatment of farm animals by buying eggs from cage-free hens and pork from sows kept in group housing.
-- Karen Levenson, director, Animal Alliance of Canada, Guelph
Unfortunately, if you are opposed to conventional egg and hog production, the two alternatives presented by the author above are not the answer. Animal scientists are unsure as to whether the cagefree alternatives are any better for the animal, and some argue they are worse. In the conventional system there are 5 hens cramped in a small cage. In a cagefree system there are thousands of birds cramped, but a little less cramped, in a barn. In the former, the birds have virtually no room to move but do not suffer much injuries from other birds. In the latter, due to the large flock sizes, birds are very frequently injured, cannibalized, and suffocated from swarming.
Would you prefer being jailed in a cell with one roommate, or set free in the jail-yard to be repeatedly beaten and raped? That is an illustration of the choice between cage and cagefree eggs, if you believe the cage system is inhumane. The story for the sows is similar. Note that I am not saying the cage system is akin to prison, I'm just trying to provide a useful analogy for consumers who are unhappy with modern cage systems.
Fortunately, there is a solution, and it is called furnished cages for eggs, and shelter-pasture systems as described by the Animal Welfare Institute for sows. If you are unhappy with modern livestock agriculture as it currently exists, these are unambiguous improvements.
The Cost of Happy Hogs
This afternoon, my graduate student Lacey Seibert is giving her Master's Thesis defense. Her thesis concerns the cost of producing hogs under what many call improved animal welfare. A video of one of those "humane" farms can be viewed here. Compare that video to what traditional farms look like in the picture below.
Her results show that it costs $0.10 more per pound of live-hog (a hog ready for slaughter) under these higher welfare standards than in the traditional confinement farm shown above. Since one pound of live hog produces only 0.58 lbs of meat for the consumer (source), these higher welfare standards raise the cost of retail meat production by $0.1/0.58 = 0.17.*
Consequently, consumers would have to pay $0.17 more at the grocery store to provide hogs with a more content life. I think the current retail price of pork is about $3,** so this is an increase in pork prices of 0.17/3 = 6%. Anything wrong with this line of logic?
However, the farmer in the video seems to be claiming "antibiotic free". Many farmers who receive a premium due to the nonuse of antibiotics often deny antibiotics to sick pigs. That is not good stewardship. Organic farmers often provide poorer animal feeds, which leads to higher mortality rates. That is not good stewardship of animals either.
*Let Qf and Qr be the farm and retail quantity of pork. By definition, Qr= 0.58Qf, or Qf = Qr/0.58. The $0.1 per lb increase in costs raises meat costs by $0.1Qf = $0.1Qr/0.58, assuming that costs is passed onto the consumer in full. The per retail lb of this cost increase then equals ($0.1Qr/0.58)/Qr = $0.1/0.58 = $0.17.
**The current live hog futures price is $0.55 per lb of live hog, which is $0.55/0.58 = 0.95 per retail lb. For every dollar the consumer pays, the farmer receives $0.3. Thus, if the farmer receives close to $1 per retail lb, the consumer must be paying close to $3 per retail lb.
Her results show that it costs $0.10 more per pound of live-hog (a hog ready for slaughter) under these higher welfare standards than in the traditional confinement farm shown above. Since one pound of live hog produces only 0.58 lbs of meat for the consumer (source), these higher welfare standards raise the cost of retail meat production by $0.1/0.58 = 0.17.*
Consequently, consumers would have to pay $0.17 more at the grocery store to provide hogs with a more content life. I think the current retail price of pork is about $3,** so this is an increase in pork prices of 0.17/3 = 6%. Anything wrong with this line of logic?
However, the farmer in the video seems to be claiming "antibiotic free". Many farmers who receive a premium due to the nonuse of antibiotics often deny antibiotics to sick pigs. That is not good stewardship. Organic farmers often provide poorer animal feeds, which leads to higher mortality rates. That is not good stewardship of animals either.
*Let Qf and Qr be the farm and retail quantity of pork. By definition, Qr= 0.58Qf, or Qf = Qr/0.58. The $0.1 per lb increase in costs raises meat costs by $0.1Qf = $0.1Qr/0.58, assuming that costs is passed onto the consumer in full. The per retail lb of this cost increase then equals ($0.1Qr/0.58)/Qr = $0.1/0.58 = $0.17.
**The current live hog futures price is $0.55 per lb of live hog, which is $0.55/0.58 = 0.95 per retail lb. For every dollar the consumer pays, the farmer receives $0.3. Thus, if the farmer receives close to $1 per retail lb, the consumer must be paying close to $3 per retail lb.
The Importance of Economics
Here is why understanding economics is important. India currently subsidizes fertilizer by an amount equal to 2.5% of its GDP (source). This subsidy is not just rent seeking. In an excellent paper describing the reasons people are averse to capitalism, they quote someone as saying...
"Attempts to remove such a subsidy [to fertilizers in India] have turned out to be politically
impossible and the majority of those opposing the removal do so not because they are
themselves adversely affected by it (as public choice theory suggests) but because they believe
that removing the subsidy will be bad for the economy."
Investigating Capitalism Aversion, published in Economic Policy in July of 2008.
Augustin Landier
David Thesmar
Mathias Thoenig
Subsidies do not create wealth, but instead forces society to purchase goods they do not want by producing goods that are valued less than they cost to produce. This is not wealth, this detracts from wealth. This is why we teach economics. This is why our job is important.
"Attempts to remove such a subsidy [to fertilizers in India] have turned out to be politically
impossible and the majority of those opposing the removal do so not because they are
themselves adversely affected by it (as public choice theory suggests) but because they believe
that removing the subsidy will be bad for the economy."
Investigating Capitalism Aversion, published in Economic Policy in July of 2008.
Augustin Landier
David Thesmar
Mathias Thoenig
Subsidies do not create wealth, but instead forces society to purchase goods they do not want by producing goods that are valued less than they cost to produce. This is not wealth, this detracts from wealth. This is why we teach economics. This is why our job is important.
American Socialism
Contrast the two excerpts...
This is the only major industrial society that has never had a large socialist party ideologically, meaning candidly, committed to redistribution of wealth. This is partly because Americans are an aspirational, not an envious people. It is also because the socialism we do have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g. sugar producers represented by their Washington hirelings.
In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do rent-seeking -- bending government for the benefit of private factions. The difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their complicity in what government has become.
From The Hyperbole of a Conservative
"We have appreciated Sen. Obama's leadership on issues ranging from strong safety net programs within the farm bill to the promotion of corn-based ethanol as an important source of domestic energy," Bob Dickey, president of the 32,000-member National Corn Growers Association, said in letter of congratulations to the president.
From Farm Groups Welcome Obama
While I didn't vote for McCain, I will say that he is the only politician that I know of who opposes ethanol subsidies.
This is the only major industrial society that has never had a large socialist party ideologically, meaning candidly, committed to redistribution of wealth. This is partly because Americans are an aspirational, not an envious people. It is also because the socialism we do have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g. sugar producers represented by their Washington hirelings.
In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do rent-seeking -- bending government for the benefit of private factions. The difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their complicity in what government has become.
From The Hyperbole of a Conservative
"We have appreciated Sen. Obama's leadership on issues ranging from strong safety net programs within the farm bill to the promotion of corn-based ethanol as an important source of domestic energy," Bob Dickey, president of the 32,000-member National Corn Growers Association, said in letter of congratulations to the president.
From Farm Groups Welcome Obama
While I didn't vote for McCain, I will say that he is the only politician that I know of who opposes ethanol subsidies.
QLD livestock producers support fine increase
QLD livestock producers support fine increase
November 17, 2008
LIVESTOCK producers in Queensland have supported moves by the State Government to increase fines for animal cruelty and agree with plans to raise the maximum fine to $100,000 for individuals. Primary Industry and Fisheries Minister Tim Mulherin’s made the decision to raise the maximum fine last week. AgForce Cattle vice president Grant Maudsley said animal welfare was a core part of management decisions for all producers at all times because it was a huge influence on production efficiency, quality and handling.
yada, yada, yada
“Healthy cattle that are not stressed are the most profitable and it is important that the best outcome from a commercial production basis is achieved during the AAWS consultation,” Mr Maudsle said. Read more here.
The livestock industry is known for asserting that the well-being of an animal can be measured directly and solely by the animals' productivity. However, there is not one animal scientist who agrees with this statement. The scientific literature and my frequent conversations with scientists assures me my statement is not hyperbole. Plus, common sense is violated when producers tell consumers that sows in gestation stalls and birds in battery cages must be happy because they have lots of babies and eggs. The longer industry promotes this untruth, the more it will resemble the cigarette industry to consumers. I say that as a friend to the agriculture industry.
Here is an industry statement that would please me. "To compete in the marketplace livestock producers must adopt methods that are good for welfare in some ways and bad for welfare in others. In order for farmers to utilize practices that are good for animal welfare in all ways, consumers must first show a willingness to pay the added cost at the grocery store. Nothing would please farmers more than the opportunity to provide this extra service to consumers and the animals."
November 17, 2008
LIVESTOCK producers in Queensland have supported moves by the State Government to increase fines for animal cruelty and agree with plans to raise the maximum fine to $100,000 for individuals. Primary Industry and Fisheries Minister Tim Mulherin’s made the decision to raise the maximum fine last week. AgForce Cattle vice president Grant Maudsley said animal welfare was a core part of management decisions for all producers at all times because it was a huge influence on production efficiency, quality and handling.
yada, yada, yada
“Healthy cattle that are not stressed are the most profitable and it is important that the best outcome from a commercial production basis is achieved during the AAWS consultation,” Mr Maudsle said. Read more here.
The livestock industry is known for asserting that the well-being of an animal can be measured directly and solely by the animals' productivity. However, there is not one animal scientist who agrees with this statement. The scientific literature and my frequent conversations with scientists assures me my statement is not hyperbole. Plus, common sense is violated when producers tell consumers that sows in gestation stalls and birds in battery cages must be happy because they have lots of babies and eggs. The longer industry promotes this untruth, the more it will resemble the cigarette industry to consumers. I say that as a friend to the agriculture industry.
Here is an industry statement that would please me. "To compete in the marketplace livestock producers must adopt methods that are good for welfare in some ways and bad for welfare in others. In order for farmers to utilize practices that are good for animal welfare in all ways, consumers must first show a willingness to pay the added cost at the grocery store. Nothing would please farmers more than the opportunity to provide this extra service to consumers and the animals."
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Why Not Just Say "Farmer"
This recent story chose the headline, "Free-range pig farmer admits cruelty." I don't see why the "free-range" adjective was used. If anyone thinks it any more surprising why a "free-range" farmer would be guilty of abuse than a regular farmer, they need to get out and meet farmers.
I once did a tour of Iowa "free-range" hog farms, all of which claimed to abide by the standards set forth by the Animal Welfare Institute. While some provided a superb life for the hogs, one didn't even have a dry place for his hogs to sleep. These were farms that supply pork for Chipotle. So while I believe Chipotle certainly has higher welfare standards than the standard "factory" farm, it doesn't mean that every farmer is a responsible steward.
I once did a tour of Iowa "free-range" hog farms, all of which claimed to abide by the standards set forth by the Animal Welfare Institute. While some provided a superb life for the hogs, one didn't even have a dry place for his hogs to sleep. These were farms that supply pork for Chipotle. So while I believe Chipotle certainly has higher welfare standards than the standard "factory" farm, it doesn't mean that every farmer is a responsible steward.
The Pitfalls of Organic Food
This week I had the pleasure of conversing with the world's top authorities on the science of food at a Detroit conference. I made it my mission to talk with as many individuals as possible and hear their opinions on important food issues. The most interesting artifact from these conversations is the difference in how they view organic food relative to the public.
On individual told me he never purchases organic food because he believes non-organic food is safer. Virtually no one dies of pesticides, but the absence of pesticides allows the growth of other microbials that makes food less safe. The latter part of that sentence may not be exactly right, but it was something like that.
A conversation I can better attest to regarded the welfare of laying hens. We typically think of organic eggs coming from happier chickens, as the organic standards have several welfare requirements, such as access to some free-range. Yet, one of the world's foremost authority on hen welfare told me he/she would never purchase organic eggs because he/she believes it to possess low welfare for the birds. I asked him/her to elaborate.
The major welfare problem with organic eggs is the low provision of health care. Organic producers cannot use synthetic amino acids, and this causes the hens to experience nutritional deficiencies, especially on small farms who possess a less sophisticated understanding of nutrition. Second, the large group sizes results in an enormous amount of inter-bird injury. Third, antibiotics are prohibited under organic standards. A hen who is sick and deserving of antibiotics would have to be pulled from the flock to receive the antibiotics, and her eggs sold on the traditional market at a much lower price. Faced with these incentives, farmers allow chickens to either die or experience sickness close to death before they provide the hens with the antibiotics they need.
Consequently, while layers may have more space under an organic system, they experience much greater mortality rates. What good is more space to a layer if she dies?
There are variations of egg production between the cage and organic system. I consulted individuals at the conference to better understand the mortality rages among these systems, and here is what I found.
Egg System Mortality Rate (% hens that die between pullets and being deemed spent)
Cage 3-5%
Enriched Cage 2%
Barn / Aviary 6-8%
Free-Range* 14%
Organic 20-28%
*free-range system here refers to an outdoor system with minimal barn / shelter provision
On individual told me he never purchases organic food because he believes non-organic food is safer. Virtually no one dies of pesticides, but the absence of pesticides allows the growth of other microbials that makes food less safe. The latter part of that sentence may not be exactly right, but it was something like that.
A conversation I can better attest to regarded the welfare of laying hens. We typically think of organic eggs coming from happier chickens, as the organic standards have several welfare requirements, such as access to some free-range. Yet, one of the world's foremost authority on hen welfare told me he/she would never purchase organic eggs because he/she believes it to possess low welfare for the birds. I asked him/her to elaborate.
The major welfare problem with organic eggs is the low provision of health care. Organic producers cannot use synthetic amino acids, and this causes the hens to experience nutritional deficiencies, especially on small farms who possess a less sophisticated understanding of nutrition. Second, the large group sizes results in an enormous amount of inter-bird injury. Third, antibiotics are prohibited under organic standards. A hen who is sick and deserving of antibiotics would have to be pulled from the flock to receive the antibiotics, and her eggs sold on the traditional market at a much lower price. Faced with these incentives, farmers allow chickens to either die or experience sickness close to death before they provide the hens with the antibiotics they need.
Consequently, while layers may have more space under an organic system, they experience much greater mortality rates. What good is more space to a layer if she dies?
There are variations of egg production between the cage and organic system. I consulted individuals at the conference to better understand the mortality rages among these systems, and here is what I found.
Egg System Mortality Rate (% hens that die between pullets and being deemed spent)
Cage 3-5%
Enriched Cage 2%
Barn / Aviary 6-8%
Free-Range* 14%
Organic 20-28%
*free-range system here refers to an outdoor system with minimal barn / shelter provision
Comment added by Bailey on 2/13/09...
I recently talked with a very large organic egg producer and he suggested these numbers
Egg System Mortality Rate (% hens that die between pullets and being deemed spent)
Cage 2-3%
Barn / Aviary 6-8%
Organic 10-12%
Cage 2-3%
Barn / Aviary 6-8%
Organic 10-12%
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Indifference Principle - In Practice
The Indifference Principle is perhaps the simplest articulation of the economic way of thinking. The form I teach in class and describe in my textbook, was first described by Steven Landsburg in The Armchair Economist.
One of my former students studied the Indifference Principle in my class and then went to work as a grain merchandiser for ADM. He sent an email to an intern describing how to spot arbitrage opportunities and why those opportunities are temporary, explaining using the Indifference Principle. Below is the email he sent to his intern. Even in the workplace, understanding economic principles like the Indifference Principle is valuable.
There are a few times when we can ship meal over Chicago to the east. This happens when the supply is not where the demand is. Think of it as shopping in store, and you got to check out. You will try and find the shortest line. That is what everyone wants to do. For a short period of time there are shorter lines, but eventually they all even out. In that short period of time of shorter lines, you have the advantage. That is what happens in the meal market. There is shortage of meal in the east, western meal will flow over Chicago, but only until the markets even back out. But that small window is where we make a premium. Today I want you to find out our freight rate to Chicago (note this maybe under Chicago Prop). Then find the freight rate from Chicago Prop to Laurinburg, NC. When you have that you have the total rate from Des Moines to Laurinburg, figure the price per ton using 95 ton cars. Now look at the freight rate from Frankfort, IN to Laurinburg, NC and figure the freight rate per ton. If the meal market is -15 Z Frankfort, what does the meal market have to be FOB Des Moines for us to justify sending meal over Chicago.
One of my former students studied the Indifference Principle in my class and then went to work as a grain merchandiser for ADM. He sent an email to an intern describing how to spot arbitrage opportunities and why those opportunities are temporary, explaining using the Indifference Principle. Below is the email he sent to his intern. Even in the workplace, understanding economic principles like the Indifference Principle is valuable.
There are a few times when we can ship meal over Chicago to the east. This happens when the supply is not where the demand is. Think of it as shopping in store, and you got to check out. You will try and find the shortest line. That is what everyone wants to do. For a short period of time there are shorter lines, but eventually they all even out. In that short period of time of shorter lines, you have the advantage. That is what happens in the meal market. There is shortage of meal in the east, western meal will flow over Chicago, but only until the markets even back out. But that small window is where we make a premium. Today I want you to find out our freight rate to Chicago (note this maybe under Chicago Prop). Then find the freight rate from Chicago Prop to Laurinburg, NC. When you have that you have the total rate from Des Moines to Laurinburg, figure the price per ton using 95 ton cars. Now look at the freight rate from Frankfort, IN to Laurinburg, NC and figure the freight rate per ton. If the meal market is -15 Z Frankfort, what does the meal market have to be FOB Des Moines for us to justify sending meal over Chicago.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Beef Prices in the 80's
On Nov 10 I posted a chart showing the decline in beef, hog, and egg prices from 1920 till today. A reader pondered why beef prices stayed so steady for most of the period then declined during the 80's forward. I'll give some thought to this later, but the question immediately made me remember a graph I placed in my textbook showing that the demand for beef definitely declined during the 80's, perhaps due to health reports about red meat. So part of the reason may be demand related. The graphs showing this are below. The index was calculated by a friend of mine who is an agricultural economist.
Broom Corn
Many of the brooms made today are still made from a plant, a plant called broom corn. It is a variety of corn whose tassels make for nice broom material. A picture of broom corn growing is below. Notice the large tassels compared to normal corn. It is mainly grown in Mexico and China. You can learn all kinds of things from strangers!
I, Broom
The passenger next to me on the plane to Detroit was a business person who was unfortunately subjected to my onslaught of questions (I'm a very curious person who can question a person to death). He is a member of the marketing department for a small business that produces brooms and mops. He was traveling to meet with Wal-Mart representatives, Wal-Mart being his biggest customer. I asked him to discuss two topics which I will succintly describe below.
(1) Somehow we got on the subject of the marvels of capitalism. I mentioned the debate between Hayek versus others regarding the performance of capitalism versus central planning, and told him Hayek largely won the argument for capitalism by arguing the information needed for economic production was dispersed across millions of people, and that information could never be obtained or harness by one organization. To explain, I noted (as economists have been doing since the 50's, see previous post here) that no one person knows how a pencil is made. No planning committee could either.
His eyes lighted with enthusiasm, and for the next 20 minutes discussed all the activities and decisions involved with making a broom. Will the broom be made with broomcorn from Mexico or fake broomcorn? Will it be a wooden handle from the U.S. or a metal one from China. There were tons of decisions, and most all of them involved purchasing an input from another currency. I wish I could have recorded it. A broom is so simple, yet producing one efficiently is not.
(2) I then asked him to describe the culture at Wal-Mart, him being a supplier of Wal-Mart mops and brooms. He described it as a culture of paranoia. You are filmed from the moment you leave your car at the parking lot. Some of your conversations may be taped. You may not be allowed to carry your cell phone in certain parts of their headquarters. Wal-Mart has a competitive edge and they are scared to death of losing it.
I'm so glad I'm in academia.
(1) Somehow we got on the subject of the marvels of capitalism. I mentioned the debate between Hayek versus others regarding the performance of capitalism versus central planning, and told him Hayek largely won the argument for capitalism by arguing the information needed for economic production was dispersed across millions of people, and that information could never be obtained or harness by one organization. To explain, I noted (as economists have been doing since the 50's, see previous post here) that no one person knows how a pencil is made. No planning committee could either.
His eyes lighted with enthusiasm, and for the next 20 minutes discussed all the activities and decisions involved with making a broom. Will the broom be made with broomcorn from Mexico or fake broomcorn? Will it be a wooden handle from the U.S. or a metal one from China. There were tons of decisions, and most all of them involved purchasing an input from another currency. I wish I could have recorded it. A broom is so simple, yet producing one efficiently is not.
(2) I then asked him to describe the culture at Wal-Mart, him being a supplier of Wal-Mart mops and brooms. He described it as a culture of paranoia. You are filmed from the moment you leave your car at the parking lot. Some of your conversations may be taped. You may not be allowed to carry your cell phone in certain parts of their headquarters. Wal-Mart has a competitive edge and they are scared to death of losing it.
I'm so glad I'm in academia.
Hello From Detroit
I am currently in a Detroit Hotel awaiting the reception for a workshop titled, "Social Sustainability of Egg Production." The workshop entails throwing a bunch of "experts" in diverse fields and determining the consequence of adopting alternative methods of egg production.
I'll keep you posted...
I'll keep you posted...
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
God is Dead
It is okay to post "God is Dead" on your door now, as this article shows. However, don't you dare post a sign saying The Flying Spaghetti Monster is Dead. You will be denied a heaven possessing a bear volcano.
Laissez-Faire Higher Ed
The college of ag at OK State does a magnificent job of teaching and advising. Many students obtain agribusiness degrees instead of business degrees simply because ag econ professors are better teachers and more caring advisors. They come here for "the personal touch."
I have been told that enrollment in our ag college increased this year, but because enrollment fell for the university as a whole, our college had to suffer a cut in funds.
The University of Cincinnati is drafting a plan where programs would receive more money for greater enrollment and receive cuts for falling enrollment. Programs who find ways to cut costs even get to keep a portion of those savings. Read more here.
Some are obviously concerned about what a market-based approach to higher education would produce. Colleges and departments could easily boost enrollment by offerring more classes, which may not raise costs much if you hire cheap adjuncts to teach them. And of course, the best way to attract students is to make your classes really easy. At OK State, many students walk across the street to Northern Oklahoma College where classes are easier and the teacher gets paid only $1,800 a course. If you only paid me $1,800 per course, I would give each student A's on the first day and tell them, "it was nice meeting you, take the rest of the semester off."
Remember, though, there is much more to a market than the revenue and cost stream for any one year. There is always a reputation effect. Engineering students are smarter than agribusiness students. Agribusiness students are smarter than some other majors. Students at Stanford are smarter than OK State students. Dumb down a program and you lose your reputation.
Yet, reputation only works to ensure quality control if the school is able to profit from the reputation. If a school decides to maintain higher standards, and suffer some enrollment as a result, wouldn't it have to charge their students more to capture the value of the higher standards?
I'm not sure the market for college graduates works that efficiently. But never underestimate the ability of a market to see what arrogant professors like me cannot see!
I have been told that enrollment in our ag college increased this year, but because enrollment fell for the university as a whole, our college had to suffer a cut in funds.
The University of Cincinnati is drafting a plan where programs would receive more money for greater enrollment and receive cuts for falling enrollment. Programs who find ways to cut costs even get to keep a portion of those savings. Read more here.
Some are obviously concerned about what a market-based approach to higher education would produce. Colleges and departments could easily boost enrollment by offerring more classes, which may not raise costs much if you hire cheap adjuncts to teach them. And of course, the best way to attract students is to make your classes really easy. At OK State, many students walk across the street to Northern Oklahoma College where classes are easier and the teacher gets paid only $1,800 a course. If you only paid me $1,800 per course, I would give each student A's on the first day and tell them, "it was nice meeting you, take the rest of the semester off."
Remember, though, there is much more to a market than the revenue and cost stream for any one year. There is always a reputation effect. Engineering students are smarter than agribusiness students. Agribusiness students are smarter than some other majors. Students at Stanford are smarter than OK State students. Dumb down a program and you lose your reputation.
Yet, reputation only works to ensure quality control if the school is able to profit from the reputation. If a school decides to maintain higher standards, and suffer some enrollment as a result, wouldn't it have to charge their students more to capture the value of the higher standards?
I'm not sure the market for college graduates works that efficiently. But never underestimate the ability of a market to see what arrogant professors like me cannot see!
Secretary of Ag Michael Pollan
Michael Pollan is a great writer. He knows how to warp truth in a manner that makes it sound like a great story. He does it in a way that if people ask me, "is Pollan right?" I certainly can't say yes, but I can't deem him an outright liar either.
A recent article suggest Obama is somewhat influenced by Pollan. Scary :(
A recent article suggest Obama is somewhat influenced by Pollan. Scary :(
The Fatal Conceit
Anytime you drive a tractor or use fertilizer that creates greenhouses gases. It is then better for the environment to produce grass fed beef, right? But now it appears that grass fed beef produces more methane from the mouth of cows than corn fed beef. So now corn fed beef is better for the environment. But wait, this doesn't account for the greenhouses gases emitted from the corn production!
Anyone who thinks they can figure out the one best and only way to produce cattle commits The Fatal Conceit (look it up) through their hubris. I imagine the "best" way is a combination of corn and grass fed cattle, but I don't know. And neither do you.
(And no, the best method is not to abstain from beef! At least, not in my world of pastrami sandwiches on rye bread.)
Anyone who thinks they can figure out the one best and only way to produce cattle commits The Fatal Conceit (look it up) through their hubris. I imagine the "best" way is a combination of corn and grass fed cattle, but I don't know. And neither do you.
(And no, the best method is not to abstain from beef! At least, not in my world of pastrami sandwiches on rye bread.)
Monday, November 10, 2008
Steven Horwitz's An Open Letter to my Friends on the Left is a superb read for people under the impression that free markets caused the financial mess, and for people sick of hearing others blame free markets.
We may begin hearing increased support for a bailout of automobile manufacturers. The graph below suggests a bailout may not be supporting firms susceptible to the recent financial woes, but firms who have been unable to compete and deserve to be weaned, or at least, rid of its unions.
For a more detailed and eloquent discussion, see this WSJ editorial.
HT: Carpe Diem
For a more detailed and eloquent discussion, see this WSJ editorial.
HT: Carpe Diem
Cattle, Hog, and Egg Prices: 1920-2002
I have always wondered how cattle, hog, and egg prices have changed during this century, but have never seen anyone graph these prices in the years before 1970. The reason is that those prices are difficult to obtain.
Today I spent all of this morning going through old statistical abstracts entering these data and made the following graph. Note that the prices are real 2002 prices. Egg and hog prices have fallen faster than cattle prices, but all have fallen significantly. The decline in egg prices is especially noticeable, and is due to modern production techniques such as advanced feed formulations and confined production facilites. Also especially noticable is the decline in price volatility from the 1980's forward.
Steinbeck Talks About Food
Travels With Charley: In Search of America.
by John Steinbeck
First Published in 1962
Even while I protest the assembly-line production of our food, our songs, our language, and eventually our souls, I know that it was a rare home that baked good bread in the old days.
Page 83.
At the roadsides I never had a really good dinner or a really bad breakfast. The bacon or sausage was good and packaged at the factory, the eggs fresh or kept fresh by refigeration, and refrigeration was universal. I might even say roadside America is the paradise of breakfast except for one thing....A freshly laid egg does not taste remotely like the pale, battery-produced refrigerated egg. The sausage would be sweet and shart and pungent with spices, and my coffee a wine-dark happiness. Can I then say that the America I saw has put cleanliness first, at the expense of taste?
Pages 108-109
by John Steinbeck
First Published in 1962
Even while I protest the assembly-line production of our food, our songs, our language, and eventually our souls, I know that it was a rare home that baked good bread in the old days.
Page 83.
At the roadsides I never had a really good dinner or a really bad breakfast. The bacon or sausage was good and packaged at the factory, the eggs fresh or kept fresh by refigeration, and refrigeration was universal. I might even say roadside America is the paradise of breakfast except for one thing....A freshly laid egg does not taste remotely like the pale, battery-produced refrigerated egg. The sausage would be sweet and shart and pungent with spices, and my coffee a wine-dark happiness. Can I then say that the America I saw has put cleanliness first, at the expense of taste?
Pages 108-109
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Sophistry
Below is an interesting dialogue I read from Greg Mankiw's blog. One of my Christian friends once made a similar remark. In talking to group of Christians, he remarked how you cannot say that, "religion is unscientific", because that very phrase "religion is unscientific" is not a scientific statement. He and his audience thought it made perfect sense.
I, however, was perplexed. A phrase is language, a means of communication. Language works if it communicates the intended information, regardless of the fact that it did not undergo a peer reviewed process or hypothesis testing.
I always thought I misunderstood him, but Mankiw's narrative below suggests I did not. Their arguments are either sophistry, or my mind works differently from theirs. It may be the latter. I tried reading about Zen Buddhism several times but found it silly.
From Greg Mankiw's blog on Nov 8, 2008.
I have been rereading Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. This passage really sticks with me:
After a while he says, "Do you believe in ghosts?"
"No," I say.
"Why not?"
"Because they are un-sci-en-ti-fic."
The way I say this makes John smile. "They contain no matter," I continue, "and have no energy and therefore, according to the laws of science, do not exist except in people’s minds."
The whiskey, the fatigue and the wind in the trees start mixing in my mind. "Of course," I add, "the laws of science contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people’s minds. It’s best to be completely scientific about the whole thing and refuse to believe in either ghosts or the laws of science. That way you’re safe. That doesn’t leave you very much to believe in, but that’s scientific too."
I, however, was perplexed. A phrase is language, a means of communication. Language works if it communicates the intended information, regardless of the fact that it did not undergo a peer reviewed process or hypothesis testing.
I always thought I misunderstood him, but Mankiw's narrative below suggests I did not. Their arguments are either sophistry, or my mind works differently from theirs. It may be the latter. I tried reading about Zen Buddhism several times but found it silly.
From Greg Mankiw's blog on Nov 8, 2008.
I have been rereading Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. This passage really sticks with me:
After a while he says, "Do you believe in ghosts?"
"No," I say.
"Why not?"
"Because they are un-sci-en-ti-fic."
The way I say this makes John smile. "They contain no matter," I continue, "and have no energy and therefore, according to the laws of science, do not exist except in people’s minds."
The whiskey, the fatigue and the wind in the trees start mixing in my mind. "Of course," I add, "the laws of science contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people’s minds. It’s best to be completely scientific about the whole thing and refuse to believe in either ghosts or the laws of science. That way you’re safe. That doesn’t leave you very much to believe in, but that’s scientific too."
Horrible Ideas
Below is a horrible idea that Barack Obama wants to implement. This is from his website.
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
National service is a great way to take people away from a position where they create value for society, like a job, to a place that has little to no value, like community service. You are paid to do a job because that job is valuable. Community service is achieved through volunteering because the service is not valuable enough for anyone to pay for it.
I would rather vote for a politician that urges everyone to make as much money for themselves as they can than one who urges everyone to volunteer as much as they can. The poor is much, much better off under the first system.
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
National service is a great way to take people away from a position where they create value for society, like a job, to a place that has little to no value, like community service. You are paid to do a job because that job is valuable. Community service is achieved through volunteering because the service is not valuable enough for anyone to pay for it.
I would rather vote for a politician that urges everyone to make as much money for themselves as they can than one who urges everyone to volunteer as much as they can. The poor is much, much better off under the first system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)