June 2012 – Page 2 – artdiamondblog.com

Crop Insurance Is Worse for Taxpayers than a One-Time Bailout

“A grassland field in North Dakota that was burned and then seeded with soybeans. More than one million acres have become farmland in the state since 2007.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A13) By guaranteeing income, farmers say, crop insurance removes almost any financial risk for planting land where crop failure is almost certain.

“When you can remove nearly all the risk involved and guarantee yourself a profit, it’s not a bad business decision,” said Darwyn Bach, a farmer in St. Leo, Minn., who said that he is guaranteed about $1,000 an acre in revenue before he puts a single seed in the ground because of crop insurance. “I can farm on low-quality land that I know is not going to produce and still turn a profit.”
. . .
Environmentalists, hunting groups and even some farmers say the prospect of expanding insurance will only speed the push to turn grasslands into farms.
. . .
The existing crop insurance subsidy ballooned to $7.3 billion last year from $951 million in 2000, or about $1.2 billion adjusted for inflation, according to another G.A.O. report released in April. The costs of the program have risen as the value of crops has increased. Over the next 10 years, a Congressional Budget Office study estimates, the premium subsidy for the existing program will cost about $90 billion.
“This is better than a government bailout,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of the Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group in Washington. “A bailout is a one-time thing when something bad happens. But crop insurance keeps giving, good or bad. And it’s about to give even more.”

For the full story, see:
RON NIXON. “Amid Growth, Plan to Insure Risks on Crops.” The New York Times, First Section (Thurs., June 7, 2012): A1 & A13.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the article has the date June 6, 2012 and has the title “Crop Insurance Proposal Could Cost U.S. Billions.”)

Ben Franklin Stores as Incubators of Retail Success

(p. 192) The chain was called Michaels. I’d never heard of it but, as George related its ancestry, I became more and more intrigued. You see, once upon a time it had been a Ben Franklin store, and therein lies a story.
Back in 1877, Edward and George Butler, brothers from Boston, came up with a new concept for retailing. Instead of setting up a specialty shop to sell one line of items–like shoes or dresses or kitchen supplies–they set up a store where they could sell all sorts of stuff. This was the very beginning of department stores, except that they weren’t yet called that. They were called variety stores, and they carried a large assortment of low-cost goods. Then the Butlers set up a “five-cent counter,” where everything cost a nickel. It worked in Boston, so they expanded westward and called it Ben Franklin Stores.
Three-quarters of a century later, in the days when America was just starting to move westward with the automobile, there were no shopping malls or big national retail chains. What you found in every town, especially in small-town America, was a variety store, like Ben Franklin’s. In Lake Providence, we had Morgan and Lindsey’s, where you could buy everything from paper napkins to thimbles, birthday cards, curtain hooks, and boxes of chocolates. The Butlers’ idea of a nickel counter became so popular and widespread that these places came to be nicknamed “five-and-dimes” or “five-and ten-cent” stores.
(p. 193) While some of them became the heart of Main Street America, others grew to become legendary department stores, like Macy’s in New York, Wanamaker’s in Philadelphia, and Lehman’s in Chicago. Still others merged into chains to compete with Ben Franklin Stores. That’s how JC Penney’s was born.

Source:
Wyly, Sam. 1,000 Dollars and an Idea: Entrepreneur to Billionaire. New York: Newmarket Press, 2008.

Same Government that Allows Violence, Prioritizes Taxing Soda

“One vocal opponent of the tax is Courtland Boozé, a City Council member who calls it a hardship on poor people.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 14) Even here at a sweaty Zumba class sponsored by a nonprofit group called Weigh of Life, the city’s proposal for a one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, which is to appear on the November ballot, meets up against the hard realities of residents’ lives.

“What don’t I have?” asked Rita Cerda, a longtime soda devotee, ticking off her ailments, including diabetes, high blood pressure and asthma. She is also overweight.
“I have problems drinking water,” she said. “I don’t like water.”
The proposed tax, a license fee on businesses selling sweetened drinks, would require owners of bodegas, theaters, convenience stores and other outlets to tally ounces sold and, presumably, pass the cost on to customers.
. . .
Courtland Boozé is a City Council member and a vocal opponent of the soda tax. “We are primarily an economically suppressed community,” he said. “It will be a huge hardship.
“I eat sweet potato pie and candied yams,” continued Mr. Boozé, who is from Louisiana. “And what about cupcakes? Are they going to tax those?”
The city’s Chamber of Commerce is also opposed to the tax. A group fighting the tax that includes the beverage industry has begun dropping off “Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes” placards at La Flore de Jalisco Market, a small, cheerful grocery store where soda bottles in dozens of hues match the colorful piñatas hanging from the ceiling.
. . .
Charles Finnie, known as Chuck, a vice president of BMWL, a San Francisco lobbying firm, called the tax “an administrative nightmare for local businesses” that would also put them at a competitive disadvantage, with customers opting for cheaper soda in nearby cities.
. . .
At the RYSE Youth Center, founded 12 years ago after the killing of four high school students, the soda issue seemed both close to the heart and far away.
Kayla Miller, an 18-year-old college freshman, said that if complexion problems from too much sugar would not deter her friends from drinking sodas, neither would a tax.
Shivneel Sen, 14, does not favor the tax but knows how the money should be spent if it passes.
“The police came heck of late,” he said, recalling the recent death of a best friend. “We need more of them.”
Kimberly Aceves, the center’s executive director, says that too often, the burden for making healthy choices falls unfairly on young people. Society may say “go exercise,” she said, “but if the community isn’t safe, how many kids are going to go out running?”
“Soda is bad for you,” Ms. Aceves said. “So is violence.”

For the full story, see:
PATRICIA LEIGH BROWN. “RICHMOND JOURNAL; Plan to Tax Soda Gets a Mixed Reception.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., June 3, 2012): 14.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the article has the date June 2, 2012.)

American Theater Is a Leftist Monoculture

(p. D11) . . . American theater is a monoculture, a thick-walled bubble in which you’ll look long and hard to find anyone with an opinion about anything that is anywhere other than well to the left of center.

For the full review, see:
TERRY TEACHOUT. “THEATER; Minority Report.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., April 20, 2012): A8.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: online version of the article is dated April 19, 2012.)

Hatfields and McCoys Show that Idleness Begets Violence

Kevin Costner as the patriarch of the Hatfield clan on the HBO miniseries. Source of photo:
http://www.cowboysindians.com/Blog/May-2012/Blasts-From-Our-Past-With-Kevin-Costner/costner-hatfield.jpg

Kevin Costner plausibly suggests that when the productive activities of capitalism and entrepreneurship are not available or sought, people are more likely to let annoyances lead to violence:

(p. 15) Q. What was the root of the feud?

K.C. It’s fair to say that the economics of the time were the provocateurs in this story. I think there was a moment when Hatfield and McCoy would have laid down their guns. But these young guys didn’t have jobs anymore as we moved toward industrialization. They started to have children, and their families doubled in size, and suddenly they had to feed 26. Young men killing young men — it really has a lot to do with the offspring not having enough to do. Look, you’re talking about alcohol and guns, and you’re talking about unemployment, so there’s a reason for the bitterness.

For the full interview, see:
Kathryn Shattuck, interviewer. “Firing Bullets Across a Border And a Bloodline.” The New York Times, Arts&Leisure Section (Sun., May 27, 2012): 15.
(Note: bold in original.)

“Under a Mountain in Omaha”

(p. 170) lnformatics had been run from the top down. Here’s a story typical of the way the company worked. They had a trainer at headquarters who was told to educate the troops at the Federal Systems Division in northern California, which was run by Geno Tolari, a tough-minded football player from Pittsburgh. When the trainer arrived and announced, “I’m here to train your people,” Geno shot back, “You can’t train my people.”
The trainer got haughty. After all, he was from headquarters. “I’m the education department. I train your people.”
But Geno insisted, “You can’t train my people because you don’t know what they do.”
So now the trainer asked, “Okay, what do they do?”
Geno answered, “I don’t know.”
The trainer thought Geno was joking with him, and insisted, “I’m the trainer; I need to know what they do.”
That’s when Geno confessed, “I can’t tell you because I don’t (p. 171) know. They’re under a mountain in Omaha, and it’s a military secret, and the Air Force won’t tell us what they do.”

Source:
Wyly, Sam. 1,000 Dollars and an Idea: Entrepreneur to Billionaire. New York: Newmarket Press, 2008.

Lincoln “Would Abhor” Roosevelt’s “Progressivism”

Source of book image: online version of the WSJ review quoted and cited below.

(p. A13) In 1912, . . . , Robert Lincoln uncharacteristically leapt into the arena of national debate to challenge Theodore Roosevelt’s appropriation of his father’s name for TR’s “New Nationalism” agenda. Robert, writing in the Boston Herald, labeled Roosevelt’s progressivism a doctrine that the elder Lincoln “would abhor if living.”

For the full review, see:
RYAN L. COLE. “BOOKSHELF; The Son Also Rises; Prominent lawyer, self-made millionaire, cabinet secretary–Robert Lincoln was more than just his father’s greatest advocate.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., May 9, 2012): A13.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date May 9, 2012.)

The book under review is:
Emerson, Jason. Giant in the Shadows: The Life of Robert T. Lincoln. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 2012.

Obama’s World Bank President Opposes Growth, Profits and Globalization

President Obama’s pick for World Bank President, Dr. Jim Yong Kim, is scheduled to take office on July 1, 2012.

(p. A8) Dr. Kim has drawn fire recently for comments in a book he co-edited in 2000, “Dying for Growth.” In a piece he co-authored for it, Dr. Kim co-wrote that “the quest for growth in GDP and corporate profits has in fact worsened the lives of millions of women and men.”
. . .
. . . an economist who has become one of Dr. Kim’s leading critics, New York University’s William Easterly, said the World Bank nominee offered an “amateur” approach to economics through an “antiglobalization point of view” that is critical of corporations.
“His critique was much more radical, that the system itself was responsible for creating poverty,” Mr. Easterly said.

For the full review, see:
SUDEEP REDDY. “WORLD NEWS; Criticism Over U.S.’s World Bank Pick Swells.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., April 9, 2012): A8.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: online version of the article is dated April 8, 2012.)

William Easterly’s wonderful and courageous book is:
Easterly, William. The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2002 [1st ed. 2001].

For Federal Regulators “It’s Easier Not to Approve than to Approve”

“Xavier Lauth, a scientist, working with zebra fish in a lab at the Center for Aquaculture Technologies.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) SAN DIEGO — If Americans ever eat genetically engineered fast-growing salmon, it might be because of a Soviet biologist turned oligarch turned government minister turned fish farming entrepreneur.

That man, Kakha Bendukidze, holds the key to either extinction or survival for AquaBounty Technologies, the American company that is hoping for federal approval of a type of salmon that would be the first genetically engineered animal in the human food supply.
But 20 months since the Food and Drug Administration tentatively concluded that the fish would be safe to eat and for the environment, there has been no approval. And AquaBounty is running out of money.
Mr. Bendukidze, the former economics minister of Georgia and AquaBounty’s largest shareholder, says the company can stay afloat a while longer. But he is skeptical that genetically altered salmon will be approved in the United States in an election year, given the resistance from environmental and consumer groups.
“I understand politically that it’s easier not to approve than to approve,” Mr. Bendukidze said during a recent visit to a newly acquired laboratory in San Diego, where jars of tiny zebra fish for use in genetic engineering experiments are stacked on shelves. While many people would be annoyed by the approval, he said, “There will be no one except some scientists who will be annoyed if it is not approved.”
. . .
(p. B6) Mr. Bendukidze, 56, began his career as a molecular biologist in a research institute outside Moscow, working on genetically engineering viruses for vaccine use. He later started a company selling biology supplies. When parts of the Soviet economy were privatized, he earned a reputation as a corporate raider, building through acquisitions and leading United Heavy Machinery, a large maker of equipment for mining, oil drilling and power generation.
In 2004, Mr. Bendukidze returned to his native Georgia as economics minister under Mikheil Saakashvili, the newly elected president. With a free-market philosophy and a penchant for insulting those who disagreed with him, Mr. Bendukidze earned his share of enemies as he moved to deregulate and privatize the economy.
He still lives in Georgia and now spends his time as chairman of the Free University of Tbilisi, which he founded. He also set up Linnaeus Capital Partners to manage his money. It has increasingly focused on aquaculture, with stakes in companies in Greece, Israel and Britain, in addition to AquaBounty.

For the full story, see:
ANDREW POLLACK. “An Entrepreneur Bankrolls a Genetically Engineered Salmon.” The New York Times (Tues., May 22, 2012): B1 & B6.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the article has the date May 21, 2012.)

“Kakha Bendukidze acquired the lab after agreeing to give AquaBounty more cash.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

If Milken’s Bonds Are “Junk” then Yunis’ Microloans Are “Junk” Too

(p. 167) The world owes a debt of gratitude to Mike Milken and his creative team. Did some people go too far? Yes. Did some of them take advantage of the freer flow of capital and end up doing more damage than good? Sure. But markets are messy. Major shifts in the flow of capital often lead to periods of excess before the pendulum swings back and equilibrium is restored. Mike Milken and his team made a major contribution to today’s market atmosphere of high liquidity, which in turn has also helped lift the world’s poor out of poverty. Today the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh has created microloans for mothers living on $2 a day. And that won Grameen the Nobel Prize. The Nobel Committee didn’t call microloans “junk” debt.

Source:
Wyly, Sam. 1,000 Dollars and an Idea: Entrepreneur to Billionaire. New York: Newmarket Press, 2008.

“Nothing Lasts Forever”

“How will we react when history presents us with uncertainty and risk? A sign on a Stalin bust in Prague in 1989 reads ‘Nothing Lasts Forever.'” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) The psychologist Daniel Kahneman writes that humans naturally “tend to exaggerate our ability to forecast the future, which fosters optimistic overconfidence,” something he terms the “planning fallacy.”
“In terms of its consequences for decisions, the optimistic bias may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases,” he notes. “When forecasting the outcomes of risky projects, executives too easily fall victim to the planning fallacy.”

For the full commentary, see:
JOHN BUSSEY. “THE BUSINESS; The Euro Crisis in Ourselves.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., June 1, 2012): A13.