While We're Talking Economics, Let's Throw Some Climate Science Into The Mix ...

A comment on my last little toss-out post, which listed a couple of articles on economics that I found interesting, pointed the way to this post by John Tierney, pitting economists against ecologists as predictors of climate change. Not a fair fight? Well, the match-up may surprise you. By Tierney's reckoning, economists have the shinier resume when it comes to examining potential global crises. He gives some track record comparisons that certainly lend credence to his point of view. The really good news there is that the economist crowd also seems to be a lot more optimistic:

The classic example is the “population crisis” of the 1960s and 1970s, when biologists like Paul Ehrlich were convinced humanity was about to suffer massive famines and devastating shortages of energy and other resources because the growing population would exceed the planet’s “carrying capacity.” This concept seemed obvious to biologists who study ecosystems, but economists realized there’s a big difference between animals and humans: Humans are remarkably adaptable and creative. When confronted with shortages and environmental problems, they have a long history of coming up with solutions — new methods of farming, new and cheaper sources of energy, cleaner technologies — that leave them better off in an environment that’s less polluted.

Of course, population sustainability and climate are clearly different animals, but the point remains the same. Humans adjust, and even manage to think about the rest of the ecosystem occasionally. Now, if you read the Meow at all, you probably know that while a thermometer (and common sense) can tell you that the climate has changed over time, and will continue to change, I'm a pretty big skeptic of the idea that human beings can be pegged as the source of that change. (Click on the climate science label below to get a Kat-centric view of the topic.) Nonetheless, since there are plenty of folks out there determined to blame humanity, and determined to find a solution to the weather, I'm glad to see some other disciplines chiming in on this debate. They may not have the scientific background of the "experts," but just might have a valuable word or two to contribute as the global powers mull our future. Have a look.

Note: Thanks for the link, Rich.

Update: Thought I'd throw this one out there for fun...

Spontaneous Order

Interesting economic chat from Arnold Kling.

Update: More econ-speak from Kenneth Fisher.

Robin Who?

Would you sacrifice some of your limited wealth, just to make sure that other people didn't have "too much?" Apparently, some people will actually do that, sacrifice what little they have in order to take something away from the rich--even when no one benefits from the reduction in the rich person's cache--under laboratory conditions, anyway. Roxanne Khamsi, at New Scientist, describes an experiment set up by James Fowler at the University of California in San Diego, in which 120 students were recruited to play a game. Each student played multiple rounds, anonymously, with various combinations of other anonymous participants. In each round, they were assigned tokens, from 12 to 36 of them. They then had some decisions to make:

The students had to indicate what they wanted to do with their tokens. Each token that subjects kept would contribute $0.05 towards the money they kept at the end of the game. So a subject who kept 20 tokens in a round would net $1. They could also use their tokens to reduce or increase the other three players' sums.

The subjects completed five rounds of the game, each time interacting online with three new anonymous players.

About 30% of the time, the richest players generously gave up tokens to help boost the accounts of the poor players. And 12% of the time they used tokens to make the poorer players even more destitute.

By contrast, in 44% of the rounds the poorest players gave up some of their tiny funds to see the rich become less wealthy. But even though these players acted somewhat like the legendary English bandit, Robin Hood, by taking from the rich, the money did not get redistributed to the poor. It simply disappeared.

What kind of small-mindedness does it take to give up something out of the little you have, just so somebody else who has more has to give something up too? As Khamsi indicated, the Robin Hood effect was only a first-stage phenomenon; the tokens were taken from the rich, but nothing went to the poor as a result. No one gained anything by this stealing-from-the-rich.

The scientists conducting the experiment interpreted this to mean that people have a natural tendency to desire "economic equality." I think this makes the situation sound a lot more positive than it is. If "economic equality" means "I don't want others to have more than me, even if that means we all have less than we could" that's just a sad and tragic kind of selfishness that doesn't bode well for society at large. At least Robin Hood had the reputation of stealing for a purpose. What was the point in this game, except for the poorer participants to make themselves feel better about their pitiable condition, by making sure everyone else was in as close to the same boat as possible?

This robbing from the rich was self-defeating in more ways than one. Not only did it cost the poor what they "spent" on bringing the rich down a peg or two, it also cost them because the rich, being less rich, would have had less ability to be generous. (You'll note that the "rich" had enough of a tendency to be generous that the poor might reasonably hope to benefit from their largess.) Did those "equality seekers" find this equality to be a good thing when the situation was reversed in another round? Whatever happened to "do unto others as you would have others do unto you?" This takes the "two Americas" concept made popular by the John Edwards presidential campaign to a whole new extreme, with any kind of economic state being an acceptable goal, as long as nobody else gets more than I do. I sincerely hope that this experiment does not carry forth into the real world with any degree of accuracy, although, to be honest, I fear it does, far more often than it should.

Affluence Or Poverty--Which Is Better For The Environment?

I was going to stay away from the brouhaha surrounding Al Gore's energy bill, and his proclivity to preach about reducing greenhouse gas emissions while himself producing a ton of them, but I read a piece by James H. Joyner Jr., at TCS Daily, that was such good common sense that I had to pass it along. He basically gives Gore a pass on the question of hypocrisy, saying that he doesn't know enough about Gore's stated policies, and carbon offsets and whatnot to render a judgement. His focus is more on the question of whether affluence or technologically backward poverty is better for the environment, and humanity. Here's a snippet:

Where Gore and I differ is that my aim is for more people to get to live like Gore. While environmental degradation in general and global warming in particular are real problems, certainly a serious case can be made that they pale in comparison with the ravages of poverty. Further, if millions of people not starving to death isn't its own reward, UC-Berkeley professor emeritus of energy and resources Jack Hollander explains in The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment's Number One Enemy, that, contrary to conventional wisdom, as societies become more affluent, they produce less pollution. That's not particularly surprising, when you think about it, as those whose basic human needs are met have both the inclination and resources to worry about cleaning up their environment.

Joyner makes the case for something that I have believed for a long time; the solution to our environmental problems lies in more and better technology, not less technology. He quotes Jesse Ausubel, the director of Rockefeller University's Program for the Human Environment:

Inefficiency always costs much. Around the year 1000, before the invention of good chimneys, people in cold climates centered their lives around an open fire in the middle of a room with a roof louvered high to carry out the smoke, and most of the heat. Open fireplaces demanded constant replenishing and thus a large woodpile behind every house. A smart stove did not emerge until 1744. Benjamin Franklin's invention greatly reduced the amount of fuel required and, thus, the size of the woodpile was reduced for those who could afford the stove.

Advancing technology is constantly moving us forward in our efforts to preserve our environment, giving us more energy efficient, and less polluting wood stoves, cars, light bulbs, factories, furnaces, sewage treatment, batteries, water heaters, commuter trains, photographic equipment, and even nuclear power plants. That's just off the top of my head. New technologies are also taking things that once would have gone to landfills and giving them a second life, making more and more use of recyclable materials. Have you seen some of the decking materials and fabrics they are making out of old milk containers? The key to environmental responsibility does not lie in turning off all the amenities of modern life. (Heck, if it weren't for technology, most of us wouldn't even know there were global environmental issues.) It lies in promoting prosperity and creativity which will continue to address the rightly-raised environmental concerns of society--with technological progress. Joyner's got a bit more to say. Go have a look.

Wealth In America

I’m not a class warfarrior. I’m always a little bemused by the people who are. Everyone starts with a certain set of circumstances, but what you do with them is usually the deciding factor in whether where you start is where you end up. I didn’t grow up with much money, and most of my friends as a child had nicer houses and better toys, fancier cars and more fashionable clothing. I was never taught to resent the advantages of others, though, nor to compare my lot with the more fortunate. In my parents' world, there was no point in comparisons. They didn't change anything. Things were what they were, and the best remedy for them was hard work and thrift.

My parents did work hard, but even so things were rarely easy. Money was a big source of tension at home, and we watched my mom stretch the dollars wherever possible. She clipped coupons, and shopped sales. She made friends with the guys at the day-old bakery outlet, who would give her the heads up when goodies came into the store for cheap. She recycled glass before it was popular, saving it in barrels in the back yard, one for clear and one for green, to sell when a barrel got full. My sister and I learned to straighten out the nails we pulled from old lumber, to be used later—when my mom would reuse that lumber to build a shed, or a pantry. We gratefully took what people gave us. Most of my clothes were hand-me-downs. (The hand-me-downs were rather unavoidable, money or no. I was the smallest kid in my class for years, and my friends’ parents saw me as the next inevitable phase in wardrobe deployment. I also had an older sister at home who spent all her babysitting money filling her closet. I benefited greatly from the temporary lack of human growth hormone.) My folks made the best of what we had, and we never went hungry. Although, sometimes we’d have to take the free lunches the school sent our way.

We weren’t what I would call poor, though. Poor is not having food to eat, or a place to live. Poor is freezing in winter, or not having shoes. We just had a normal life, with bouts of belt tightening and a few lessons in humility. Plenty of other people had more, but plenty others had less, too, and the best lesson I learned from it all was that no matter what advantages and disadvantages came my way, what I did with them would make all the difference in how things turned out. My parents never stopped working their blue collar jobs, while encouraging us to get an education, and my mom, especially, taught us not to waste what we had, but to use it to the fullest, turn it inside out, reuse it, and then rebuild it if necessary. I resented having to wash plastic bags and tin foil for reuse, rather than just throwing them away like my friends did (and I admit that I am often not so frugal today), but I learned the lesson all the same. Making the most of what you have is the best way to ensure that you still have something later. My mom opened savings accounts to get the free dishes, or whatever the giveaway of the day was. More importantly, she kept her money in those savings accounts. Mom, who really did grow up in abject poverty, who never did have a high-paying job, or a rich husband, nevertheless managed to save for herself a tidy nest egg. She is independent in her retirement, despite the pecuniary disadvantages of her earlier years. She was wise with what life and God handed her.

My sister and I frequently were teased because of my mom's frugal ways, the lack of luxuries that others took for granted, and because she expected us to learn to work as hard as she did. The hardest times for me were the teenage years, because those, of course, were the years that I cared the most what other people thought. In high school I was always embarrassed when other kids would see where I lived, because our house was sturdy and had a roof, but had little else to recommend it, and I tried my best to keep my address a secret. I was very careful about accepting rides. Only people who had proven they wouldn’t make fun of me were allowed to drive me home. Occasionally I misjudged the driver, and went through sufficient amounts of adolescent mortification at their ridicule to make me even more wary the next time. I particularly remember one cruel and insecure boy who kept repeating, “You live here. You live here,” like it was some kind of chant. Many of my home improvement skills were learned as I tried to make that house less of an embarrassment. Those are skills I’m so grateful I learned. At the time, I would have gladly traded places with almost anybody, not realizing that the lessons I was learning about hard work and frugality would serve me in good stead for my entire life. Then, I just wanted not to be embarrassed. Now, I wouldn’t trade what I learned for the world—or all the fun and popularity that money could have bought me in high school. I am far better off financially now, because I learned resourcefulness, fiscal responsibility and independence then.

So where is all this review of childhood history going? It’s my personal illustration of what Peter Cuthbertson writes about at TCS Daily, on class warfare, and the truth about the wealthy in America. There is a fair amount of resentment here in the USA, frequently fostered by politics, between the Haves and the Have-nots, and there is a perception that the Haves have gotten all the breaks, didn't do anything to earn their good fortune, flaunt it in other people's faces, and really should be sharing the undeserved wealth. Is this perception accurate, however, or is there more to wealthy Americans than meets the eye? I'll quote Cuthbertson at length here:

The picture of an actual millionaire is dramatically less glamorous than commonly-held visions of exclusive neighborhoods, expensive clothes and colorful social lives. In his 1996 book The Millionaire Next Door, co-authored with Dr. William Danko, Dr. Stanley revealed that the typical millionaire spent less than $400 on their most expensive suit, and only about 1% spent more than $2,800. Only one in ten millionaires had ever spent more than $300 on a pair of shoes. Most millionaires pay a few hundred dollars or less for their watch, and $30,000 or less for their main motor vehicle. They have been married to the same person most of their adult lives.

The wealthy are conspicuous for their lack of consumption: "What are three words that profile the affluent? FRUGAL FRUGAL FRUGAL". The book is full of startling individual cases: the millionaire who refused the gift of a Rolls Royce because he couldn't imagine driving up in one to eat at the crummy restaurants he prefers, or throw caught fish in the back seat; the wife who, after her husband gave her $8 million in stocks, returned at once to clipping the 25 cent grocery coupons from her newspaper.

This is no coincidence. It is not that most millionaires are in the habit of being frugal despite their wealth: it is that they are so wealthy because they are in the habit of living so frugally. The plentiful residual income goes into savings and investments that are left to grow for decades.

This picture of wealth in America certainly stacks up with what I have seen in my own family. My mom never quite made it to millionaire status, but all that saving and scrimping her way out of poverty have given her a comfortable life in her later years. My husband's father, too, came from real poverty, but he and my mother-in-law changed their own future through hard work and frugality. These are just a couple of examples of where Cuthbertson's premise holds true, but read the TCS article for his further examination of wealth in America. It's an eye-opener if you've had the notion that America's rich are all trust fund babies.

I'm so glad of the lessons I learned from my mom, and those my husband learned from his folks. I hope that we can be as responsible with our choices as they were with theirs as they were building their futures when times were hard, and never make decisions based on what other people will think of us, or what other people have. I hope I never buy into a politics that says that the government needs to redistribute everyone's income so that everyone's lot is exactly the same. If I had grown up with the notion that the perks of life were my right, and that frugality and hard work shouldn't be the cost of comfort, then I would have lost some of life's greatest character-building experiences. I'm glad I was embarrassed as a child. It taught me that I can survive embarrassment. I'm glad I had to work as a child. It taught me that I can not only survive, but thrive, on hard work. I'm glad that others had, and have, more than I do. It's taught me that, if there are comparisons to be made, then what I really need to be looking at is how much more I have than so many others, and to be grateful and generous. I don't ever want to look at what someone else has earned for themselves and say, "Hey, I don't have that, so you should give me some of yours." I want to earn and save, and make the most of everything, so that when my turn comes, I can look at someone else who has less and say, "Here, you don't have this. Let me share some with you."

Congestion Pricing--The Solution To Gridlock?

Many residents of metropolitan areas in America know gridlock intimately. Even the folks who use mass transit for the daily commute to work, a pretty significant element of the population here in Portland, still know what a growing problem urban roadway congestion is. Most people can't rely entirely on public transportation for getting around the city, and we all know what it's like when we have to run out to the store unexpectedly, or pile the kids into the van to head to the dentist, just in time to hit rush hour(s). Some of us are frustrated by the belief that much of the traffic nightmare could be alleviated if our city would take necessary actions, and some hold firmly (with some solid ground underfoot) to the notion that the city refuses to expand the highways and roads from a political desire to force greater and greater numbers of people onto the bus or train--the notion being that if they make enough people miserable on the daily drive, the same people won't mind as much being miserable on the daily bus ride.

I speak as something of a dispassionate observer. My daily commute frequently involves going from my bed, to my shower, to my computer, vacuum, dishwasher, etc. However, that doesn't mean that I don't care about the struggle that goes on to balance traffic congestion, city access, cost, pollution, energy usage, convenience, and all the other elements that factor into our decisions about how to move human beings from point A to point B. I still go to the store, and the dentist, and church, just like the rest of you. Taking the kids to the dentist requires a leap of imagination for me, since I have no kids, but I do have the requisite imagination with which to leap, and when we're in the middle of whatever the latest home transformation project happens to be, Home Depot becomes our second address. It's not uncommon for us to head that way two or even three times a day. (Yes, you're right, we're not very good planners.) The route there includes stretches of freeway and busy thoroughfares, passing by the airport of all places. Getting there can take fifteen minutes, or forty, depending on the time of day and the state of traffic. I feel your pain. Really I do.

Anyway, I thought I'd pass on this TCS Daily article, by Joseph Giglio, about traffic congestion and private industry solutions to public highway woes, with some economic theory thrown in for added flavor. I'm not sure I agree with Giglio's position, but I did find it interesting, and think it has some merit on its face at least. He writes about a request from the Bush administration to Congress to provide funding for American roadways, which included a recommendation to institute "congestion pricing" on road use, as a way to alleviate snarled traffic across the country:

This week the Bush administration asked Congress for $175 million for state and local governments to reduce traffic congestion, in addition to the $105 million earmarked last year. One of the White House's marquee projects is congestion pricing, or charging motorists a fee for using a particular roadway based on its traffic volume at any given minute.

Giglio says that, while the media and the left will claim this as a capitulation to the Al Gore wing of the Democratic party, that really it is "conservative economics at its best." He goes on to explain:

For decades, conservatives have championed market-oriented solutions to highway problems as a means to allocate scarce resources. Congestion pricing gives consumers the opportunity to decide when it is in their economic interest to ride crowded roads, and whether the price charged for a given trip is worth their travel time savings.

In the former Soviet-bloc states, the standard way to allocate scarce goods was to set the purchase price low enough for everyone to afford, but to make consumers wait in long lines to buy them. The real price depended on what value consumers placed on their time.

This approach is the way we've always allocated access to most roadways in capitalist America - access is "free," just like for a public park. But our real cost skyrockets when we consider the time we spend crawling along in bumper-to-bumper traffic and with no option to pay extra for a faster trip.

Giglio goes on to discuss how, with "the advent of Electronic Toll Collection technology," the means are now available to make that choice possible, and adds:

Just as consumers are billed for water, electric power, cooking gas, and other essential utilities, motorists pay according to how many miles they travel, how large a vehicle they're driving, how much air pollution they generate, and whether they're subject to certain physical or economic disadvantages that entitle them to special discounts. This can be especially important for commercial vehicles where time saved translates into fewer operating costs. And let's remember that the main purpose of surface transportation is to facilitate and enhance economic activity.

Giglio explains further what he believes are the advantages to congestion pricing, and how such a system could help fund improved roadways, and lessened gridlock, using the private sector to make it all work. I'm not completely convinced that charging people for the amount of time they spend on the road, and how big their vehicle is, and how much pollution it contributes, etc., is the ultimate answer to the problems of modern commuting, but I do like the notion of the private sector being more involved in solving the problem, and I'm willing to be convinced that usage fees are the way to fund improvements, as long as those fees actually deliver the promised gains, and don't drop down a giant black hole of "rising costs." Anyway, have a look, and tell me what you think, if you're so inclined. I'm malleable on this one.

A New Approach To The Cost Of Healthcare

We were in transit to Florida during President Bush's State of the Union speech, and I confess that I have not looked online for the text or a video since we returned. Too many other things to do and read. I just haven't managed to make it a priority. However, I read a Michael Barone piece today that makes it sound as if the President has at least one worthwhile proposal to his credit from that speech. Ron Wyden, the Democratic Senator from my home state of Oregon, seems to think so, and is putting some effort into furthering the President's idea, engaging his fellow Senators on the topic. I have some respect for Wyden. Although I disagree with him on many issues, he seems to me to be a principled man, not simply a partisan, and his willingness to run with an idea in which he finds merit, despite the fact that it came from not only a Republican, but the oft-criticized Target-in-Chief himself, made me pay attention to what he's promoting (as well as sending Wyden up a step or two on my opinion meter.)

As an Oregonian, I've been aware that Wyden has been quite concerned about providing health care to those who cannot afford to buy it for themselves, and whose employers do not provide it for them, and he has encouraged the examination of The Oregon Health Plan (our state's answer to universal coverage) on the national level. He's not new to the topic of providing insurance to the poor. Michael Barone, writing at Townhall.com, examines the healthcare proposal the President made in the SOTU, which Wyden is now floating among his colleagues. I find a lot of merit in the idea, because it's not another government-run program, where bureaucracy and inefficiency (or is that redundant?) could make healthcare a nightmare for us all, but rather an adjustment in the way health insurance is taxed, which might lead to a more progressive, but reasonable approach to providing coverage that doesn't route it through the workplace. I'm going to quote at length here:

Bush's proposal in a nutshell is to end the preferential tax treatment for employer-provided health insurance. In 1943, in the midst of World War II, when wage and price controls were in effect, the government decided that employers could deduct the cost of health insurance for their employees and that employees would not be taxed on the value of the policies. This decision has saddled us with a system in which health insurance has been tied to employment, with many perverse results. Healthcare is perceived as a free good, and consumers have no incentive to take costs into account.

Bush proposes to change this by giving every couple paying taxes a standard $15,000 deduction ($7,500 for individuals) for the cost of health insurance. Those with employer-provided insurance worth more than $15,000 (about 20 percent of the total) would be taxed on the additional amount; this would very likely discourage expensive policies.

As a Washington Post editorial on the speech pointed out, this would be a progressive change.

The biggest beneficiaries of the current system are high earners with employer-provided insurance. The biggest losers in the current system are low earners without employer-provided insurance. Health insurance experts on the left, right and center have long called for ending the tax code's preference for employer-provided health insurance. But employers haven't wanted to lose the deduction, and politicians have flinched at the prospect of taxing voters on something they have been getting tax-free. Bush has found a way out, by equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance wherever it comes from.

What Barone says this would accomplish, and Wyden seems to agree based on his support of the idea, is to provide a mechanism to insure a broader range of people, without turning healthcare into a government-run catastrophe. Bush proposes a tax deduction for the insured, rather that the employer. Employer-provided insurance would be treated, and taxed, as income for the employee, rather than as a tax write-off for the employer, and both the people with employer-provided insurance, as well as those who purchase insurance privately, would have a tax break to offset the cost. Employees would then have incentive to keep down medical costs, helping to control the cost of the insurance, and competition within the private market would also serve in that capacity. According to Barone, with a $15,000 deduction, low-end earners could be subsidized by the tax on the policies that cost more than that $15,000 (the more elaborate and expensive insurance of the well-to-do.) This approach could well provide universal coverage without the direct intervention and control of Uncle Sam, leading healthcare in a "progressive" direction, without eliminating the free market and turning healthcare in America into a European nightmare.

There's room for political compromise here. Liberals and conservatives alike can find things to approve in this proposal, if they allow themselves to come at this from the direction of solving the problem rather than winning against the enemy. There are certainly a lot of people who could benefit from a new approach. I'm not big on government entitlements (this is an understatement), and am always reluctant to see the government take over from the private sector. However, if we as a society make the decision that it is in our best interest to ensure that everyone can afford healthcare, then something which keeps the decision-making and operation of the system in the hands of individuals and private companies is much to be preferred over one which makes the government the official healthcare provider. Ensuring equally bad healthcare for all is not my idea of an improvement in the system.

From a practical standpoint there are certainly people who could benefit greatly from the provision of health insurance being uncoupled from employment. Some of my own family members are currently providing their own insurance at $800 a month, and are struggling to do so on disability-hindered incomes. They are not disabled enough to go on the government dole, but are disabled enough to be unable to work at a full-time job which provides insurance. These disabilities also ensure that insurance is an absolute imperative for them. A tax write-off for that privately-purchased insurance would be a big help to them. I probably would not be in favor of this were it simply a new entitlement, but as a replacement to the deduction currently being given to employers, I can see the merit. Of course, I have not done much research on the cons of the proposal at this point, but as far as I've read to date, I think the idea is at least worth discussing in good faith.

Barone points out that the political climate isn't exactly ripe for good-faith compromise, but I at least have hope that some of our political leaders are willing to care more about solutions that reelection points. Wyden has already shown the willingness to cross the aisles on this issue. Maybe his fellows could find somewhere within themselves a willingness to do the same. Maybe.

Citizenship: For Sale By Owner

What do you think of this idea? Dwight R. Lee, at TCS Daily, is suggesting that poorer citizens should be able to sell their most valuable asset--their U.S. citizenship--on the free market (with a system in place to screen potential purchasers, of course, for terrorists and other threats.) He says that its going rate would be high, high enough to allow those impoverished citizens who so desire to live much more comfortably in another country, where the cost of living isn't so high, while bringing motivated and productive people here to the States to replace them. He offers this as a way to help the homeless and panhandlers in America, and also those foreigners eager to become legal working participants in the American way of life. While I understand the reasoning, I'm not so sure I can mentally go, with any comfort, where Lee is taking things. Citizenship as a commodity... Any opinions?

The Rich Get Richer, And The Poor Get...Richer

James Peron, at TCS Daily, has really good global economic news, coming from The World Bank. Poverty is in decline, worldwide, due in large part to increased production in developing countries:

The report expects the world economy to grow from last year's $35 trillion to $72 trillion by 2030. And this "is driven more than ever before by strong performance in the developing countries." Only two decades ago the poor nations provided only 14 percent of wealthy nations' manufactured imports. Today they provide 40 percent and by 2030 they are projected to provide over 65 percent.

Peron goes on to add:

The net result is that the income of developing countries "will continue to converge with those of wealthy countries. This would imply that countries as diverse as China, Mexico and Turkey would have average living standards roughly comparable to Spain today."

This should encourage those who fear that wealthy countries suck the resources of poor countries and grow richer at the expense of the impoverished. What those wealthy countries actually are doing is investing in infrastructure, opening markets and buying goods from developing nations, something that's a benefit to everyone involved. Peron notes that The World Bank report is pretty sure of its own predictions, and the WB even sees the possibility for far greater improvements in the economic conditions of the world's poor over the next 25 years. It's great news. Read the whole thing.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Hmmm...

What do you think of this? FoxNews.com is reporting that, "U.S. District Judge James Robertson said keeping all U.S. currency the same size and texture violates the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in government programs." According to Fox, Robertson has given the Treasury Department "...10 days to start working on new bills that the blind can tell apart." Treasury lawyers argued against the imposition of changes, saying it would "make it harder to prevent counterfeiting." The judge, however, in his ruling, wrote the equivalent of, "Hey, over 180 other countries have different sized bills, so there's no reason we shouldn't be able to do the same."

The ruling is getting mixed reviews from advocacy groups for the blind. Some think it is a step forward in enabling independence for the blind. Others see the issue as a distraction:

But John Paré, director of public relations for the National Federation of the Blind, the nation's largest organization representing blind people, said identifying the money is hardly the most difficult obstacle for the blind to overcome.

"The focus for improving the lives of blind Americans needs to be put on earning money not figuring out how to identify money," he said. "Over 70 percent of blind Americans are under-employed or unemployed and this is what needs to be addressed.

"It really is distracting to have this lawsuit," he said, since assistance should concentrate on people "who don't have the money in the first place."

I have a mixed response to this decree, part of me agreeing that it's reasonable to make it easier for the blind to use money without the necessity of relying on possibly unscrupulous strangers, folding different denominations in different ways to differentiate between them, or buying expensive ($300) portable reader machines. Part of me, however, believes that the Treasury department would not resist the changes if there were not, indeed, counterfeiting issues to take into account--although, how size affects counterfeitability, I have no idea. I can understand how texture can impact the recognition of counterfeits, as people who work in banks learn to tell a counterfeit simply by feel.

One question I have in relation to the decree regards cost-effectiveness. The article reports that there are 7 million blind people in the U.S., and I wonder if the more frugal alternative would not simply be for the government to purchase a portable money reader for anyone who needs one, rather than to spend an enormous amount of money to design and print an entirely new money supply. I understand that money wears out and new bills are printed all the time, but entirely new designs, papers, presses, cutting equipment, and differently sized storage and transport equipment are not required with those new printings, and those changes must include an enormous amount of expense. Part of my objection is the immediacy with which the judge's decision demands change. I can see a long-term strategy to implement changes as equipment wears out, or other circumstances warrant changes anyway, but overhauling the whole system "yesterday" seems a bit extreme.

Given all of the more serious things going on in the world today, you may not consider this as worth much attention. Some days I might not either, but it is an example to me of the ways our society has to balance the needs of a small minority of her citizens with the expense and inconvenience to her general population. Will the value to the blind be worth the costs, especially if there are other options (like the reader) available? The government has required itself, and private business for that matter, to accommodate the accessibility needs of the handicapped. Should reworking the monetary system to make it easier for the blind to spend their money be part and parcel with that, or is it, as John Paré says, a distraction from the real issue of handicapped employment? Should the money for transforming our currency rather be spent on making it easier for the blind to hold a job? Should some of the money be spent to provide readers to those who need them? (I'm sure the government could bring the price of those readers down substantially with a bulk purchase.) Should the money be spent at all? Should there be a gradual shift to new currency over a long period of time as equipment wears out, rather than the immediate change the litigants and the judge are requiring? I'm kind of up in the air on this, although I am tilting a bit, and would be interested in anyone else's opinion.

Hat tip: IMAO

Payola

A One Look dictionary search comes up with the following definition for payola:

"noun: a bribe given to a disc jockey to induce him to promote a particular record"

It's interesting to me that a word would exist specifically regarding record companies bribing disc jockeys for airtime--a term exclusively applying to radio, and not bribery in general. I wasn't aware, until reading an article by Martin Fridson, at TCS Daily, that back in 1960 Congress passed a law against the practice of record producers buying airtime. I'm a little too young to have been aware (or even alive) when the Congress held hearings to debate the scandalous issue of payola. (Wow, it feels nice to still be able to say I'm too young for something.) Anyway, Fridson's article looks at how that whole not-paying-for-airtime thing has worked out over the last several decades--not too well, by his account, and he debates the merit of government intervention in market-related concerns. The question arises as to exactly why such a practice should be illegal? As Fridson points out, the equivalent of payola in other industries is legal and considered perfectly acceptable:

Nowadays, shelf space in supermarkets is routinely and openly purchased by food manufacturers. Bookstores charge for window displays without fear that prosecutors will show up on their doorstep. These mechanisms for achieving consumer awareness represent valuable resources. It furthers economic efficiency for firms to work out appropriate prices for such resources. Why, then, did Congress single out radio airtime as an awareness-building mechanism for which no market may lawfully exist?

Fridson gives some history that indicates with a fair amount of authority that those who promoted the notion of payola as a crime (established record companies whose profits were being threatened by upstarts) did so with their own financial gain very firmly in mind. (Unfortunately, donation-seeking politicians often do the same thing.) Apparently, established companies, who themselves used the system of buying airtime, did not immediately respond to the shift in record purchasers' preferences toward rock and roll by producing rock and roll. Rather, they tried to hinder the companies who were producing it, companies which lacked an established base, and thus relied heavily on buying airtime to get their music to the public. In doing so, by Fridson's account, six large companies pretty much locked up American record sales. Fridson indicates that the real purpose behind the payola law (eliminating competition) has clearly been fulfilled, but also spends some considerable time looking at the ways clever companies circumvent the rules--commit payola-by-any-other-name--and the economic realities of free market enterprise.

I don't really have much to say about the topic. I just found the piece interesting and thought I'd pass it on to you, in case it's the kind of thing that strikes a chord with you. I will say this, though--the market can handle such situations very well, if it's allowed to do so. If a disc jockey is getting paid off by a record company to play music the public doesn't like, the public won't buy it, the radio station will lose listeners and thus advertisers, and the disc jockey and record company will both suffer in the future for putting their resources into that product--the disc jockey by losing his employment, and the record company by leaner bank accounts. Fair competition says make the same options open to everyone, and let them allocate their own resources. All in all, I'm more in favor of letting the market (buyers and sellers working in tandem) regulate itself than letting Congress get too involved in it. Both of them act in in self-interest, but the market is more honest about it.

The Nobel Peace Prize

Here's an excellent piece, by Alvaro Vargas Llosa at TCS Daily, on successful entrepreneurship in impoverished countries, and people getting out of poverty, and the Nobel Peace Prize actually going somewhere that doesn't reward duplicity, or incompetence. Cool.

Update: I just read the article to my husband, and he agrees with me that it's well worth your time. Really, go read this one. It's a wonderful look at how successfully the poor can help themselves if they are offered the opportunity of a modest investment, without undue hindrances to enterprise. This year's Nobel winner is, if you can believe it, a bank in Bangladesh, which is a strictly for-profit venture, and yet is transforming the lives of the poor. Llosa explains how Grameen bank contributes so much to the well-being of the community:

The bank lends tiny amounts of money to village-dwellers so they can start small businesses. The scale can be so modest as to involve the purchase of a cow in order to sell milk. Since no collateral or credit history is required, the system works on the basis of trust and peer pressure: Lenders are placed in groups of five, with part of the group guaranteeing the loans of the rest. If a loan is not repaid, the community shuns the borrower.

He goes on to explain how, after half a century of continually increasing foreign aid--rich country to poor country charity--the poor are actually worse off in the nations that have received the bulk of the money. Surprised? He also looks at the effects of entrepreneurial opportunity in poor communities, and concludes that this opportunity, not handouts which create dependency, is the key to improving conditions for the poor:

What the poor really want is an environment in which undertaking a profitable venture is not a nightmarish bureaucratic and legal process. The world is full of examples of poor and uneducated communities that have been able to create wealth thanks to entrepreneurship, rather than governmental assistance. I have been looking at cases of entrepreneurial success around the world for the past year and the conclusion is overwhelming: The best way to fight poverty is to eliminate barriers that currently hold back private enterprise among the poor.

Have a look. You might be encouraged, or surprised, or both.

Sure It's The Economy, But Which One?

I don't have lots of time to write today. Maybe I'll get the chance in the evening, but in the meantime, I thought I'd toss this Wall Street Journal piece, by Edmund S. Phelps, your way. It explains the difference between the North American and European economic models--capitalism versus a "social market economy." It's a very interesting read, if you're into learning about economics. I clearly am, or I wouldn't be passing it on to you. Anybody else economically minded?

Hat tip: Instapundit

Update: I just read in the comments on the article at the WSJ site that Professor Phelps just won the Nobel Prize for economics on Monday. No wonder the piece is so good!!

Fudging The Numbers

Here's an interesting glimpse at Swedish unemployment numbers. No, it's not an oxymoron. In this case they really are interesting, because of the methods the Swedish state unemployment agency is using to keep the numbers down. What methods are those you ask? Are they using some wonderful new training method which helps people transition from obsolete jobs to cutting edge employment opportunities? Not as far as I know. Well then, is the government cutting taxes to promote investment, leading to an increase in job availability? Again, not as far as I know. Okay then, are they using the socialist approach, and creating more government jobs, and that's how they're taking citizens off the unemployment roles? Sort of. According to Nima Sanandaji, at TCS Daily, they are re-classifying healthy young Swedes as mentally disabled, so that they don't count against the standard employment rolls, and then giving them menial work in a government subsidized project designed to provide jobs for the disabled, jobs such as cleaning and building wheelchairs.

Sanandaji cites one Swedish girl, Jessica Pettersson, that the agency wanted to classify as mentally disabled because she wasn't good enough in math, despite the fact she has a high school degree in economics. Pettersson refused the reclassification, but apparently, many people cave to agency pressure:

Alarmingly, what happened to Petterson is not an isolated incident in Sweden. The state unemployment agency is constantly attempting to force people to "admit" to being disabled. Today 19.3 percent of those seeking jobs at the unemployment office are being classified as disabled.

Wow, 19.3 percent of the people looking for a job through the government agency are classified as disabled?! What is wrong with the water in Sweden? Either there is something terribly wrong with the environment, or the gene pool, over there, causing so many people to be mentally handicapped, or (much more likely) the government doesn't want to admit they have an economic problem which is contributing to a dirth of jobs, so they're fudging the employment numbers, and calling their populace stupid to do it. Sweden is a socialist country, and not very big on free market economies, so they have high government employment anyway, but if Sanandaji is right, and the Social Democrats running the government are using this particular method of keeping the numbers looking shiny, that's just pathetic, don't you think? Fixing the numbers is one thing, but they're setting the accomplishment standard for a whole host of young people at far less than their true potential, telling them they are too dumb to do more, which could determine the course for their entire lives. The politicians who are benefiting from this kind of chicanery are literally sacrificing other people's futures to make their own political futures safer. Like I said, if it's true, it's pathetic.

Gas Price Conspiracy

Those evil oil barons are conspiring to lower prices. I don't know how they're managing it, but it's evil I tell you. Pure evil. Actually, I do know how they're doing it. The end of summer, among other things, means less demand. Less demand means lower prices; just like more demand means higher prices. The law of supply and demand in action, as Pejman Yousefzadeh points out at TCS Daily. You can bet another major hurricane would bump 'em up again, but, if that happens, will the weather and reduced supply get the blame? No. Then it will be wicked price gougers who are forcing us to pay through the nose. In the meantime, I don't see many headlines declaring in big, bold letters how beneficent they're being at Chevron and ARCO as the prices come down. One nice side effect of the price tumble--less money lining the pockets of tyrannical regimes with oil reserves. Still, I wish those oil companies would stop being evil. There's just something un-American about lowering prices when supply warrants it. Evil. Pure Evil.

Live Long And Prosper

There's an excellent piece at TCS Daily, by Donald J. Boudreaux, who is Chair of the Economics Department at George Mason University. He gives us a clear look at the growing prosperity in the Western World, and how good we've had it ever since the industrial revolution. Lest we think that those of us who don't inhabit the upper tax brackets here in the States are not prosperous, because we compare ourselves to the Joneses (or the Rockefellers), he gives us a rundown of all the ways even poorer Americans out-rich our predecessors. I think most of us know we have it better than many of our contemporaries in poorer countries as well. Even people I know who struggle to pay the bills each month still have a place to live, a telephone, TV, DVD player, microwave, etc., so clearly, compared to eras when even the very rich didn't have indoor plumbing, we're doing pretty well.

Boudreaux comments that many think that the key to our well-heeled lives lies in technology. I find we definitely tend to measure our prosperity in terms of technology, as with the list above, so I guess I do tend to link the two. He says this is an error, and that what makes us, and others around the world, prosper beyond anything history has ever known is the impetus of free markets, which enable those technological advances. He draws from the example of modern-day countries in which people still use wooden carts to take goods to market, live in dirt huts, and die young, from causes ranging from Malaria to starvation, despite the fact that the technology exists which could change these situations. What the people lack in the countries where these conditions exist is economic freedom. Boudreaux's article isn't too long, nor is it in confusing economist-speak, but it does having some interesting facts and figures. Have a look.

Inflation-Schmation

If you're interested in economics (and even if you're not, now that I think of it), there's a relatively brief and readable article on inflation at TCS Daily, by Jerry Bowyer. Apparently, in today's flexible markets, inflation doesn't bear (pardon the pun) the same penalties it once did, and deregulation covereth a multitude of price hike percentage points.

First Things First

Another TCS Daily article to point you towards. This one looks at how labor unions are affecting companies and employees in the developing world. It's not a very positive review. Now, I'm not anti-union, although I admit that I think union membership should be strictly voluntary and not a coerced part of any particular field of employment. They've served an important role in our history and culture. My dad was a Teamster, and we benefited from his membership, but I do remember that he would speak about how the union would sometimes demand unreasonable things, and how that would hurt the workers in the long run. That is pretty much the thrust of this TCS piece by Iain Murray. It seems that the union activity in poorer countries, countries that benefit greatly from Western investment, is mainly targeted at Western companies, despite the fact that conditions and wages at their factories far outclass those offered by local competitors. The local employers, whose employees labor in truly "sweatshop" conditions, for appalling wages, are given a pass, while foreign investors, who provide benefits that go beyond just higher wages, are being hounded into potentially leaving the countries altogether, to the detriment of all concerned, since foreign investment is improving the lot of so many in these developing nations:

Across the world, countries freeing up their markets to foreign countries are benefiting the most. In China, for example, the standard of living has increased so much over the past 20 years that the average Chinese person today is six times richer in real terms than before the reforms began. And large companies investing in the developing world bring other benefits, though. In addition to paying higher wages, their facilities are generally safer and healthier for their employees than those of local competitors. Their processes are also generally cleaner, so contributing to environmental improvement.

An example of a company that is being targeted for union bombardment is a company operating is Turkey, called Paxar, which is a "...U.S.-based textile company, owns a facility in Saray where it pays some of the highest wages to textile employees in the country -- in the top 2 percent -- employs over 500 people, and offers excellent health and safety conditions." Rather than being lauded for the improvements it brings to the local economy and working conditions, this company is being condemned for not being a union shop, despite the fact the employees themselves are not supporting the union bid:

The Clean Clothes Campaign, for example, has provided a facility on its web site to allow outraged members of the public to bombard Paxar's clients with letters expressing disgust at the company's failure to accede to the union's demands. The Campaign is known for greatly expanding the definition of a "sweatshop" from a facility offering inadequate local wages and dangerous conditions to include those otherwise safe and generous, but which prohibit union activity.

In my opinion, this is simply not logical. In this case, the only party actually benefiting from the change would be the union itself, union dues being the apparent primary goal. The union is demanding a 38% increase in employee wages. They can't possibly believe that by demanding such an increase they are doing the employees any favors. These employees already earn more than their peers. Forcing a wage increase of this magnitude would probably mean layoffs, as Murray says, "The Turkish textile industry is highly vulnerable to foreign competition; it lost 200,000 jobs last year." Worse still, the union could drive Paxar out of Turkey altogether, leaving nothing but the companies that the union isn't targeting--the ones whose working conditions currently make Paxar look like heaven on Earth. This isn't a good bargain for the workers.

This isn't to say that conditions shouldn't continue to improve in the third world, or that those companies seeking less expensive labor in foreign countries have "arrived" and should not continue to upgrade as local conditions are elevated. However, to target the companies doing it best, because they are not doing it better, while leaving the worst to carry on unmolested, simply doesn't compute. First things first. Focusing on the worst, to bring them up to the standard set by the best, and then gradually seeking to improve conditions as a whole seems a much more reasonable and reasoned approach. Like my dad said, unreasonable demands hurt the workers in the long run, not help them. That's supposedly what the unions care about, isn't it, helping workers?

Persective Is Everything

You know the freaky little tendency where you buy a new car (or at least new to you), and then you see that model everywhere you go? It's like the roads are suddenly filled with Civic hatchbacks, or whatever your car du jour happens to be. My husband and I have been experiencing that phenomenon on an entirely different level lately. Since we're in the middle of our own building project (the oft-mentioned garage/shop), we've been noticing new construction everywhere. There's a new Asian market/mini mall going in near our house, which is causing much rejoicing in Meowville, because my husband loves to cook Thai food, and you just can't beat a good Asian market for fresh herbs and vegetables. There's a giant 24 Hour Fitness going in near his office, which might come in handy for burning off all the phad thai noodles the new market will engender. There are office buildings and retail outlets springing from the ground like demented jack rabbits, new housing projects galore, and, it being the all too brief pot-hole repair season in Portland, road crews are making life miserable for commuters all over the City of Roses.

I'm still hearing complaints about our lousy economy, though--complaints still largely settled on how Bush is leading us to hell in a hand-basket, with his tax cuts for the rich and all. I've wondered where all this construction can be coming from, if things are indeed as bad as the woe-is-me set would have us believe. So, I read an article today with great interest which pointed to the signs that things are flowing along quite nicely with the American economy, thank you very much. Jed Graham, at Investor's Business Daily, has a rundown of how we're doing as a country economically, and where we're headed.

The first big news is that we're ahead of schedule in terms of deficit reduction, at least ahead of the schedule that President Bush proposed when the economy was still looking pretty shaky in 2004. At that point, he promised to cut the deficit in half by 2009, but it looks like that promise might be fulfilled three years early. Jumping revenue, due to increased wages and salaries, and corporate income taxes that have risen by 30% over last year, are filling the national coffers. (Well okay, making them less empty.) That's not the corporate tax rate that's gone up 30%; that's the taxes generated by the same rate applied to a bustling economy:

Tax revenues are running $176 billion, or 12.9%, over last year, the Treasury Department said Monday. The Congressional Budget Office said receipts have risen faster over the first eight months of fiscal '06 than in any other such period over the past 25 years — except for last year's 15.5% jump.

The 2006 deficit through May was $227 billion, down from $273 billion at this time last year. Spending is up $130 billion, or 7.9%.

Did you catch the part about tax receipts increasing by more than they have at any time (except last year) in 25 years? This despite the lowered tax rate. That means that there's a lot of profit to be taxed, and higher wages to be taxed as well. That means we're headed toward lower deficits (as long as the politicians don't go on a spending spree.) An interesting note in Graham's article was that increased salaries in the higher tax brackets led to the most gains, in terms of individual taxes, for the government's piggy bank. Because those in the upper brackets earn more, they pay more:

While gains are broad, those at higher-income levels are enjoying bigger salary hikes. Because they pay higher rates, federal tax revenues soar when they do well.

Those making over $200,000 now pay 46.6% of total income taxes, presidential adviser Karl Rove recently said. That's up from 40.5% — despite Bush's tax cuts.

This dispels the tax cuts for the rich myth, if ultimately the rich end up paying a higher percentage of the tax burden as a result of the cuts. Looks to me like the evidence is pretty solidly in the camp of tax cuts stimulating the economy, which is good for the federal bottom line. People and corporations make more money, and pay more taxes. Everybody wins.

According to Graham, budget experts claim that economic growth can't wipe out the entire deficit on its own. That makes sense. If the budget hawks in Washington (or is that an oxymoron?--no, I'm sure there are a few) don't throw their weight around a little more, the spenders will always find a way to keep the government in the red. However, the growth is encouraging, and remember that a good deal of the deficit also has come from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hopefully, those conflicts will cost less and less as the new governments in those countries continue to gain strength. Of course, we will always have military needs, the world being filled with sinful humans, inclined to exercise their free will.

So, if the economy is continuing to gain ground at a beating-the-predictions rate, why is there the perception for some that things are still so bad? Well, part of it is probably individual experience. It's hard to tell someone that just lost their job that the economy is booming, even if their job got cut because of hot new technologies that made the job obsolete. It doesn't matter to most people if ten people got new jobs at the time they lost theirs. We each see things from our own little corner of reality. Another reason for the idea that the economy is bad is that certain areas of the economy only gain our notice when we're not happy with them. Gas prices for example are very much on the national radar. It's ironic actually that high gas prices stem to a certain extent from the economy doing well. Everyone wants to go someplace or ship something, driving up the price. Of all the possible reasons that some people still think we're on the verge of economic ruin , however, Instapundit has hit on one of the most plausible, striking me as pretty darned accurate anyway. While linking to the Investor's Business Daily article that I've cited here, he points out the New York Times take on the deficit being cut in half three years early:

MORE BAD NEWS FOR BUSH: "Aided by surging tax receipts, President Bush may make good on his pledge to cut the deficit in half in 2006 — three years early."

The New York Times headline: "Bush deficit reduction plan falls off-schedule."

Perspective is everything. For some people, no matter how good the news, it's all in how you spin it.

Update: James Glassman is also examining this trend of Americans' economic perspective not lining up with the facts, and drawing some interesting conclusions.

Organic Wal-Mart

Would the organic food industry lose its raison d’etre if buying organic became just about eating healthy, rather than social consciousness? James H. Joyner, Jr. raises that question at TCS Daily. Right now there's the perception if we buy organic food that not only are we doing something good for our bodies, by avoiding pesticides and preservatives, but we are helping protect the environment, supporting sustainable/environmentally responsible local farmers, and in some cases encouraging the humane treatment of animals. They all go together in a sort of do-gooder package--IF we can afford it. All this social consciousness comes at a rather steep price, and not many people make the decision that organic is worth the expense. Not many can.

What if the cost for organic wasn't so high, but the grand benefit total wasn't either? What if there were an alternative that made the food healthy, but still kept the cows that provide our beef in less-than-idyllic conditions? What if instead of supporting small, local farms, buying organic meant supporting giant companies that shipped the food over vast distances quickly, using lots of petroleum in the process? What if this organic bastardization came from the anti-Christ of the socially responsible--Wal-Mart? According to Joyner, "The retail giant has announced plans to stock a wide variety of organics in its stores later this year with prices only ten percent higher than for similar non-organic items it now carries." It will do so by focusing on the pesticide and preservative-free portion of the organic equation, without adding the expense of all the other layers of "the organic movement". This is raising an outcry from some who think that the health benefits of organic food cannot be separated from the socially responsible side of things, regardless of the cost. Joyner quotes University of California at Berkeley journalism professor Michael Pollan who says, "To index the price of organic to the price of conventional is to give up, right from the start, on the idea, once enshrined in the organic movement, that food should be priced not high or low but responsibly."

However, Joyner points out that most people simply can't afford to be motivated by the social consciousness more than the cost:

Remember, now, at the moment most people simply cannot afford "organic" food. They're consuming food that's been sprayed with pesticides and prepared with preservatives to give it a long shelf life. And whatever cost to the environment that comes from these practices is already being borne. So, we're comparing an ideal -- growing foods that yield some health gains to the consumer in addition to various environmental benefits -- that does not presently exist at anything but a niche level because of cost against a proposed reality where the health gains are made possible for the masses but without the ancillary environmental gain.

That sums it up in a nutshell to me. It seems unreasonable that there not be middle ground for those who do not have the luxury of surplus income, or the desire to promote a particular social agenda in their grocery shopping, at the cost of other things they consider more valuable. I for one will be glad to see Wal-Mart offer healthier food alternatives at a reasonable price. I have often lamented the cost of organic foods, and how I can't reasonably make the choice to invest my money so heavily into my grocery basket. It would be nice to see sustainable farming, and happy cows too, but people can't always prioritize according to what would be nice. Joyner takes the pragmatic approach:

The perfect should not be allowed to become the enemy of the good. In an ideal world, local farmers would produce delicious foods grown without any harm to the environment at prices we could all afford while simultaneously making an excellent living. The livestock would all live happy lives, singing their little animal songs, dying a natural death and yet remaining tender and tasty. We would then get together and cook them over our campfires which produce no smoke, sing our little campsongs, and eat our meals in perfect harmony.

That world, unfortunately, does not exist.

We could take the tack that says that the organic approach must be holistic, all or nothing. That would entail a world view that might ultimately come round to this way of thinking: "Its probably a good thing that people without the proper perspective aren't eating organic. We simply can’t have people eating healthy who aren’t going to be socially conscious. Those are the people who should die young and leave the world to people who have the right attitude--and to the happy cows." I doubt any but the most hardened "people are the scourge of the earth" crowd would go there, though. Most would probably see the good in people eating healthier food, even if the solution isn't perfect, and even if it does come from Wal-Mart.

Of course, there are some who will raise a fuss, and thus we have Joyner's article. I hope that they can see the benefit eventually, though. The less expensive organic food becomes, the more people will buy it. The more people buy it, the more profitable it is to produce; so production goes up, which brings the price down. The more popular organic food becomes, the more people will see it as worth a little extra cost, and some who buy it for health might see their way to add just a little more money to see that it is grown responsibly. It could work out fostering both aims in the end.