Remembering and Reflecting

This photo is of the larval case of a moth of the Psychidae family; we call them bagworms because of these "bags" they leave hanging on trees and shrubs.  The cocoons consist of silk spun by the larva and whatever material is at hand such as the leaves of the tree on which it hangs.  If in large numbers, they can strip a tree of foliage fairly quickly.  I remember as a child my father telling us that if we saw one to pull it off the tree and crush it.  He was very protective of his trees.

My spouse took this photo one day recently as we were out checking cattle along the edge of the woods.  The cocoon is illustrative of the attitude we often take; we try to blend into our surroundings and hide (although that isn't the purpose of a cocoon in the life cycle of this creature) in order to avoid facing something.  We build walls and cover our heads until all we must deal with is the most immediate; the rest of the world becomes irrelevant -- at least in our minds.

Today is a day of remembrance.  It is the anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center in New York that was the single largest terrorist incident in our history.  It was a tragic event for those affected either directly, or indirectly.  It was a horrific occurrence that should not be forgotten.

We, as a proud country, reacted to the attack.  We sought out those who supported and incited the perpetrators and through our military response, hopefully prevented further attacks from occurring.  I am concerned though, that we have focused on the symptom and not the cause.  No, I am not one to say that we are to blame for someone attacking us, yet I wonder if our attitude toward other people contributed to the hatred for our country that led to such attacks.

This country is wealthy beyond anything ever known previously in history.  Many people see that wealth and are enraged by jealousy.  They don't see the good this country has done through the years of our existence; they instead see what they perceive as exploitation of resources by some companies at the expense of other nations.

Neither those in this country who see only that we were attacked, nor those in other countries who blame this country for their distressed conditions acknowledge that the issues are complex and driven by human motivations that are of the lowest form such as jealousy, greed, envy and hatred.  We pull ourselves into a cocoon and hide from the reality of the global political and economic situation which nurtures evil tendencies.

There are no easy answers, but pulling into our cocoons and hiding from the deep issues that fuel such feelings is not one of them.  It is an attitude of waiting until the next event that shakes us to our very foundations, just as the events 18 years ago did.  Life is too precious to be spent hiding from reality.  We, instead, need to be reaching across boundaries in an effort to come together with those who see things differently that we might prevent the cancerous growth which is constantly seeking to take root in our hearts which leads to such things.

Life on the Farm Ain't Really Laid Back....

Sustainability.

S - seeking perpetuity in the ability to deliver.
U - understanding the long-term consequences of actions.
S - securing the welfare of all through thoughtful planning.
T - taking only what is necessary and regenerating where possible.
A - aiming for generational continuity.
I - intelligent use of resources.
N - natural processes that replace damaging practices.
A - acting responsibly toward others and the environment.
B - building systems that focus on renewability.
I - investing in solutions.
L - long-term thinking.
I - integrating economic and environmental systems.
T - teaching responsibility for and to others.
Y - yielding to needs beyond self.

I've been spending time digging into some of the new agricultural technology -- or, at least reading about it.  The buzzword of "sustainability" gets tossed around a lot.  I am a firm believer in sustainability, but I think sometimes the word gets used and abused in ways that subvert the meaning.

Ultimately, sustainability means to look beyond oneself.  All of us follow the natural tendency to focus first on our personal needs and then on the needs of our immediate family.  Rarely, you find those who reach beyond that to their community.  Even more rarely do you see someone who thinks on a broader basis -- to the needs of humanity.  Most of those have some angle that is driving at financial wealth.

We need more people who think in terms of global impact who recognize that we are all -- no matter of race, creed or country -- passengers together on this giant marble swinging around the sun as it hurtles through space.  We need to realize that actions have consequence beyond ourselves.

Am I a globalist?  No.  But, I do believe in a phrase captured in the Declaration of Independence in the words of Thomas Jefferson that "all men are created equal."  In spite of those who would make him an atheist, Jefferson was echoing a Biblical tenet in that we all are descendants of Adam.  We are all part of the human race.  Come to think of it, Darwinians think the same way, but they see us as descendants of primordial ooze.

"Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.  At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need.  Then there will be equality, as it is written: 'He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.'" -- 2 Corinthians 8:13-15

Feeding mankind will become increasingly challenging as populations continue to grow.  Weather factors affect production in various areas every year.  Seeking ways that work with the local climate, yet recognizing that it won't always cooperate, we must realize that the efforts in one geographic area may ultimately be the salvation of another.  We are dependent on each other -- globally -- for food.  Here in the U.S. many of our fruits and vegetables come from other countries.  They are often luxury foods, rather than our primary foods.  In some other countries that isn't always the case.  Many of them are virtually dependent on imported food to feed themselves.

Profit is necessary in order to fund growth.  It shouldn't be the total focus of man's endeavors, but must be a part of it.  Profit can be defined as "increase" above the cost to produce.  The "increase" of a herd are the calves born.  The "increase" of a crop is that each seed produces many hundreds of seeds.  U.S. food production is profit driven.  In most parts of the world it is survival driven.  We are fortunate to have an economic system that allows us the luxury of building a food system, through its profitability, that surpasses anything in the world.  We must remain aware though, that we cannot feed the world alone and that as our own population grows, there will be increasing pressure on resources by competing needs.

Sustainable practices here can inform sustainable practices worldwide.  We must continue to do more with less.

As to globalism vs. nationalism, I am unashamably a nationalist.  I believe in my country and our system of government.  It is being threatened at a level never before seen -- internally.  Those who would destroy it use everything possible against it -- even food production.  We need to be exporting our beliefs and our systems rather than allowing the destruction of those very things by those who would tear us down in order to build something else.

I suppose I have rambled a bit this morning.  Reading the mess in the news sometimes does that to me....

World News and Connections

This is one of those mornings in which my mind is "subject hopping" rather than focusing in on anything specific.  It makes it difficult to write because the...

I noticed several articles about computer glitches or, viruses, or other issues related to the use of the pervasive technology that surrounds us as I read the news earlier this morning.  It seems that the more complex things get, the more opportunities there are for individuals to exploit weaknesses within them....

I don't know what the ultimate results of the tariff war with China will be, but the current stalemate is certainly taking a toll on the stock market.  It's interesting to me how reactive the markets can be to such things.  Usually, the impact is considerably less than the market anticipates....

Cattle markets have taken a deep dive lately as far as Futures prices are concerned.  There should be some opportunities if you are in the stocker or cattle feeding business, but if you are selling your calf crop it may not be to your advantage.  I still think they are high relative to the opportunity based on the Futures, but there will be plenty of buyers at these price levels....

The rhetoric out of Iran continues to escalate and has precipitated the stripping of non-essential personnel from the U.S. presence in neighboring Iraq.  It is prudent, however, I think calling the warships in the Gulf "targets" rather than some less provocative term is a sign that it is mostly rhetoric as opposed to threat....

There are a number of novels under the Tom Clancy brand that refer to issues in the South China Sea and how conflicting claims to that area of the ocean could lead to an escalation of inter-power violence.  Coupled with the tariff war, we should be concerned....

...things bouncing around in my head aren't necessarily connected yet all of them are related.  One of the first economic problems one must solve when starting out on the study of said subject is something along the lines of, "What is the impact of a rise in the price of eggs in China on the cattle market in the U.S.?"  There is no clear answer, but an argument could be made for any one of many scenarios.  The point is that small things can have a global impact as the repercussions ripple through the world economy.  Maybe all these disparate subjects are connected after all.

A Worrisome Trend

Last night I read "The Manifesto of the Communist Party."  I read it years ago, but it had been a long, long time.  I was somewhat amazed at how many of the ideas promoted by the document have found their way into current theory of government.  Everything from public education to policies that promote the breakup of the traditional family unit.

Within the document are a few "gems" that are thought provoking.  It discusses the evolution of societal arrangement through time from tribalism, to feudalism to more modern theories of political and economic systems that we enjoy today.  It promoted communism as the next logical step in that evolution.

The argument presented within the document is that all such economic and political systems are designed to keep power concentrated in the hands of the few and the productivity of nations on the backs of the many.  It purports to resolve that issue by moving that power, through revolution, into the hands of the government by taking the resources of the nation out of the hands of the individual and placing them into the hands of "all citizens" through governmental control.  It is confiscation of wealth by those who hold political power, pure and simple.

In theory, there is merit to the concept -- especially to those who have been without wealth and power.  The trouble is that it doesn't solve the concentration of that power into the hands of a few -- it merely changes their face to that of government officials instead of private individuals.

The current trend toward automation is concerning to me.  It further exacerbates the issue of concentration of power into the hands of a few -- no matter under what political/economic system you consider, or favor.  It will become more and more difficult for a subset of the population to find employment in an automated economy.  Not everyone is suited to become computer programmers, or practitioners of other technology-based jobs.  The entry-level jobs are the very ones being replaced by technology.  These would include store clerks, fast-food workers, janitorial services, etc. -- i.e. low-skilled labor.

How do we deal with the loss of those jobs?  In my mind I see the classic science-fiction scenario of an underground economy of those who fall outside the system and live in the sewers and decaying factories of cities.  It isn't a pretty picture....

Such Is Symbolic -- Tell Me Why?

It's that time of year when you don't know whether to set the central heating and cooling on AC or heater.  The last few days we have needed the AC in the afternoon, but when you wake up to a cool 64F temperature (in the house) in the morning, you either need to layer on the clothes, or turn the heater on for awhile.

I shouldn't complain.  I recall Dad telling of when he was a child in southwestern Oklahoma back during the Great Depression.  There were 7 kids in a small farm house.  The attic area had been converted to a sleeping room for the kids.  The house wasn't very tight or, insulated and so they would often wake to a light dusting of snow on their bed covers that had blown in through the cracks during the night.  Of course, they didn't know what air conditioning was in the summer.

Being married to a Realtor, I occasionally go with her to view a property for some reason or other.  Yesterday we looked at one in Rockwall that was about 4,000 square feet of living space with a 3-car garage attached.  It completely filled the lot on which it sat in a neighborhood where the houses were crowded together barely 10 feet apart.  This particular house was priced at something over $400,000 and it certainly wasn't the largest in the neighborhood.  I did some quick math and estimated there were probably around 300 houses in this particular area -- which by-the-way was adjacent to many more developments just like it -- and if we assume the $400K price to be average, that's $120,000,000 of houses in that one neighborhood which is merely a small part of a suburb of Dallas.  It's mind-boggling when you think of the amount of money flowing in our economy!

Many of those expensive houses are occupied by the grandchildren of folks who lived in conditions similar to what Dad described of growing up in the Depression.  They have no concept of the difficulties, or the conditions their ancestors faced.  They take for granted the wealth they enjoy in their decadence.  Such is symbolic of our country.

I'll just stop there.  If anyone is so inclined, your thoughts as to why I would make that last statement would be appreciated.  I'm curious to hear what others think.  Just leave a comment.

One Issue to "Trump" Them All, No Issue to Bind Them

Today's subject, chosen from the book of "300 Writing Prompts" is, "What one issue is most important to you when voting for political candidates?"

I choose this topic today simply because I think it is a mistake to be a single-issue voter.  The trouble is, that is the mindset of a large number of voters -- they have one or two "hot-button" issues that drive their decision.

No one is perfect -- except me of course (just kidding) -- which means that no candidate will have the correct position on all issues.  No two people are alike which means that no candidate will have the exact same position to which a specific voter could agree on all issues.

Upon further reflection, there might be one issue that would be at the top of my list; it would be that "he who governs least, governs best."  Strict adherence to this position would put me firmly in the Libertarian camp.  I probably lean that way, but there are too many areas where I believe we need regulations, or programs that provide either constraint on certain activities, or assistance to overcome barriers.  Both should be very limited in nature, allowing the free market and natural selection to take its course.

An example of constraints to which I agree are basic laws such as those prohibiting murder.  When the actions of an individual directly harm others, there must be constraint.  The "Nanny State" attitude of many extends this to almost every activity of life.  I personally think it should be limited to a brief set of laws similar to the Ten Commandments which seem to cover it adequately.

An example of assistance would be protection.  This should be limited to those activities necessary to "provide for the common defense" or to protect the rights of the individual.  The greatest embodiment of this is in the Electoral College system which prevents a majority from diminishing the rights of the individual or, the minority.  Those advocating pure democracy are actually advocating for mob rule.  Our system of government is designed to prevent such from occurring.

When people focus on single issues, divisiveness is the result.  We break into groups, or "camps" and point fingers and call names like a bunch of school children.  That's pretty much what has happened in Washington these days.  Labels are put on things and become entrenched in the positions.  The most recent example is a "wall" on our southern border.  "The Wall" has come to stand for much more than a physical barrier, it has become a mantra, much like "Remember the Alamo" was for Sam Houston's army.  It symbolizes the hatred for one man that is driving a lot of strange behavior.

It is sometimes difficult to step away from "personalities" and to evaluate things on their merits.  It happens all the time in many aspects of life.  We sometimes find ourselves opposing something merely because of who proposed it rather than our agreement, or disagreement with the proposal.  It may even be something for which we previously advocated.  In Washington it is seen as "flip-flopping" on a position.  There seems to be a lot of that going on right now.

I think it is time to clear the playground and send everyone back to class.  The studies need to be focused on government (The Constitution), economics (how could anyone think Socialism will work given its history?) and ethics (lying, stealing, cheating and civility).  In the words of the youth of today, "smh."  (For all you older folks like me that means, "shaking my head.")

[For those not familiar with J.R.R.Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, the title is a play on the phrase, "One ring to lead them all, one ring to bind them."]

Referees, Walls and Free Markets

There has been a good deal of controversy surrounding an officiating call in a recent NFL playoff game.  The concern over possible bias by the referees has reached Congress where outcry for an investigation have been heard.  It seems many there believe there was obvious favoritism toward one team, possibly based in the personal loyalties of a number of the officials whose home is in the same state as the apparent beneficiary.  I find it interesting how those Congressmen and women can decry what they perceive as bias in the sport of football and yet fail to see their own tendencies when it comes to legislation.

As I have mentioned here numerous times, I am a proponent of a free market economy.  A free market isn't necessarily one in which "bad" behavior is tolerated simply because trade is unfettered.  That market must be built upon a level playing field -- an unbiased field in which the "referees" (in this case the lawmakers) insure that bad behavior is punished while good behavior is allowed to flourish.

Regulating trade is one of the very few powers assigned to government by our Constitution. The question then becomes one of establishing a set of rules which various legislative bodies have attempted to codify into law.  The rules should be structured in such a way that all "players" have an equal opportunity at success -- or failure.  Notice the use of the word opportunity; it is one of the foundational principles of our country as stated in the Constitutional phrase, "the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness."  It includes no guarantee of success and no artificial support via "programs" for the supposed disadvantaged.  It does, however, indicate the responsibility of government, as enabled by "the people," to provide a level playing field with a uniform set of rules that provide no special advantage or, disadvantage to any particular individual or, group.

 Over time the level playing field has become biased in favor of certain large entities.  One could argue that the bias is temporary and also a result of a free market because everyone has equal opportunity to influence lawmakers to support their cause.  That isn't the case.  The average citizen hasn't the financial means to make any impact on the legislative process.

The arise of various organizations through the years should have aided the "little guy" in his quest for equal representation.  Theoretically, by pooling resources into a larger group such as a trade union or, national association, the voice of the average individual could be heard in a manner that would impact or, influence the process of making laws to keep the playing field level.  The problem though, is that the very ogranizations originally designed to help them become predators because of the concentration of power into the hands of their management.

Ultimately, the "little guy" remains at the mercy of those who control tremendous amounts of wealth and property.  Those who control that wealth acrete power by using wealth to influence the legislative process in their favor.

How can we return to a "level playing field" in which opportunity is abundant?  One of the first steps would be to limit the power of "big money" to influence legislation.  An additional step would be to enact term limits for legislators.  A third would be to roll back onerous rules that place unaffordable burdens on the "little guy" such as requirements related to insurance, etc.

I really had no intention of being political in my post today, but my frustration with what I see in Washington causes me to devote far too much of my thought to what has gone wrong with our political and economic system.  It is still, perhaps, the best in the world, but there is a growing presence of disease that will eventually destroy it.

When I think about how money influences the political process I think about the current standoff between The President and leaders of the opposition party.  Maybe the solution would be for the President to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the possibility of ties between drug cartel money and opposition to a border wal?.  Merely the threat of such a move might change a few positions.  After all, perception is reality....

Held For Ransom

I'm still trying to figure out this government shutdown.  It makes very little sense to me.  The flow of money into the IRS hasn't been affected.  Congress seems to think it doesn't affect them since they keep scheduling junkets at taxpayer expense.  All of the "essential" services of the government continue uninterrupted.  It is only those things deemed "unessential" that are not currently being funded.  So, what happens to the "money" that should have been going to fund those things?  Does it just pile up somewhere?

Of course, there isn't any money piling up somewhere because our government spends more than it brings in.  So, does that mean they just aren't borrowing as much at the moment?  The savings in interest on that debt could be a fairly sizable amount.

The impasse between the political parties really only affects a small percentage of government expenditures.  The estimated 800,000 employees who are not currently receiving a paycheck are political pawns.  That's a lot of votes.  Any bets they get a raise when this is all over?  They are a significant block of votes whose loyalty is subject to being bought by their political masters.  Not all of them, but enough of them.

Total budgeted federal expenditures in 2017 were $3.7 Trillion ($2.5 T "mandatory" and $1.2 T "discretionary").  Revenue was projected at $3.3 Trillion -- a deficit of $400,000,000,000.  The issue according to Congressional leadership is the request from the President for $5.7 Billion to build a wall on our southern border.  That is 0.154% of the total expenditures for 2017.  If you compare that to an annual household budget of $36,000 (expenditures, not gross income) that equates to $55.44.

800,000 employees are being held for ransom over the equivalent of $55.44.  That is what our government has come to.  It is time for something to change.

Prisons and Economics

Have you ever thought about why the U.S. has one of the largest prison populations in the world as a percentage of our total population?  In this country with so much to offer, why is it so many people end up in prison?  Is it drugs alone that drives it, or is that merely a symptom?

I suspect it is at least partially a result of our affluence.  The growth and application of technology displaces people.  There is no country on the planet that has experienced this more than the U.S.  When workers are displaced -- lose their job -- they often have difficulty finding other meaningful employment.  Lack of employment leads in some cases to crime and in others to substance abuse and often to both.

In our self-centered culture, where comparison with our peers is encouraged through marketing and media, there is virtually no safety net for those going through the trauma of forced job change.  It isn't an easy situation and it is worsened by the isolation of going it alone which is often the case.  The pressure to "succeed" may drive misbehavior.

Our inner city ghettos are to a large extent the result of the displacement of workers -- either from agriculture or from industry.  Not everyone is suited for an office career.  When there are fewer and fewer unskilled, or low-skilled jobs available, not everyone is able to find work within a commutable distance.  What do those individuals do for income? -- they may become dependent on the government, or they may turn to crime.  Rarely are they able to relocate to opportunity.  Mobility requires a certain level of affluence.

Some might suggest it is a Darwinian process brought on by an improved societal structure where we move closer and closer to universal availability, or access to unlimited energy, food and land (or, space).  This is a Utopian dream of those whose view includes a dependency on technology as a force of good that frees mankind from the drudgery of labor.  I wonder though, without labor -- the work of one's hands -- where does one find the value of contribution?  If I have nothing to do, how can I contribute to society?

For those who are committed to the future of a technological age where machines allow each and every person to experience a life of luxury and leisure, only the wealthy, those who "own" the tools and methods of producing those machines, will experience that Utopia -- at least that is the case in a capitalistic economy.  The remainder of humanity will either die out, congregate in increasingly larger slums, or become wards of a pervasive and universal government.  Those who conform and meekly submit to a life of dependency will become a temptation to the powerful who would find ways to exploit them, while those who rebel against the loss of dignity will spend their lives as wards of the state in ever expanding prisons.

I'm certainly no expert on any of this, but the whole issue concerns me greatly.  I don't have any clear answers, but a few things come to mind.  1)  We must raise the dignity of manual labor.  2)  We must find ways to evaluate the societal and environmental cost of technology.  3)  We must examine how our economic system can reward behavior that accounts for more than the short-term transaction cost of a micro-economic decision.

Just my thoughts this morning....

Clarification on Yesterday's Post

I think yesterday a few teachers thought my post was aimed at them; it wasn't.  It was a much broader quarry toward which I cast my net.  It was society in general and the U.S. economic system in particular.

First, let me clarify that I am a firm believer in free enterprise and capitalism.  They are two different approaches that usually overlap to a significant extent and combined, they work well within a society ordered by a clear and pervasive moral standard that believes no one should be left behind.  However, no matter the clarity of general moral purpose, there are always exceptions -- those who would take advantage of the system for the accumulation of personal power and wealth above that which is needed or, even desirable.  After all, power and wealth both corrupt.

The failures of our economic system are many and they are based in the self-centeredness of individuals.  They occur when actions are justified by the thought, "I deserve," rather than an awareness of the needs of others.  When the focus is on others, all are lifted and the result is multiplicative in the positive.  When the focus is on self, one is lifted above others and the result is subtractive -- it becomes mine at the expense of yours.

The opposite view is that there are those who would ride freely on the coattails of those who do the work.  This occurs for the same reason as the above -- a self-centeredness that values leisure above the accumulation of wealth and power.  It also is subtactive in nature rather than multiplicative and acts as a brake on the productivity of others.

Ultimately the issue is the age-old one so clearly defined in the Bible.  It is a question of personal value and control.  The question is, "Who is in control?  Who knows what is best for not only my life, but the lives of others?"  The answer must be God, because to answer self places the individual above his surroundings, or the totality of creation and the concept of ego-centrism enters.

Failure of any economic system rests simply in the fact that the individual sees himself as greater than the whole.  In a humanistic view, this leads naturally to socialism which dissolves into communism for the same reasons as all other systems fail -- the accretion of power to individuals.

Devaluing people -- treating them as interchangeable parts -- is at root the cause of the disintegration of our country.  We must see life -- human life -- as something of value in order to rise above the increasingly violent struggle between political philosophies.  We must first realize that ALL have failed -- ALL have fallen short -- before we can begin to rise.

Romans 3:23 -- ...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God....

Choices Have Consequences

One of the writing prompts in the book I received for Christmas is:  "If you had the resources and extra time to go back to school, what would you like to study?"

The most interesting aspect of the question is that it causes me to reflect on my own choice of Agricultural Economics and whether it was the correct one.  The answer, for a whole list of reasons that I won't go into, is that it was probably the correct choice for me.  My career looks nothing like I anticipated it would, but it was still the right choice.  I believe I am right where God intended me to be.

Through the years, though, I have thought many times that I would prefer to be in a different field altogether.  One of my favorite pastimes as a kid was hunting arrowheads.  Out of that grew the thought of majoring in Archaeology.  I can see myself as an Indiana Jones type, traipsing all over the world, having adventures, dodging poison-tipped arrows and raiding booby-trapped tombs, but that isn't what archaeology is; it is the science of delving into the past through the objects left behind.  It requires lots of patience and probably more time in a laboratory or library than in the field excavating ancient ruins.  It is also difficult to make a decent living doing it.

I also considered Forestry at one time.  My first college searches were for institutions that had great forestry programs.  It is actually one of the reasons I considered my Alma Mater of Texas A&M in the first place; they have a great school of Forestry.  I also briefly considered Stephen F. Austin University, Oklahoma State and some little college in northern Michigan for the same reason.  The trouble is that I didn't really know what being a forester meant.  My mental image was of a Ranger in a National Park working with wildlife.  A  forester is all about growing and harvesting trees.  Most of them work in private industry for companies like Weyerhauser.

What I really should have been considering was Wildlife Management or, Wildlife Biology.  I think I would have enjoyed a career in either field.  With the knowledge I now have, I think it is an area in which I would have excelled.  At a former company where I worked a group of us were visiting one time and the subject came up of snakes.  Someone mentioned a Cottonmouth but, none of them really knew what they looked like.  I pulled up a photo on my phone that I had taken only a couple of weeks previously and showed it to them while describing its behavior and typical environment.  My boss looked at me and said, "What are you, some kind of naturalist?"  He was probably closer to the truth than he realized.  I also had photos of other wildlife, their tracks and trails as well as of the areas where they lived -- all taken during one of my many treks into the woods on our property.

I enjoy hunting, but I'm not what most people would consider an avid hunter.  I would rather watch the animals, study their behavior and figure out ways to attract rare or, endangered plants and wildlife to our property.  I believe hunting is an important tool for managing wildlife, so I'm not what many in agriculture would consider an eco-nut, or a preservationist.  I'm more of a conservationist.  A conservationist recognizes that resources should be managed to benefit all -- the land, the environment and people.  Deer are a great example.  They are an excellent source of protein, they provide aesthetic value to the viewer, they help control vegetation and they co-exist well with domestic animals such as cattle.  The recreational value of hunting them is an added benefit.  We attempt to manage our land in a way that is attractive to deer and other wildlife.

What I find interesting is that I view wildlife management in economic terms.  By economic terms, I'm not just referring to a dollar value, I am thinking of overall value which includes the various things listed in the previous paragraph in reference to deer.  Value is measured by what we are willing to give in exchange for it.  Economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources.  Wildlife Management and Economics fit hand-in-glove when you really think about it.

We need to look at ourselves as part of our environment rather than looking at our environment as an object outside ourselves from which we must extract a living.  Maximum resource benefit, sustainability, these are things we should consider with each and every purchase or, consumer decision we make.  Cattle have a tendency to defecate on their food.  In their case, in a grassy pasture, it is a return of the organic matter to the soil from which it came.  It is in a highly processed form that makes the nutrients readily available to be reincorporated back into the soil.  Humans aren't in the habit of defecating on their food, but in a way do something even worse -- pollute the environment of which they are a part.

I am disgusted every time I make the drive out to our place in the country.  People in this area haven't accepted the message that throwing trash on the roadside is unacceptable.  The ditches along the roadway to our place are filled with cups and plastic bottles and beer bottles and other trash thrown from the windows of the cars that pass by.  That refuse washes down the various waterways into the creeks and ultimately the lakes which are the primary source of drinking water for the area.  I constantly find items that wash across our pasture during heavy rains.  The people of the neighborhood are literally trashing their own nest; polluting their own drinking water.  They give no thought to the long-term impact of their behavior.

The issue isn't just one of our "local" nest, it is the planet itself.  Our consumptive behaviors may not have a visible impact in our own backyard, but they have one -- perhaps on the other side of the world.  We need to learn to be a part of this planet, not just consumers of it.

Ah, well, I suppose I ended up on a bit of a rant today.  It wasn't my intention.  I really was just thinking about whether or not I would choose the same educational and career path if I had it to do over again.  The answer is probably yes, but I have broadened my areas of interest through the years.

Checkbooks and a Gold Standard

I grew up "old school" when it comes to managing your checking account.  I balance everything to the penny.  I learned how to reconcile my bank statement against my check ledger when my first account was opened.  It was very important when the money never seemed to go as far as the needs and you had the issue of "float" to deal with.

Today, it seems many people don't worry about balancing their check register or reconciling it against their bank statement.  They just look online to see what they currently have available at any given moment.  Their paycheck is deposited electronically and most of their payments are handled electronically.  Checks are something to be avoided and what isn't automated is handled with plastic -- either by debit or credit card.

I know such ways of doing business are time saving and convenient, but I haven't adopted them for the most part.  We do use a credit card for most purchases, but it is because we get "points" by doing so that can then be used in exchange for other things.  Our preferred is with Cabela's/Bass Pro.  With the credit card purchases, though, we save every receipt and reconcile them against the statement when it comes in.  We don't carry a balance on the card because interest on consumer items makes no sense at all.  For other purchases we write a check, record it in the ledger and reconcile it against the monthly statement.

Occasionally there is a surprise.  Occasionally a number is transposed or recorded incorrectly and the balance has to be corrected after reconciliation.  A worse surprise to me are the items like an auto-renewal on the anti-virus subscription for our computers.  It happens annually and isn't like a regular monthly item that you know to expect.  At least they e-mail you a receipt.

Banking has changed a lot in the past few years.  Almost everything is done electronically.  Even checks are turned into electronic images.  Trade between businesses is done electronically as is transfer of funds between countries.

Once upon a few centuries ago, it was a matter of lugging around bags of gold and silver coins.  In the case of large transactions, it might require a chest or two.  Eventually that became paper which represented the gold and silver.  Now the paper represents something more nebulous -- it represents a theoretical value established by the marketplace.

The U.S. Gross Domestic Product -- the value of annual goods and services produced by this country in 2018 is expected to be $19.4 Trillion.  There has only been $7.5 Trillion worth of gold mined in the history of the world at the current price of $1,250/ounce.  It's a good thing we aren't still trading in gold coins.

An MBA Mentality

As I dive into this topic, please don’t mistake my attitude toward education. I believe an educated society is crucial to the proper operation of our government, to the advance of society, and to a civil public discourse. However, through my years in business I have found that often, there are attitudes which come with a formal education that are counterproductive to business productivity.

A large portion of my career has been spent in sales or sales related activities. My formal title has never been salesman – it has been manager. Managers should be fully engaged in the sales activities of a business or it is likely the business will fail – whether it is retail, wholesale or a service business.

Many organizations – especially large ones – believe that the best managers have MBA’s (Master of Business Administration). From a logical perspective it makes sense. Find someone who has been formally educated in how to run a business and let them run your business. The problem comes when the MBA manager has no practical experience in the day-to-day function of the business itself. They have the head knowledge, but lack the heart knowledge. They know the tools but they don’t know the business – at least not from the hands-on level. Generally their understanding is conceptual in nature – not practical.

Why do I bring this up? Because it seems that I often spend an inordinate amount of time educating my suppliers on the realities of agriculture.

The MBA manager mentality is often one that is focused on the numbers or benchmarks. It is focused on “objective” measurement of factors which indicate progress in the business. This can be things such as the number of sales calls made, the number of contacts at a Trade Show, the percentage of gross margin -- both average and per sales, and similar easily measurable statistical indicators. They have been taught techniques for handling particular situations that regularly occur in business – like competitive pricing issues – and respond according to the “book” answer. The problem is that they have never walked in the shoes of their sales force or of their customer.

The last item is the key. The most successful people that I know understand their customer. They have either been involved in a business similar to what their customer does, or have spent enough time with their customer to understand their business or situation. They look at their own business through the eyes of their customer. They take time to see what their customer sees and adjust their business accordingly.

Do we do this in agriculture? Do we see ourselves from our customer’s point-of-view? When was the last time you spent time examining your operation from the outside? When was the last time you walked through the grocery store and took a hard look at your product – whether it is beef or cotton or wheat – from the consumer’s perspective? How does the quality of your product compare to competing products? What about price?

We are seeing a number of fundamental shifts in our economy. Fuel prices will soon drive dramatic changes of behavior in how we conduct business and in how consumers allocate their dollars. Transportation costs will force many things to be produced locally that have historically been shipped long distances – such as produce. Are we in agriculture merely riding the tide of the ethanol boom or are we preparing for the inevitable changes that the energy economy will drive?

We are good at managing the numbers. In today’s business environment, if a farmer or rancher can’t manage the numbers he’d better have a second job to support his habit. But, are we good at seeing our industry from the perspective of non-farmers and ranchers? If we educated the public to our business and educated ourselves to what the public truly wants, could we do a better job at providing for their wants and needs? When we can do that, there will be plenty of rewards for the effort. Don’t just focus on the numbers of your business; understand your customer and adjust accordingly.

Also published on Common Sense Agriculture, Conservation and Energy.

A New Blog For Your Enjoyment

I have added a link in my sidebar to a new blog to which I contribute. It is called Blue Island Almanack. The focus of the blog is the environment, economics, education and ethics. Drop by and take a look. Feel free to comment. Be sure and add it to your favorites.

Market Psychology

This evening I was visiting with a friend of mine who is a commodities buyer for a very large feed company. He commented about how crazy the market was today. So, I asked him what he was talking about. He said, "corn futures jumped 16 cents on the news that it froze in Missouri. The crazy thing is, they haven't even planted corn in Missouri yet! What could it freeze out?"

The futures market is a very psychologically driven market. It has happened numerous times with cattle futures based on rumors of BSE or some other disease being found. It makes no logical sense to someone in the cattle business. It shows the influence of speculative traders that buy and sell based on psychological factors, not on reality.

The same thing happens in the stock market. Stocks that are totally unrelated to newsworthy events about a business, or industry, are often impacted as much or more than stocks that should directly be effected by a particular news item. It makes sense when the stock of a chip maker falls because its biggest customer is struggling with sales. It doesn't make sense when the entire lending industry is impacted adversely by news that a particular sub-prime lender is heading toward bankruptcy.

It is the individual who understands "mob" psychology that will often do well in the stock market -- at least in the short run. I personally believe that such market gyrations should be ignored and investment should be based on business value, sound management and a strong plan. Time should be taken to understand an industry and the factors that affect it before putting money into it. Gambling based on "gut feeling" is a sure way to lose. That "gut feeling" is often indigestion caused by worrying about an investment that had no real merit in the first place.

Futures markets are a tool for protecting the price of a commodity that one owns, or plans to own in the course of their business. When used properly, they can be a form of insurance against cash price moves based on real-world events. The stock market is a place to invest in well-managed companies that need additional capital to expand. It is a place that requires a long-term view for success. It isn't a place to ride the capricious price swings of a psychologically driven market in the hopes of a windfall. In that environment, only the professionals win.

The markets have always intrigued me. I guess it is part of the same thinking that caused me to major in Agricultural Economics in college. On the micro, or firm level, economics is just a way to evaluate decisions on how to best utilize the resources that you have at hand. On the macro, or system-wide level, economics is frequently heavily influenced by psychological factors. What drives consumer decision making? Are they always rational in their choices? Do businesses always make wise decisions? -- and on and on. The people side of it often creates the greatest uncertainty. Maybe that's why we hear so much about Consumer Confidence Levels and similar measures of people's attitudes about the economy.

I've always enjoyed watching people and puzzling over why they do the things they do. I don't think I'll ever figure it out though. If I did, I'd be wealthy from playing the games in the stock market.

Global Warming Again

I can't decide what to think about "global warming". I don't trust the media, I don't trust politicians, I don't even trust the so-called scientists. They all have an agenda they are pushing which biases their positions. I think there are certainly observations and measurements of climatological factors that indicate that the earth is in a warming cycle -- at least some areas of the earth. Is the warming man-made, or part of the natural rhythm of the earth's climate?

I had a lot of training in statistics when I was in college. The old adage that "the figures don't lie, but liars can figure" is appropriate to consider, and certainly relevant to the question of climate change. If you have a particular point of view that you believe to be correct, the research that you conduct will be conducted in such a way that you will likely prove your point -- especially in an area that has as many variables as the earth's climate. If you believe that the polar ice caps are melting, you will look until you find evidence that they are melting. If you believe that the earth is warming, you will look until you find evidence of warming -- even if you have to measure the temperature in a thousand locations to do it! All research begins with the biases of the researcher. They cannot be removed from the process. I know that you "scientists" out there will disagree with this, but keep in mind that your disagreement is a bias in itself.

My training is in economics. Economics is a so-called social science. It is the study of the allocation of resources. It uses scientific methods to the extent possible. However, all economic problems are affected by huge numbers of variables. The larger the number of variables, the more inexact the conclusions. The large number of variables is one of the biggest problem with climatology. In economics, quite literally, the price of eggs in China can potentially impact the futures market for corn in the United States. Why? One possible scenario is that a high price for eggs in China could cause a shift in chicken raisers from meat production to egg production. This in turn could create a demand in China for imported chicken. Perhaps the chickens are imported from the U.S. as frozen, boxed chicken. The increased demand for chicken from U.S. suppliers could cause a price rise in chicken meat in the U.S. causing a shift in consumption by U.S. consumers from chicken to beef. In the feedlots of the U.S., corn is one of the primary feed ingredients. Therefore, the quantity of corn demanded would increase and the cash price of corn would increase -- at least temporarily until the farmers responded by planting more corn. The cash price increase would create a speculative increase in the corn futures market. An endless number of other scenarios can be concocted by any good economist that would provide the same or a different answer. It is likely that none of them are completely true.

Now all of that was said for this reason. How many variables affect the weather? Even solar flare activity affects the weather on earth. There is no way that scientists can know with certainty that human activity is causing global warming.

Al Gore has come to the forefront as one of the biggest "fear-mongers" of global warming. He's also making a lot of money in that role. Is he also running for President based on the questionable fears that he is creating in the American public? The general public notoriously follows the media. The media tends to give favorable treatment to the most liberal of ideas. It all just makes me suspicious.

It's time for the American people to take our country back from the vultures. If we don't, they'll soon be picking over our bones.