The Wall Street Journal reports that farming is making something of a comeback on the edges of metro areas amid collapsing residential land values. This anecote is great:
Consider the England family, which recently repurchased 430 acres of cotton fields in Eloy, Ariz. In 2004, the Englands had paid $731,000 for the parcel about 65 miles southeast of Phoenix. The family then flipped the property in 2009 to a Milwaukee-based apartment builder for $8.6 million. Two months ago, the family, which had been leasing the land to grow cotton, bought back the farm out of foreclosure for $1.75 million.
Meantime, Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports the Federal Reserve is worried about a bubble in farmland:
The Fed’s Beige Book, an anecdotal survey of economic conditions released on Sept. 7, reported that “farmland values rose further” in several districts even as “harsh summer weather strained agricultural activity.” The Kansas City Fed reported land values were 20 percent higher than a year ago. The Chicago Fed reported a 17 percent increase in its district, the fastest increase since the 1970s. Nonirrigated farmland in the Minneapolis Fed district increased 22 percent in price.
— The Washington Post pushes back on the notion that regulation kills jobs, noting that job losses are often offset elsewhere and the overall effect is “minimal”:
Economists who have studied the matter say that there is little evidence that regulations cause massive job loss in the economy, and that rolling them back would not lead to a boom in job creation.Firms sometimes hire workers to help them comply with new rules. In some cases, more heavily regulated businesses such as coal shrink, giving an opportunity for cleaner industries such as natural gas to grow.
“Based on the available literature, there’s not much evidence that EPA regulations are causing major job losses or major job gains,” said Richard Morgenstern, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank Resources for the Future who worked at the EPA starting under the Reagan administration and continuing into President Bill Clinton’s first term.
— The Financial Times leads its home page with this headline tonight:
Eurozone bonds hit by mass sell-off
Investor fears spread to core triple A countries
Italian bond yields jumped back up above 7 percent. French and Austrian yields rose to euro-era records over German bonds. Finnish, Spanish, and Dutch yields rose significantly.
Mike Riddell of M&G, one of Europe’s biggest fund managers, called it “probably the most worrying day” of the crisis so far.
From the WaPo article: "Regardless, regulatory experts say that viewing a rule solely through the lens of whether it will cost jobs misses the point. Noll, the Stanford professor, said the government could outlaw tractors to create $5-a-day jobs for people working in the fields, but “that would not be a legitimate social goal.”
And THIS is point, indeed. Creating jobs where the free market wants them is better than creating jobs where the gubmint wants them. People working where they want to work... For employers who want them to work there... Is just B E T T E R than people working in jobs where the gubmint says they have to work.
The sooner you commies learn this, the better off we'll all be.
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 08:13 AM
CJR and MSM are years behind on the farming boom story.
Free-market economists and investors have known it all along.
Ever watch CNBC? Jim Rogers has been calling it for years.
The MSM need to pull their heads out of that Keynesian sandpit.
Don't wait until that corporatist boom/bust machine (a.k.a., the FED) tells you what it has done to the economy.
By then it is too late for the rest of us who are not politically connected.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 03:34 PM
An email I received this afternoon from Pravda... er, I mean CJR:
"I'm the web editor at CJR, and I'm writing about the comments you've been leaving under the handle "padikiller". We've generally left our comments sections alone over the years, but we've decided to start being more active in enforcing our comments policy. (http://www.cjr.org/about_us/privacy_policy.php) As such, while you should feel free to disagree with the points we're making, and to express that disagreement in comments as often as you'd like, you've got to stop calling people commies. It's unnecessarily inflammatory, and it inhibits actual discussion. I don't want to have to start deleting your comments, but I will if you keep on calling people ridiculous names. Fair warning."
Now here in the CJR comments, I have been called, among other things, an "idiot", a "moron", a "plutocrat", a "wingnut", a "racist", and even a "pedophile".
All comments that are right here in the comment threads for everyone to see. But apparently these little leftist pleasantries aren't as "inflammatory" as my use of the word "commie". At least not according to the (obviously non-commie and open minded) editors here at Pravda... er, I mean, CJR.
I have responded to this email, asking the editor to provide the CJR-approved language I can use to describe someone who I believe advocates a policy of government enforced redistribution of wealth... People I have always referred to as "commies" or "commie/liberals".
What do you guys think?
How about "you person who advocates government-enforced redistribution of wealth in a manner similar to communism"?
Think this would make it past the CJR censors?
It means the same thing as "commie" but if it keeps the politically correct panties out of a twist, I suppose I can suffer the reeducation and comply.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 04:43 PM
Since we're being all open about e-mails, here's how padikiller responded to my initial message:
Mr. Peters:
You have GOT to be kidding, right?
I can point to myriad examples where I and other libertarian or other right-leaning commenters have been labeled "racists", "bigots", "idiots", "morons", "retards" and even "pedophiles" in the comments section on your site.
And you guys are seriously singling me out for my use of the term "commie" - a political descriptor? For real?
Let me ask you this... What is an acceptable term in CJR-Land to describe what I perceive to be a leftist or progressive viewpoint that advocates wealth redistribution by government policy? A term that the CJR censors deem not to be "unnecessarily inflammatory"? When I comment on a typical CJR article that shills for some leftist advocacy group or think tank, what is the CJR-approved manner of doing so?
Could I perhaps write "the writer's typically leftist position that advocates
redistribution of wealth in a manner similar to communism"? Would this criticism make it past the CJR censors?
To me, it means the precisely same thing as "commie", but if it takes a little
politically correct typing to avoid censorship, I suppose I can do it.
I guess it had to come to this. After all, we don't want any "inflammatory" debate (at least not from the right side of the political spectrum), do we?
#4 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 05:16 PM
And here's my response to him:
Nope, not kidding. Our comment threads have become really mean-spirited and shrill over the last few months. If you can't make your points without calling people names or resorting to personal attacks, then I'm going to start deleting your posts. This goes for all our commenters, starting now; I'm not just singling you out. I want to maintain decorum across the ideological spectrum.
#5 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 05:18 PM
"Ever watch CNBC? Jim Rogers has been calling it for years."
What are you talking about? Rogers has been feeding the bubble if anything, not calling it.
http://m.cnbc.com/id/29477080/Jim_Rogers_Buys_Land_Starts_Farming
At any rate, if you are going to talk about bubbles in asset prices, it's important not just to identify the trend, but to ask why the trend is there.
When we look at the Greenspan bubbles:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/greenspans-bubbles/
One can see that something was out of place, that the normal assumptions behind stock purchases (p/e) and house prices (long term investment that appreciates steady in ratio to inflation) weren't in operation.
The assumption at work with those bubbles was that the asset value was going to appreciate in months, therefore profits could be made in flipping these properties. You can see the bubble working by tracking the amount of sales and purchases. When it becomes high frequency, then you've got a bubble since these people are not purchasing the assert for intended use, they're using it to make money off of asset demand.
And when asset sales slow, the asset value drops back to below what it should have been when the asset was traded for its utility, not the perception of its profitability.
Is that happening with farmland? Does anyone have statistics of farmland sales over time?
Because there may be some other assumptions at work here that aren't bubble related, but could produce an asset crash anyways if they prove to be wrong.
More later.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 05:24 PM
Right...
So... For the THIRD time... How about a little editorial guidance, Mr. Peters? You are the web editor, right? And you are the censor, right?
WHAT exactly is the CJR-approved manner in which to criticize an opinion that I believe espouses the government-enforced redistribution of wealth in a manner similar to communism? HUH?
This, after all, is what "commie" means...
What will it take to make it past the CJR censors?
Or, as one can infer from your silence, is there no possible approved way to express this particular sentiment here at Pravda... er, I mean CJR?
Furthermore, despite the fact that Mr. Peters insists in reply to my email that his new "anti-inflammatory" policy is universal... Somehow, I get the feeling that I am the sole recipient of his censorship threat. You think?
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 05:28 PM
Ps. Not that it's important, but Padi is wrong on the issue of communism. Communism is the elimination of individual ownership and the formation of collective ownership under the state.
"Redistribution of wealth" is what the rich have done to the poor for the last 40 years now. I guess they're all commies. Commies on Koch.
*shrug*
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 05:33 PM
This from the guy who has called me an "idiot", a "moron", a "retard", a "plutocrat" and a "pedophile".
Read it for yourselves: "So anyways, you racist pedophile, the foreclosure crisis is a complicated matter which takes a little focus to understand, something which I hear pedophiles like yourself have trouble with between lynchings."
And I bet you haven't got one of Mr. Peters' email threats of censorship from Pravda... er, I mean CJR, have you Thimbles?
Because calling someone a "racist pedophile" isn't as "inflammatory" as calling someone a "commie", right?
Such is the pitiful state of "professional journalism" in America.
But at least it's out in the open (for the time being, at least until Justin Peters censors it).
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 05:43 PM
Oh, for Pete's sake.
#10 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 05:44 PM
OK...
I think we have the Pravda.. er, I mean CJR approved method of criticism of opinion, courtesy of Censor-In-Chief, Justin Peters.
Instead of "commies", I have been permitted write "advocates of a policy of
government-enforced redistribution of wealth similar to communism" without risking censorship, at least for the time being.
Now they mean absolutely the same thing, of course... And the dozen extra words are going to eat into the bandwith. But if political correctness requires it, I suppose it's my cross to bear. Noblesse oblige.
I just wish the "advocates of a policy of government-enforced redistribution of wealth similar to communism" who run Pravda.. er, I mean CJR weren't so pig-headed and biased.
Orwell would be proud of you "watchdogs".
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 06:02 PM
"This from the guy who has called me an "idiot", a "moron", a "retard", a "plutocrat" and a "pedophile"."
Hey, at least it wasn't libel. :D
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 06:14 PM
[...I just wish the "advocates of a policy of government-enforced redistribution of wealth similar to communism" who run Pravda.. er, I mean CJR weren't so pig-headed and biased.
Orwell would be proud of you "watchdogs".
#11 Posted by padikiller on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 06:02 PM
"This from the guy who has called me an "idiot", a "moron", a "retard", a "plutocrat" and a "pedophile"."
Hey, at least it wasn't libel. :D
#12 Posted by Thimbles on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 06:14 PM].
It would be fair for Justin Peters to require that readers comment over a validated full name that always appears on the site in the same format, for example, Clayton Burns, if you have two full names. The fake and truncated names are diminishing the value of the site. Clearly, there could be circumstances that would justify disguised names, but I think that would be uncommon.
Readers could be issued a clear warning, which could appear beside their subsequent posts: "W: Behave Well. Please." Then we would know that padikiller, for example, would rather twist the format, sometimes. Otherwise, we might be in doubt. It would be like a mild Scarlet Letter: maybe 'A' for 'Abominable.'
Perhaps it is all a CJR conspiracy. If so, I surrender.
#13 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 07:08 PM
The problem with that system is that:
a) I like anonymity. So do others. Commenting and free expression isn't my day job and in this environment, free and personal expression could affect one's day job.
b) having accounts requires having account management and account management software. The guys here don't even have a comment rating system and the imposition of a new system would affect the legacy articles and their comments.
Let's keep it casual.
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 08:26 PM
I think not. It is a free country. If you are expressing reasonably-held opinions, nobody has any right to punish you for them or limit your rights in a harsh way.
If they try, then you should fight back. That is a price to pay for freedom of expression.
I am not talking about elaborate accounts management. Just the principle of posting your name. Managed in a sensible way.
I am not talking about extreme formality either. Too informal means reading the same points far too many times and listening in on pointless dialogue that could drive other people from the site and reduce its potential.
It is better to try to avoid getting into personal conflicts. I generally say what my facts and interpretations are, but I don't add in that you probably had an argument with your mother ten years ago, and that you are of suspect IQ.
By lounging about on the site and talking wildly, some may infringe unreasonably on the time of the editors. It is reasonable of them to expect some consideration.
#15 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 09:03 PM
"What are you talking about? Rogers has been feeding the bubble if anything, not calling it.
" http://m.cnbc.com/id/29477080/Jim_Rogers_Buys_Land_Starts_Farming
"At any rate ..."
=================================
Thimbles,
From the story you linked: "We're still going to eat, probably; we're still going to wear clothes, probably. ... Even if demand goes flat or down, as it did in the 30s, as it did in the 70s, you can still have a nice market," [Rogers] told CNBC.
I.e., unlike Keynesian govt stimulus etc., Jim Rogers' investment is a real, sustainable sources of productivity and economic growth: not the stuff of artificial bubbles.
Unlike D.C. and the FED, Jim Rogers does not shovel trillions in fiat money and credit to special interests in order to artificially create market demand, thus creating unsustainable bubbles.
Yet, because he reacted shrewdly to market conditions by investing millions of his own money and capital — creating untold numbers of productive jobs meanwhile! — you accuse him of "feeding the bubble"?
Rogers has always been a commodities guy and has been successful at it because he knows well the history of, among other things, how fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies tend to affect markets. Like the Austrian free-market economists, he understands the boom-bust cycles. In every pertinent interview, he has opposed the Keynesian policies of the govt and the FED, while making predictions (based on sound, basic economics and common sense) of what those policies would bring about. You're unduly blaming Jim Rogers for doing what any willing, able, conscientious investor would do in light of the information he has.
BTW: I agree that Greenspan is every bit the bad, bad, bubble man. He should not have gone the Keynesian route. But the Keynesian route is the most politically expedient. (And who but a liar or dupe would accuse a FED chairman of being apolitical, eh?) That marked the third and final stage of Greenspan's plunge into economic statism: free-market non-interventionism > Chicago monetarism > Keynesianism. So sad.
#16 Posted by Dan A. , CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 09:07 PM
" It is a free country. If you are expressing reasonably-held opinions, nobody has any right to punish you for them or limit your rights in a harsh way."
Yeah, they do. And it's kind of understandable in that if you are a known cross burning klansman after work, it can affect a business when you are a representative at work.
For me, and others, it's just better and more freeing to comment anonymously. As long as we respect the community standards, since now there are community standards to respect, there should be no problem with pseudonyms.. Unless your intention is to snoop on my facebook, you cheeky cad.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 16 Nov 2011 at 09:30 PM
Just for the record, we have no plans to get rid of anonymous commenting.
#18 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 12:06 AM
""I.e., unlike Keynesian govt stimulus etc., Jim Rogers' investment is a real, sustainable sources of productivity and economic growth: not the stuff of artificial bubbles."
Okay, there was a misunderstanding. I assumed you were supporting the article's premise (there's a farmland bubble) and that Austrians like Jim Rogers were warning about the bubble for years. Your claims are that it's not a bubble, it's a productive and appropriately priced asset. You should explain that a little further.
"BTW: I agree that Greenspan is every bit the bad, bad, bubble man. He should not have gone the Keynesian route. But the Keynesian route is the most politically expedient."
Greenspan has never been a Keynesian. Not ever. He's a nasty little Ayn Rand groupie who always been to the right of Milton Friedman and is largely responsible for the inequality of the 80's and 90's, not to mention an ineffectual turd who bailed on the fed during his crisis when he could see the crash coming.
He's not, nor never has been, one of ours.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 02:49 AM
"Because there may be some other assumptions at work here that aren't bubble related, but could produce an asset crash anyways if they prove to be wrong."
So what are those assumptions?
1) the population of the earth isn't getting smaller. Which means two things humans need these days aren't going to get any cheaper, food and energy. Since we're turning food into energy these days, the potential for both crop and meat inflation is very high. Corn goes up, ethanol goes up, beef goes up. Water resources have already turned into a highly competed for commodity.
2) according to the IEA we've got five years to get our stuff together on carbon lest we blow the 2 degree global change limit. Farmland has the potential to be dual purposed for food growth and wind generation. Increased land value.
3) We live in an age of incredibly cheap transport that can ship incredibly well preserved foods. That technology is working on run down batteries. Unfortunately, many investors have gone out to third world countries in Africa and the like and bought their arable lands for first world food production. So far it's been nice having year round Mexican papayas available in French groceries, but when the gas that runs the transport system starts getting expensive - whether it's due to low supplies or energy speculators - markets are going to go local to save on transport costs.
These are some future assumptions. What about assumptions based on the present?
4) Middle America has been mostly shielded from the unemployment crisis that accompanied the asset collapse. This is because they didn't have the asset bubble near as bad in Middle America and because the Agricultural Industry is not free market based. They are heavily subsidized. They have healthier local economies.
5) As climate change affects more countries food production, the potential markets for American exports increase.
6) processed food is becoming unpopular. The more Americans desire diverse, quality food, the more farmland is required to produce those 100% fruit drinks instead of pop.
Those are some of my assumptions for why farmland prices are driving up.
Tommorrow we can talk about the pitfalls of those assumptions and others you may add.
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 04:32 AM
Thimbles ticks off just every single point that can be made be card-carrying "advocate of government-enforced redistribution of wealth similar to communism" (though not, under Pravda's... er, I mean CJR's new commenting policy, a "commie", of course)
The sky is falling. The Earth is burning.. Etc.
Give it a rest.
Nobody with any common sense is buying this nonsense. All of the lies, obfuscation. collusion and political chicanery and bribery in the "global climate change" silliness have come to light and the simple fact of the matter is that everyone can see it isn't real. Manhattan isn't flooding. Polar bear populations aren't decreasing. The arctic ice sheets were 127,000 square miles bigger in Oct, 2011 than they were in Oct. 2007... Etc..etc.. etc..
The truth is starting to come out, despite the best effort of the leftists and their MSM lapdog "journalists"... Though you wouldn't know it if you read the NYT or the WaPO, recently, Dr. Ivar Giaver, a Nobel laureate physicist, resigned from the American Physical Association over the association's silly Chicken Little position on global warming:
"Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.
Best regards,
Ivar Giaever
Nobel Laureate 1973"
#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 01:16 PM
"Thimbles ticks off just every single point that can be made be card-carrying "advocate of government-enforced redistribution of wealth similar to communism" (though not, under Pravda's... er, I mean CJR's new commenting policy, a "commie", of course)"
Just to clarify, I should not respond by calling him a pedophile, correct?
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 02:31 PM
Thimbles,
Let's be gentle here. If you absorb the neutral designation "pedophile" yourself, it will make it easier to identify you. The other guy. Who is not the killer.
Justin is probably about to post one: "For the Record:" Synergistic Ranting is not a crime. Synergistic Hooded Stranger Ranting is indicated at CJR. This is the final warning.
#23 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 03:00 PM
Thimbles, you're twisting my words.
Here is what I said.
(1) Rogers' investments are not feeding an unsustainable bubble (he is taking advantage of an agricultural boom which he saw coming way before this CJR post was published).
(2) Greenspan went the Keynesian ROUTE.
And to be clear, here's what I did NOT say.
(1) I did not say that Greenspan is a Keynesian PER SE (though he often acted like one). He did whatever furthered his own career — whatever was politically expedient — and that included Keynesianism.
Murray Rothbard, a former acquaintance of both Rand and Greenspan, had Greenspan pegged back in 1987 when Greenspan became FED chairman:
"[Greenspan's] views are virtually the same as Paul Volcker, also a conservative Keynesian. Which means that he wants moderate deficits and tax increases, and will loudly worry about inflation as he pours on increases in the money supply.
"There is one thing, however, that makes Greenspan unique, and that sets him off from his Establishment buddies. And that is that he is a follower of Ayn Rand, and therefore 'philosophically' believes in laissez-faire and even the gold standard. But as the New York Times and other important media hastened to assure us, Alan only believes in laissez-faire 'on the high philosophical level.' In practice, in the policies he advocates, he is a centrist like everyone else because he is a 'pragmatist.'" [source]
And here's a 2010 synopsis of Greenspan's career, esp. how ideology and principle played second fiddle to politics and self-enrichment: "Chairman Greenspan: A Fiat Mind for a Fiat Age."
(2) Nor did I call Jim Rogers an Austrian (though he acts like one). But he does understand the primary role played by the govt and the FED in the business cycle, how bubbles are formed, the free-market remedies, and so on.
#24 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 03:04 PM
Dan A.: Is that your name? If so, congratulations. If not, please consider posting it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synergistic
Synergistic is always a great word to know.
So is flibbertigibbet. Does it mean:
a chattering or flighty, light-headed person.
the offspring of a zebra and a donkey.
#25 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 03:17 PM
"Thimbles, you're twisting my words."
No, we had a misunderstanding. Are we kosher now?
"(2) Greenspan went the Keynesian ROUTE.
And to be clear, here's what I did NOT say.
(1) I did not say that Greenspan is a Keynesian PER SE (though he often acted like one). He did whatever furthered his own career — whatever was politically expedient — and that included Keynesianism."
But that's not what he did. What he, and Bernanke, did was Freidman monetary policy, injecting liquidity and lowering interest rates whenever a recession/depression threatened.
They did nothing to increase demand except affect interest rates and their primary goal has been to keep inflation low. They were not Keynesian. Keynesians were not taken seriously for decades.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/forefront/2010/09/ff_2010_fall_02.cfm
"There’s also another tradition that began to build up in the late seventies to early eighties—the real business cycle or neoclassical models. It’s what’s taught in graduate schools. It’s the only kind of paper that can be published in journals. It is called “modern macroeconomics.”
The question is, what’s it good for? Well, it’s good for getting articles published in journals. It’s a good way to apply very sophisticated computational skills. But the question is, do those models have anything to do with reality? Models are always a caricature—but is this a caricature that’s so silly that you wouldn’t want to get close to it if you were a policymaker?"
Don't pin the economic wackiness on us.
"Nor did I call Jim Rogers an Austrian"
But he is. Look it up.
#26 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 03:41 PM