"Slow Money" is charity, not investing

"Slow Money" is branding itself as an alternative to traditional investment, but at the same time is not saying anyone will get back the money they put in.

The name is a take-off of the "slow food" movement and it has wrapped itself in all the same old "buy local" and locavore nonsense of creating a new world fed and clothed by low-impact, wealth-creating cottage industries and handmade products. See the "Buy Local" tag on this blog for many, many posts on why almost all of those claims are false and counterproductive.

This voiceless cartoon they made shows a woman putting her money in the bank and expressing concern that it is being invested in arms manufacturers, oil companies and cliche 18th century smoke-belching factories. The woman then gives her money to a local farmer, who puts the money in the ground and a big plant comes out, which eventually sprouts an identical amount of money that she put in. We then we see more plants grow more money, and eventually a farmers' market sprouts up.

This one minute, 45 second cartoon doesn't actually show the woman getting her money back, and people who participate shouldn't expect to either, but it's the closest thing to a coherent pitch the group has.

Slow Money is a network of ideologically-motivated investments clubs who give what they call "loans" to local food producers. Since local farms typically lose money, I imagine they have a high default rate. The Slow Money network has been around for four years and has given out $35 million. It's very telling that the proponents do not talk about how many borrowers pay back their loans. Instead, their website talks about their principals, which for some reason includes a quotation from a Hollywood actor,

I realize that Slow Money is trying to attract angel investors, people who are interested in the cause and the personality behind the business more than generating a profit, but for some reason they won't come out and flatly say it. I wouldn't have such a problem if the Slow Money people would just say that they deal in donations, instead of talking about "investments" and making vague references to building a new economy.

Why not just say that the money people give will not be returned to them, but instead will create things in the community they want to see? Why not just be straightforward with what they're doing, instead of presenting it as something akin to financial investments.

You have to dig deep, but their are times when the movement heavily implies that is the goal. To complete the checklist of a faux-intellectual movement, Slow Money leader Ari Derfel gave a TEDx talk in 2011. After dropping shallow buzzwords like "business 3.0", reading inspiring quotations and talking about someone's honest-to-god vision quest, he summed up what Slow Money is all about. Vaguely. In particular, he said:

What makes life worthwhile is not profit; it's relationships... We need to measure return on investment not simply by profit, but by things like soil fertility, by the jobs we make, the relationships we build, the ecology we restore.

Please note: He never said his "investors" won't make any interest, he just implied it. He never said one way or the other if they can expect to get their principal investment returned.

Before giving his brief summary, Derfel explained  that he would need "a whole TED Talk" just to explain what Slow Money is. Funny, the title of the video of his talk is "Slow Money." Was he really invited to speak about organic food in rich communities and cliche wise-Native-American stories? If an executive director of an organization can't sum up what they do in 15 minutes, they are either incompetent or dishonest.

He could have told us that Slow Money is an angel investment group-slash-charity that accepts the growth of small farms instead of fiscal profit? How hard was that?

Sadly, his vague summary is as close to straightforward as you will get from this movement. If you want to delight in seeing local farmers milling about your community, than you probably won't have a problem with not getting your principal investment back. You're already choosing to pay too much for food anyways. Just don't have any illusions that the money you give to this organization will eventually return to you. As in gambling, don't spend what you can't afford to lose.
Read more...

Local food is still not financially substainable

Let's take people with no understanding of basic economic theory and allow them to tamper with the economy.

That's what Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is doing, on behalf of our elected officials. The New York Times writes:

The United States Department of Agriculture plans to announce Monday that it will spend $52 million to support local and regional food systems like farmers’ markets and food hubs and to spur research on organic farming. 

The local food movement has been one of the fastest growing segments of the business, as consumers seek to know more about where, how and by whom their food is grown. 

But local farmers still struggle to market their food. Distribution systems are intended to accommodate the needs of large-scale commercial farms and growers. Grocery stores and restaurants largely rely on big distribution centers and are only beginning to figure out how to incorporate small batches of produce into their overall merchandise mixes. 

Farmers’ markets are proliferating around the country, increasing 76 percent to 8,268 since 2008, according to the Agriculture Department, but they have trouble marketing themselves. And few consumers are aware of a website the department created to help them find a farmers market in their area. 

“These types of local food systems are the cornerstones of our plans to revitalize the rural economy,” Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary, said in a telephone interview. “If you can connect local produce with markets that are local, money gets rolled around in the local community more directly compared to commercial agriculture where products get shipped in large quantities somewhere else, helping the economy there.”

There's that same bogus broken window argument, that local people buying things at higher prices helps the economy here and deprives it elsewhere.

If these food movements are so successful, why can't they afford to market their own products? As pointed out on Mike Munger's blog, the writer just got done reminding us of how much money farmers' markets and local foods are bringing in, but the industry still needs a bailout.

Once again, the issue isn't simply that the local food advocates are making bogus hyper-protectionist claims based on myths and fallacies. It's that they want the rest of us to help pay for their expensive, luxury goods like local, organic and hand-raised foods. Local food programs need to be able to stand on their own, and it's shameful that influential people like Vilsack get to regurgitate this nonsense to a major publication like the New York Times with zero pushback. 

Read more...

Small farms won't feed the world

This week I interviewed a young farmer who is in the process of adding a dairy cattle herd to his farm and I had the chance to ask him about his breed choice. I wanted to know why he was picking breeds with lower productivity.

Growing up, our farm had a herd entirely composed of Holstein cows. Holsteins produce more milk per animal than any other breed, which has made them the most popular dairy breed in the country.

Yet, there were a few families in our 4-H clubs that had other breeds - Ayrshires, Brown Swiss and Jerseys. While Jersey milk has a higher fat content than the other breeds and has its own niche market, I never understood why small farms had brown cow herds instead of black and white. I assumed some of them were part of a family tradition, or the farm already had a sizable brown breeding population from previous generations and the current generation didn't think it was worth switching.

But why do the new first-generation farmers choose these breeds? Jim, the young farmer I met, is getting Ayrshires and Brown Swiss. Why opt for unproductive breeds, it's like choosing the Tiger missiles in Top Gun for the NES?

Jim explained it's really about marketing. The locavores he caters to associate Holsteins with factory farming, and brown cows with wholesomeness. Witnessing these breeds give them emotional comfort when they are making a purchase.

So there you have it. Once again, we see consumers flocking to marketing and packaged images at the expense of productivity. Jim is being rational by appealing to the prejudices of his customers.

Now keep this in mind when evaluating preposterous claims that the world should return to local food production. Holsteins are better at feeding the world than Ayrshires, but local farmers have incentives to choose inferior breeds.

A 2013 article in Hoard's Dairyman attempts to estimate the percentage of America's cattle population by breed. This is difficult because there's no official count, but about half of the cows are registered in the Dairy Heard Improvement program. These records show that the percentage of dairy cows who are Holsteins in America has fallen from 92.55 percent in 1985 to 85.56 percent in 2012.

However, this decline isn't from locavores, as small farms make up a small percentage of the national herd. The analysis concluded that a greater demand for cheese is pushing up the Jersey breed percentage, and well as an increase in mixed breeds. There is indeed a use for brown cows in the modern world, but notice the striking difference between choosing a breed for utility and choosing a breed for marketing.
Read more...

There's a reason they don't grow that here

Economist/serial letter writer Don Boudreaux has penned a column on the idea of using heated greenhouses to produce local food in area unsuited for growing that type of food.

Some lands and local environments are better suited than are other lands and local environments to growing particular kinds of crops. Obviously, South Florida is better suited to growing citrus than is Western Pennsylvania. This fact, however, doesn't mean that Pennsylvanians couldn't grow all of their own citrus. They could indeed do so if they were to build many huge hothouses. 

Yet not only would such hothouses divert land in Pennsylvania from other valuable uses, these hothouses would have to be heated — a very energy-intensive procedure. We can be reasonably certain that the fuel costs of heating such hothouses are greater than the fuel costs of shipping oranges from Florida to Pennsylvania. The reason for our certainty is that if the transportation costs were greater than the costs of heating the hothouses, Pennsylvania farmers could earn profits by growing citrus in hothouses. These farmers would be able to sell their crops to Pennsylvania supermarkets at prices lower than the prices that those supermarkets now pay to stock their shelves with citrus fruits from Florida. 

But in reality, no farmers in Pennsylvania grow citrus in hothouses — a pretty good sign that the amount of resources required to operate citrus hothouses there is greater than the amount of resources used to ship citrus to Pennsylvania from Florida. 

What's true for citrus is true for wheat, peas, beef, pork, you name it. The lowest-cost place for producing any particular type of food is seldom close to home.

Citrus is an extreme example and most locavores make that argument that while tropical fruit is out of the question, vegetables like green beans are not. What I like about this column is that is answers that in an easy-to-understand way. Simply put, we can tell it's not a good idea because mainstream farmers aren't already doing it.

Maine farmer's are willing to make large operations for potatoes and blueberries, but for some reason cabbage doesn't come up. That's a clue that there are better places to grow cabbage.

Read more...

Is the local food movement doomed?

The New York Times just ran an op-ed piece by sea-farmer Bren Smith lamenting that the small farm craze is terrible for the farmers.

The dirty secret of the food movement is that the much-celebrated small-scale farmer isn’t making a living. After the tools are put away, we head out to second and third jobs to keep our farms afloat. Ninety-one percent of all farm households rely on multiple sources of income. Health care, paying for our kids’ college, preparing for retirement? Not happening. With the overwhelming majority of American farmers operating at a loss — the median farm income was negative $1,453 in 2012 — farmers can barely keep the chickens fed and the lights on. 

Others of us rely almost entirely on Department of Agriculture or foundation grants, not retail sales, to generate farm income. And young farmers, unable to afford land, are increasingly forced into neo-feudal relationships, working the fields of wealthy landowners. Little wonder the median age for farmers and ranchers is now 56. 

My experience proves the trend. To make ends meet as a farmer over the last decade, I’ve hustled wooden crafts to tourists on the streets of New York, driven lumber trucks, and worked part time for any nonprofit that could stomach the stink of mud on my boots. Laden with college debt and only intermittently able to afford health care, my partner and I have acquired a favorite pastime in our house: dreaming about having kids. It’s cheaper than the real thing.

Combine this with Dan Barber's recent assessment that the local food system is failing because no one wants to eat the cover crops, and the ongoing problem of local producers dishonestly repackaging mass-produced goods to make ends meet, one wonders if this snobby food fad is going to burn out in the next few years. The "food miles" environmental argument has already been destroyed, and now with visible tears in the economic arguments the only thing left is aesthetics.

But, of course, right on cue Smith reaches for the big red button and demands a bailout to prop up luxury foods:

But now it’s time for farmers to shape our own agenda. We need to fight for loan forgiveness for college grads who pursue agriculture; programs to turn farmers from tenants into landowners; guaranteed affordable health care; and shifting subsidies from factory farms to family farms. We need to take the lead in shaping a new food economy by building our own production hubs and distribution systems. And we need to support workers up and down the supply chain who are fighting for better wages so that their families can afford to buy the food we grow.

Look, the problem with agricultural subsidies isn't that they are going to the wrong types of farms; the problem is that they exist in the first place. This is my big problems with the local food movement: They want their private indulgences paid with public money. Small farm artisan foods are luxury items and if patrons won't agree to higher prices the answer is to let the industry die, and not to shake down taxpayers for more subsidies, grants and tax breaks.

Interestingly enough, these tax breaks that Smith loves so much have introduced rent-seekers into the market, and they are driving down prices by increasing the supply of local foods. He writes:

Especially in urban areas, supporting your local farmer may actually mean buying produce from former hedge fund managers or tax lawyers who have quit the rat race to get some dirt under their fingernails. We call it hobby farming, where recreational “farms” are allowed to sell their products at the same farmers’ markets as commercial farms. It’s all about property taxes, not food production. As Forbes magazine suggested to its readers in its 2012 Investment Guide, now is the time to “farm like a billionaire,” because even a small amount of retail sales — as low as $500 a year in New Jersey — allows landowners to harvest more tax breaks than tomatoes.

It sounds like bailout farmers are being gored by their own ox.

Read more...

Farmers' Market franchisee

I was talking to a baker at a farmers' market yesterday. My girlfriend bought the loaf of break pictured to the left and I asked about where the recipe came from for the sold-out apple pie bread.

I turned out it came from another baker within the corporation.

As loyal shills of this blog will remember, I do not think there is anything wrong with going to a farmers' market or buying from a local company; I just don't see it as a virtue or a way to make the local economy wealthier.

However, the activists that do may feel bamboozled when they learn that Great Harvest Bread Company packages its food and surrounds itself in the veneer of what appears to be a locally-owned independent company but is actually a national franchise - one that costs $55,000 to $90,000 to join and charges royalties that start at 7 percent.

So much for that silly "keep the money in the community" nonsense.

Now, there is nothing wrong with Great Harvest Bread Co., they have been around a lot longer then the snobby local food movement and the bread I had from them was great. They make a product people clearly enjoy at prices they are willing to pay. This is not a criticism of their business, but a nod to their ingenuity.

It only makes sense that large corporations would tap into the locavore movement and the farmers' market game, such as Sprouts Farmers Market. What's clever here is that Great Harvest Bread Company is slipping seamlessly into the markets instead of trying to organize an entire market on its own.

Read more...

Choosing a side

I'm having a hard time trying to understand if foodies are supposed to be cultured cosmopolitans or backwards survivalists.

A few years ago I was seated in the audience waiting for an event to start when I heard the person sitting behind me declare that she and her husband "try to do everything as locally as possible." This included trying to live off locally-made food and limiting her purchases to local merchants whenever possible.

What struck me is how that statement was extremely elitist on the surface, but it bore the structure of something said by a backwater nationalist militia member who sneers at products that aren't made in America.

So which is it food-snob hipsters, do you want to eat ugly tomatoes and gamey meats from the farmers' market, or are you willing to indulge in globalist foods like Nutella, sushi and hummus?
Read more...

Buckwheat for dinner? No deal

Why is it whenever someone wants to get people to eat awful-tasting food for political reasons, they always introduce it as delicious?

Local food activist Dan Barber has declared on NPR that the local food movement has failed, but his solutions to save it are Band-Aids on a stab wound.

Barber is saying that local food was supposed to replace industrial agriculture with a massive cottage industry of small-scale productions, which it has failed to do. This is 100 percent true, but I resent his assertion that changing to clumsy local food production would be progress.

He also talks about how the coveted cover crop system of planting things to replenish the soil isn't economical because no one wants to eat buckwheat and barley, so local farmers end up feeding these pricey crops to their animals. Barber concludes that in order for the system to work, humans would have to eat those filler crops as well as the main crops.

This is the precise moment where the wheels fall off the bus. Barber has a fair point that adopting to a local food system would require people make radical sacrifices to their diets, but then he turns around and suggests they actually do so.

Sorry Dan, but it's not going to happen. He must realize this on some level because customers at his restaurant are consistently complaining about the food he now serves them and how it's composition fails to meet their expectations of a meat-based main course.

A caller does chime in at the 16:30 mark and reveal the central flaw in the local food movement - that local food is great for uppity snobs with money to burn, but we need large, efficiency farming techniques to make enough money to feed the world.

Barber's response involves a tall-tale claim that local farms produce more calories in total than modern farming, but most of those calories are in things people don't like to eat. I don't believe that for a second, and once again he wants to play dictator and require people to eat unwanted plants to keep his dream afloat.

The good thing about this interview is that Barber made a strong point - the local food movement can not simply exist as an alternative source for the foods people already like. It is instead a radical, misguided approach that would require its participants make great sacrifices and changes in their diet if they wanted to live its ideals.

Good luck getting people to eat buckwheat, Dan.

Read more...

Maggie Anderson is not an economist

I was curious to whatever happened to the Buy Black scheme from a few years ago, officially called the "Ebony Experiment" and later changed to the "Empowerment Experiment. The idea was for black people to only buy from black-owned businesses. Most people got so upset about the upfront racial discrimination that they forgot to ask if it actually helps enrich the black community.

A Google search revealed that Maggie Anderson, the wife in the couple behind the campaign, wrote a book and has a website that introduces her as "Author, activist, speaker, economist..."

While Maggie Anderson may make claims about economic ideas, she is no more an economist than creationist Ken Ham is a biologist. Anderson's classic mistake was to only look at what black merchants stood to make in profits and ignore about the higher costs and other difficulties experienced by black customers. She doesn't understand mainstream economic thinking, in fact, she is oblivious to it and relies on novelty and gimmicks.

She received the highest honor bestowed on a pseudo intellectual-earlier this year - she was invited to present a TEDx talk.

She made one compelling point - that white people can also choose to shop from black merchants (most likely out of guilt). While this fails to help the economy as a whole and will create a net economic loss, the section of the economy she cares about will benefit.

The last time I saw her, Maggie Anderson's group was operating an ignored Facebook fan page. The page was filled with spam posts for get-rich-quick swindles peppered with assigned updates asking followers "Did you EE today?"

Now she has become an evangelist on the stage, making the same tired old promises that if we only agree to buy a few products here and there at an inflated price we would save the community by creating jobs. It's an old claim polished up with an ebony coating, and the core is as hollow as ever.
Read more...

The luxury of not starving

Here's an image that is being spread along social media. There are many like it, and this one is perfectly representational of the genre.

There are so many things I could stay in response, as all of these so-called problems are shallow nonsense, but one stands out above the others.

There is no food crisis in America.

We have an abundance of cheap, healthy food, and that's because of forces like technology, international trade and capitalism. It is not because of agricultural subsidies, drum circles or the natural gifts of Mother Earth. It is because of human innovation and cooperation. Thank globalization, not food activists.

There is no lack of safe, nutritious and affordable food. Some people choose to eat unhealthy alternatives, but that's out of preference and no necessity.

Having to depend on local food is a recipe for mass starvation and poverty, and the people who want to return to those primitive days are coming from a place of ignorance.

We have all the good food we need. There is no food crisis here.
Read more...

Will locovores consume these berries?

One of the neighboring towns from where I live has a large, struggling factory that makes the body for BlackBerry devices.

As most people are aware, BlackBerry dropped the ball on the smartphone battle and iPhones and Android devices crowded them out of the market. The company is practically dead.

However, BlackBerry is trying to hold on and win back a share of the market. It's not going well, as the iPhone is extremely popular and already had a loyal customer base.

Still, I can't help but notice the overlap between locovores and iPhone users. This brings me to my question:

Knowing that this factory, which is a major employer in the area, is at risk of shutting down because BlackBerry, its biggest client, has flagging sales, would locovores actually put their philosophy into practice and switch to BlackBerry?

It's one thing for spoiled hipsters to throw more of their plentiful dollars at a frowny farmer so they can feel better about themselves, but I doubt very many of them would purposely downgrade their smartphone. That's not the kind of sacrifice they are used to making.
Read more...

I, Nutella

That simple spread of hazelnut and cocoa that everyone loves has a cross-continental pedigree, as emphasized in a recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Nutella combines vanilla flavoring from France, hazelnuts from Turkey, palm oil from Malaysia, sugar from Brazil and cocoa from Nigeria. The OECD used it as an example in a recent report to demonstrate global supply chains and it's gathered a lot of attention.

Nutella would not be possible without globalization. Like a famous essay said about the pencil, each jar contains the labor of thousands of people across the globe. There's no single location on earth that could ever make it without outside help.

Unlike other foods with a lot of ingredients, such as sour cream and salsa pork rinds, Nutella has a highborn reputation. It's artsy to like Nutella. The spread is borderline pretentious. That's very different from the low-status products that are usually associated with globalization like McDonald's food.

Globalization needs a new symbol that can engage people, and Nutella is a perfect choice. Globalization simply means the extension of human cooperation over international lines, instead of restricting it to the immediate area. Violent mobs and fringe speakers have given the word an unpleasant edge to the general public and not enough people name "globalization" as something they support.

Only a gullible fool would balk at spreading delicious Nutella across their bread. Nutella is the beautiful child of international cooperation, and people need to appreciate and understand that origin along with its captivating taste.
Read more...

Sadly, it wasn't true

Remember that Reddit post about sous chefs stealing from someones garden? That thing I said was probably a hoax?

The author admitted it was a hoax on a podcast. Before doing that, had gone on a local TV news station to reiterate the story, adding more artful, unlikely details like finding beard nets and recipe cards left behind. This thing is faker than a socialist utopia.

Rereading my post about it, I'm glad to see that every single line I wrote about it was skeptical. However, I still feel kind of sheepish that I didn't hit home a firm conclusion. In my defense, I didn't grasp that all of the items he accused them of stealing were weeds. I thought there was a garden somewhere in there too.

That being said, the idea of food snobs going out of their way to eat weeds is very real.
Read more...

Local Kleptocracy

Are locavores really so entitled that they will steal from local gardens. A recent Reddit post from Portland, Ore. claims they are.

Homeowners: How do you keep local sous chefs from harvesting urban edibles on your property?

I have tried posting signs, yet they still seem to find a way into my yard to harvest everything from nettles and catmint to borage and grape leaves. I even built a six-foot tall fence, but they are still managing to get in. I have called the offending restaurants to ask them to tell their sous chefs to stop trespassing, but so far they seem undeterred. I have also offered to let them onto my property with my supervision, but they mostly seem to come out while I'm at work so everything can be prepped for their dinner service. It was fine when they were just harvesting pineapple weed and mallow from the alley and the parking strip, although it was admittedly a little off-putting. I'm also totally cool with them picking the crab apples because some of the branches are in the public right of way. But yesterday my neighbor called to let me know she had to help a sous chef who got stuck on top of my fence holding a baggie full of chicory leaves. I get that part of living in inner SE is dealing with locavore sous chefs and all the problems that follow them, but it is frustrating and kind of scary knowing that they are constantly combing my yard for garnishes while I'm away.

I'm skeptical about the authenticity of this post. The caller somehow knows which restaurants to call. The repeated name-dropping of herbs seems like a literary device. Most quizzical of all, there are plenty of dishonest people that sell to locavores by lying about the origins of their ingredients, so why wouldn't they simply lie to people instead of taking such strange risks?
Read more...

Silent snobs

The pretentiously-named New York City restaurant "Eat" serves all of its meals in total silence. No one, not even the waitstaff or diners, are allowed to speak once they enter.

Of course, it's also got a plan to save the world.

Our philosophy is simple: Local organic food is best for the community, the environment, and your body, and that is what we choose to serve.

The facts say otherwise about local and organic, of course, but let's set that aside for a moment. How could anyone possibly enjoy local, organic food if they can't spend half of the meal praising themselves for sacrificing excessive amounts of money on versions of food that are out of reach to common people? Are we to believe they simply gloat in silence?



Read more...

The Scracrow is a Scaremonger

It appears I am the last person to have watched Chipotle's beautifully-rendered fearmongering cartoon about the coldness of modern agriculture.




Good grief, talk about romanticizing the past. As one farmer said in response to it, they want our food to be produced using methods from several generations ago, but they don't want the lower standard of living associated with life several generations ago and the two are very much a packaged deal.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, which took in $2.7 billion in revenue and has more than 1,500 locations is a strange bird to wrap itself in anti-corporate feathers, but what other lesson could someone take away from its ad campaign?

I don't normally like to cite Mother Jones, but it appears the real hippies don't care for Chipotle's earthy-crunchy posturing either. The company touts its locally-sourced ingredients, but fails to admit that they make up a small fraction of the menu. It also postures itself as being anti-GMO, anti-factory farm and pro-organic when only portions of its food supply fit that label.

Then there's this billboard ad:

The company has even taken the simply monstrous stance against treating its meat animals with antibiotics. That's not actually true, as the Mother Jones article reminds us, but it is coarse for them insist that sick animals should be denied medical care so they can die a "natural" death.

The only thing customers should be afraid of here is the barbaric way Chiptole believes food should be raised.
Read more...

Local solar is not a virtue in dark New England

Driving through Northampton, Massachusetts today I saw a banner that read "Keep Solar Local."

Solar pride is a common groan-inducing sight in the bay state. Massachusetts is filthy with solar panels, and not because this is a good place to make energy from the sun. In fact, it's a lousy place with long, dark winters. Bright deserts make great locations for solar arrays, but that assumes your goal is to produce energy. If you goal is to make a profit from government subsidies and you don't care how much energy you produce then Massachusetts is a great place to install them.

However, it turns out the "Keep Solar Local" campaign is really a campaign to do business with a single solar installer simply because it is "local." That company, Northeast Solar, is actually from Hatfield, a neighboring and therefore competing municipality, but they don't seem to care because it's more local than anyone else.

On its website Northeast Solar claims "We can provide competitive pricing today" but a recent article in the Daily Hampshire Gazette shows the company started this campaign when they couldn't compete in a fair bidding process:

Gregory Garrison, president of Northeast Solar in Hatfield, argues this is a short-sighted decision that does not help the state’s Clean Energy Center meet its self-described mandate to create high-quality jobs and economic growth through its renewable energy programs. 

He said these goals cannot be accomplished by selecting the lowest bidder within a Solarize community, whose intent is only to drive down costs and install as much solar as possible.

The emphasis was added by me, of course.

When a company can't compete with superior service or lower prices they resort to phony localist economic claims as a hail Mary play.
Read more...

Be careful what you wish for

Locavores, hipsters and foodies are learning that raising backyard chickens isn't as fun as they thought it would be, and many chickens only lay eggs for a few years but stay alive for a decade. This is leading to flocks of chickens being abandoned at animal shelters.

It’s the same scenario at the Chicken Run Rescue in Minneapolis, Minn., where owner Mary Britton Clouse has tracked a steady climb in surrendered birds from fewer than 50 in 2001 to nearly 500 in 2012. 

She traces that rise to the so-called “locavore” movement, which spiked in popularity in 2008 as advocates urged people to eat more food grown and processed close to home.  

 “It’s the stupid foodies,” said Britton Clouse, 60, who admits she speaks frankly. “We’re just sick to death of it.”  

 People entranced by a “misplaced rural nostalgia” are buying chickens from the same hatcheries that supply the nation's largest poultry producers and rearing them without proper space, food or veterinary care, she said.

Sorry kids, farming is hard work. Be careful what you wish for.
Read more...

There they go again

The headline reveled exactly what angle WGME was taking with it's article "NYC Marketing Firm Gets Maine's Business"

There's a major decision and a big change in Maine's $7.5 billion per year tourism industry. Each year, the state spends millions of dollars marketing the state but after 20 years doing that job, a Maine-based company is out, and a New York City marketing firm is in. 

After promoting Maine's tourism industry 20 years straight, Augusta-based Nancy Marshall Communications is out. The state has instead retained the Dilenschneider Group, a New York City marketing agency. 

Economics commissioner George Gervais says a formal, competitive process, one dictated by state law, decided the winning proposal. "I did talk to the review team afterwards and they did indicate that this was a clear winner."

OK, so far so good. Everything is positive so far, but we know what has to come next. After a sad reflection from a representative of the out going firm the reporter decides to bring in a silly elected state official to show off his guess-based economic theories:

Senator Seth Goodall (D) adds, "It's just disappointing that we will be exporting some of Maine's dollars to New York. We should be promoting our own. We have very talented marketing and advertising agencies here in the state."

What Goodall is saying is that this is Maine, not a meritocracy. We don't need to use fair bidding processes and a cost-benefit analysis when we dish out taxpayer money for the state's largest and most important industry. Instead, we need cronyism and favoritism because Maine firms are too weak for fair competition.

But don't worry folks, with the very next paragraph the writer turns everything around. A Maine firm will get a piece of the action:

In fact, one of those Maine agencies, Burgess Advertising and Marketing, will work with the Dilenshneider Group. 

Meredith Strang Burgess of Burgess Marketing and Advertising says, "I'm a huge fan of keeping my business as local as you possibly can. And I think at the same time, they have an opportunity now to work with an international and national public relations firm who daily operates in a very different sphere."

If you were worried that the writer has a fair understanding of basic macroeconomics the final paragraph was wedged in with no transition just to calm that fear.

Burgess Advertising and Marketing does not know yet if there will be any new marketing positions opening up at its firm as a result of this new contract.

Remember dear readers, when you do business in the state of Maine the rules of economics go out the window. Certain people in power want you to believe that businesses exist for the purpose of providing jobs, not to accomplish tasks, provide services or create products.
Read more...

Another knight for our round table

I just discovered the YouTube channel of Bailey Norwood, an agricultural economics professor at Oklahoma State University. He also takes in interest the economic arguments of the "Buy Local" movement

And man on man does he put them out to pasture.



I'm always interested in seeing what approach other people make when they tackle this issue. The "transfer of wealth" focus is a solid tactic, as a major trade fallacy is that wealth is being lost in exchange for nothing when people trade. In fact, the amount of wealth on average stays the same and it is the form of wealth that is exchanged.
Read more...