We Can't Eat Our Way to a Food Revolution

Posted on June 30, 2010 by rethinkecon

Grist writer and North Carolina farmer Tom Philpott, commenting on an American Prospect article, explains why consumer choice isn’t enough to bring about an organic, locally grown, sustainable food system:

the example of a New York State farmer named Morse Pitts. He sells the bounty of his 15-acre Windfall Farm in the Hudson Valley at Manhattan’s famed Union Square market, where his eggs command a steep $14 per dozen and “some of his greens go for more than $40 per pound.” Yet even though his weekly market stand teems with consumers eager to “vote with their forks” (to speak nothing of their checking accounts), he nets just $7 per hour for his labor and plans to shut down his operation soon.

The problem, Rogers makes clear, is a widespread lack of infrastructure for supporting small-scale, ecologically minded farmers. The public resources that might do just that are siphoned off by the industrial food system, in the form of commodity subsidies and largesse to the corn ethanol industry. Farmers like Pitts have to pass on the costs of their ecological stewardship directly to their customers in the form of eye-popping prices, which still don’t add up to a decent salary, while industrial-scale farms can generally trash the environment with impunity, letting society as a whole, or distant communities, pick up the bill….

At this point, farmers like Pitts — whose experience aligns with my own efforts to farm in North Carolina — have plenty of conscientious consumers willing to pay the full cost of their food. What they need now are conscientious policymakers willing to take on the agribusiness and food-processing interests that profit most from the current situation….

Voting with your fork, it turns out, is not enough. We can’t just “be the change we want to see” in the food system; we also have to get out there and organize for policy reform: to become, in short, a countervailing force that challenges the power of the food lobby.

Power Isn't a Stain on the Economy's Fabric, It's Part of the Economy's Fabric

Posted on June 28, 2010 by rethinkecon

It’s time, says Robert Reich, to drop a Top Hat on the corruption spewed by the market:

In the words of lobbyist Lauren Maddox, “The policy process is an extension of the market battlefield.”

The answer is not necessarily found in broader or stricter “ethics rules” barring specific gifts to politicians. Such rules may have little effect and will not, on their own, restore public trust. Instead, we need to consider how to prevent high-stakes market competition from intruding on political decision-making, to create what might be considered “safe zones” where the market has no influence.

I don’t have a problem with the changes Reich wants to make — public financing, slowing down the revolving door between public service jobs and corporate jobs, etc. But wishing for “safe zones” makes about as much sense as wishing for unicorns (or safe zones patrolled by unicorns).

Take the last healthcare fight. Reich writes:

Doctors squabbled over whether primary-care physicians would get a Medicaid payment boost or a somewhat smaller boost would go to all doctors. Insurers that specialize in higher — cost plans mainly going to unionized companies squared off against those specializing in plans that cater to lower-wage workers on whether taxes should be raised on high-cost plans and at what level the tax would kick in. Middle — sized companies fought against small employers over the size of businesses that will be exempt from the requirement of insuring their employees. And on and on.

Many of these battles continue but have moved into the regulatory process, where different companies, sectors, and industries are seeking rules that advantage them and disadvantage their competitors.

As opposed to when? The only reason we had any chance of a real debate this time is that the Godzilla of the medical world, the AMA, had its monopoly of power broken by the insurance companies a few decades ago. Case in point: from the New York Times in 1965.

The American Medical Association said today that it was placing an advertisement in 100 newspapers to make its position clear on its opposition to health care reform. The advertisement calls health care reform ‘the beginning of socialized medicine.’

What was the AMA trying to nuke? Medicare.

Healthcare is a particularly good case because even if, for example, somehow you magically created a public debate “safe zone,” Big Pharma would still have plenty of indirect influence over it. Remember this charming story from the New York Times last year?

A growing body of evidence suggests that doctors at some of the nation’s top medical schools have been attaching their names and lending their reputations to scientific papers that were drafted by ghostwriters working for drug companies — articles that were carefully calibrated to help the manufacturers sell more products.

I’m not arguing we couldn’t rein in some of the insanity. But it’s ridiculous to that we can treat market power like it’s a stain on public discourse.

In fact, I think this denial makes the problem worse. By pretending that power isn’t an inextricable part of the economy, we undermine building support for the real solution — insuring everyone has a real say by creating Checks and Balances .

Ponying Up without Getting Doored

Posted on June 25, 2010 by rethinkecon

When I lived in the Bay Area, I did what Mark Mykleby said we should do: I biked to work. I don’t in DC, and it isn’t just the awful summer weather. It’s simple — I don’t want to die.

In DC, I have friends here who bike to work every day. They tell me that so long as you’re aggressive enough with car drivers, you’re usually okay. That and watch out for folks in cars who open up the door right in front of you so you can avoid the delightful experience known as getting “doored .” Anybody surprised more of us don’t follow their path?

If we want more folks to “pony up” like Mykleby says they should, we’ve got to make it easier so those of us without a Mad Max approach to biking will do it. One interesting example of how is a pilot project San Francisco is trying out in Golden Gate Park.

The $250,000 project will move parking spots away from the curb so bicyclists and cars no longer have to mingle on the roadway. The lanes are expected to protect bicyclists and encourage more cycling in The City.

“A painted buffer area between the parked cars and bikeway will provide space for passengers to enter and exit vehicles,” the SFMTA said. “In areas without parking, the bikeway will be separated from the travel lane by a painted buffer area only.”…

The lanes have been a success in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and New York City, said Andy Thornley, the Bicycle Coalition’s program manager.

But even less complicated or expensive changes can make a real difference. Cities have discovered that creating what are known as Bike Boulevards, or a network of streets where signs and lines painted on the road make it clear that on these roads, bikes have priority, can significantly increase bicyclist safety without making car drivers crazy. No matter what cities do, individuals still have to make the decision to bike. But we can make that decision a much more appealing — and sane — one.

Are New Yorkers More Patriotic Than South Carolinians?

Posted on June 21, 2010 by rethinkecon

Mark Mykleby, a friend of Thomas Friedman who works for the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Office of the Chairman, published a letter in “his hometown paper, the Beaufort Gazette in South Carolina,” about the BP oil disaster. Friedman liked the letter so much he republished it in his column.

This isn’t BP’s or Transocean’s fault. It’s not the government’s fault. It’s my fault. I’m the one to blame and I’m sorry.

It’s my fault because I haven’t digested the world’s in-your-face hints that maybe I ought to think about the future and change the unsustainable way I live my life. If the geopolitical, economic, and technological shifts of the 1990s didn’t do it; if the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 didn’t do it; if the current economic crisis didn’t do it; perhaps this oil spill will be the catalyst for me, as a citizen, to wean myself off of my petroleum-based lifestyle.

‘Citizen’ is the key word. It’s what we do as individuals that count.

For those on the left, government regulation will not solve this problem. Government’s role should be to create an environment of opportunity that taps into the innovation and entrepreneurialism that define us as Americans….

Here’s the bottom line: If we want to end our oil addiction, we, as citizens, need to pony up: bike to work, plant a garden, do something. So again, the oil spill is my fault. I’m sorry. I haven’t done my part. Now I have to convince my wife to give up her S.U.V.

I’ve got a question for Mykleby. Does he think folks who live in New York City are more patriotic or better citizens than the folks in South Carolina?

After all, almost nobody who lives in New York City owns a car let alone an SUV. They don’t live in oil-guzzling McMansions. And they have a much smaller carbon footprint.

Actually, it’s worse than that. If Mykleby thinks the “terrorist attacks of September 11″ is one of “the world’s in-your-face hints” to “change the unsustainable way I live my life,” then isn’t he coming scarily close to saying that New Yorkers sacrificed blood because of South Carolinians oil addiction? And what does it say about South Carolinians that nine years after New Yorkers’ terrible sacrifice, South Carolinians are still guzzling oil?

If you asked Mykleby these questions, he’d probably say, give me a break (or something more colorful). New Yorkers didn’t pony up, it’s just really easy in New York City to get around without a car.

And that’s the point that a lot of very sincere, patriotic folks like Mykleby — and many touchy-feely environmentalists — aren’t willing to face. If most folks live in communities where it’s hard to get around without a car, telling them it’s their fault and they need to pony up is pretty much guaranteed to get us nowhere. That’s the reason nine years after 9/11 we are still hopelessly dependent on oil.

What we do as individuals does count. But it’s as citizens deciding to fight together for a common future — e.g., creating 20-minute neighborhoods — not as individuals deciding whether or not to bike to work, that will determine whether we continue to be addicted to oil.

The Climate Crisis Vs 20-Minute Neighborhoods

Posted on June 18, 2010 by rethinkecon

Portland Mayor Sam Adams has an ambitious goal:

We’re also working to make every section of Portland a complete 20-minute neighborhood to strengthen our local economy. Two-thirds of all trips in Portland and in most American cities are not about getting to and from work. So if I can offer quality, affordable goods and services, eliminate food deserts, have neighborhoods with schools and parks and amenities–if I can create these 20-minute complete neighborhoods all over Portland–it strengthens our local economy. We drive 20% less than cities of comparable size, and because we don’t manufacture cars, produce oil, or have car insurance companies, every dollar that we don’t spend elsewhere, will stay in Portland’s economy. There’s about $850 million that stays in Portlanders’s pockets because we drive less. With a 20-minute neighborhood, also reduce congestion and meet our climate action plan goals.

In response, Grist’s Jonathan Hiskes writes ,

Rather than yet another attempt to rebrand climate change/global warming/global weirding, etc, etc., may I suggest that it might be more fruitful to add phrases like “20-minute neighborhood” that flesh out what a response to climate-change looks like? Concepts such as that and location efficiency help illustrate a sustainable vision, they’re not politically charged (for now), and they appeal to notions of health, community, and quality of life along with the environmental benefits.

I think he’s wrong about these concepts not being politically charged, but focusing on a positive vision instead of doom and gloom — or, if you need to get your masochistic fix on, doing both — seems like a no-brainer. Why the entire Enviro movement doesn’t get this is beyond me.

How State Republican Parties Talk about Values & Choice

Posted on June 16, 2010 by rethinkecon

I’ve been doing a little thinking about how to talk about values and choice. For the hell of it, I decided to see how Republican Party websites do it. Most of them were cookie-cutter, negative, and pretty boring — cut taxes, cut government regulations, and cut wasteful spending. The Texas Republican Party put a little more thought into building a positive vision. There was plenty I don’t agree with, such as:

Rugged Individualism
The entrepreneurial spirit of the individual that continues to solidify Texas as a world economic power….

Honest Compassion
A society assisting those in need rather than a government trying to solve every problem by just throwing more money at it.

But I was surprised at some of the language that did work for me. For example:

Opportunity For All
The opportunity to chart one’s own course start a business, chase a dream, or build a life regardless of gender, race, or religion.

The most interesting piece was on Limited Government:

A government that promotes policies to unlock individual potential and unleash economic growth. Government that does not try to be all things to all people.

It’s a clever way of trying to have it both ways. They admit government plays a critical role. And who other than Stalin would say government should be all things to all people?

In contrast, although the Oregon Republican Party talked about individuals — “Our political party has a common belief of personal freedom” — when it came down to brass tacks, they came down in a very different place.

Protecting our environment

Oregonians share a common interest in protecting the scenic beauty and livability of our great state. The Republican Party believes there is a balance between the environment and our natural resources. Healthy sustainable forests leads to a vibrant wood products industry that provides family wage jobs. Clean water flowing in our rivers and ocean estuaries benefits us all through tourism, recreation and fisheries industry jobs. We must use a common sense approach to balance these issues.

A nice job of saying they care about the environment without saying much else.

The one thing that struck me after reading a bunch of these sites is that using language like “choice” is a bad way to go. Although making choices can be one of the most profound things we do, it’s easy to end up sounding trivial, like deciding between Cheerios and Raisin Bran. These sites don’t make that mistake. When they talk about choice, they use much more powerful language, such as “unlocking individual potential” or “chart one’s own course” or “personal freedom.” Something I can definitely learn from them…

Working Definition of a More Democratic Economy

Posted on June 14, 2010 by rethinkecon

Here’s my new working definition of a more democratic economy:

A more democratic economy is an economy where the major stupid decisions you have to live with are ones you helped to make.

We Live on a Different Planet Than Europe, or What "Conservative" Looks Like in Germany

Posted on June 7, 2010 by rethinkecon

I heard an interview with Steve Hill, author of Europe’s Promise, in which he said Germany’s new chancellor Merkel, is in favor of the German policy that pushes companies to reduce the number of hours employees work rather than laying them off. A little Googling and voila, a NYT description of Merkel’s first policy speech back in November:

Mrs. Merkel, who heads a new coalition of conservatives and the business-friendly Free Democrats, said the global financial crisis would result in a fundamental reshuffling as competition increased for market share, raw materials and human capital….

“Without growth, no investment; without growth, no jobs; without growth, no money for education; without growth, no support for the weak,” Mrs. Merkel said….

Unemployment, now at 8.3 percent, “will rise further,” she said, and added that the government’s subsidy plan known as Kurzarbeit would be extended.

The Kurzarbeit program encourages companies to reduce the amount of hours their employees work rather than laying them off. Under the plan, companies only pay for the hours their employees work and the government compensates those whose hours are cut with an allowance covering some of the lost wages.

“Without Kurzarbeit, more jobs would have been lost,” Mrs. Merkel said.

The program has already saved 400,000 jobs, according to IAB Research Institute, which is affiliated with the Federal Labor Agency. At least 1.4 million employees are working shorter hours, according to the labor agency…

Wow.

Rethinking the Economy

Stumbling towards a new model for creating growth, opportunity, and justice

Monthly Archives: June 2010