Farmers Must Sell Quinoa

I am always amazed at the one-sided analysis that some journalists adopt in the discussion of trade in goods and especially in agricultural and food items. Joanna Blythman of the Guardian wrote a story on the fact that the global demand for a Peruvian crop known as quinoa is raising prices for the product worldwide. A a supporter of enterprise and trade, I think that this is an unequivocally good thing. However,  the journalist, without stating any other numbers, simply states that the price of quinoa has led to a threefold increase in its price and thereby affected its affordability for Peru's poor people. She attributes the rise in price to the expansion in demand in Europe among health conscious people.

That some households may face difficulty and hunger because the prices of quinoa have risen is not to be taken lightly. However, it is clear that other farmers have gained substantially due to the rise in demand for this crop. Any analysis that fails to account for both the effect on sellers and buyers tells on a part of the story and looks suspiciously reductionist. This blogger would state without equivocation that a big part of the solution in world hunger is not about who consumes what but rather that poorer farmers are affected by inadequate demand for the products that they produce. Peru's quinoa farmers should not have to accept the perverse option of low prices just so that everybody can afford that grain. Indeed, the conclusion fro Joanna that the solution to undernourishment is for all food to be grown a home has little connection to the solution for hunger. Do not blame vegetarians for higher preference for quinoa.

Isn't Armstrong's Apology Enough?

When I learned that Lance Armstrong would be having a discussion with Oprah Winfrey, I worried that there would be cynics who would accuse him of trying to use Oprah's profile to wipe out his alleged transgressions. And yet even before that interview was broadcast, it became clear that he would neither find forgiveness nor any understanding from a section of viewers whose minds were made up. And yet I thought that the published commentaries such as this about the discussion with Oprah were dominated by the unproven view that the confessor was not entirely contrite.

Tim Black's article in Spiked-online reflects the fact that the responses to Armstrong are that he did not react in the way that the apologies industry expected him to. To my mind, here is the illustration of the fact that an apology is often demanded for misdemeanor and yet it is never enough. So yes, this man made many grave errors and was very deceitful and unkind to many people but dispassionate people must detest the fact that there are people who seem to enjoy kicking him while he is down. To me, this episode proves that those in positions of power and leadership should be more circumspect and less vulnerable to hubris. And that includes  journalists, warriors for morality and the rest of us. This is not the moment to be fastidious because Armstrong has given his apology. To me, that is acceptable and enough. 

More Abuse of Evolution to Explain Social Behavior

During a friendly discussion with a a friend with whom I attended college a while ago, I argued that it can be stated unequivocally that the degree of scientific literacy on the part of the public has risen remarkably both in the place of my residence and in world populations at large. Implicit in my argument was that the sheer number of articles being published that address scientific principles has most definitely raised the appreciation of science.

Looking through this article by dDan Slater in the NYT and an early blog post here leads me to consider that I may have made my point with more confidence than is warranted. To begin with, the NYT article states that while some evidence for evolution is sound, it is often wound together with other theories to explain human behavior in ways that are not defensible. As the story states, Charles Darwin too extrapolated from evolution to explain the reproductive choices of male and female human beings in ways that are not defensible and amount to pure speculation. As Slater argues, behavioral scientists pick up sensible but unproven hypothesis and assumptions then proceed to gather evidence as proof of those assumptions. As he continues, many scientists have beguin to dispute the theories that have emerged from speculation dressed up as science.

This situation is highlighted by the blog post that I refer to in the preceding paragraph. Back then, I was arguing that many students of economicssts are dressing up their theories in evolutionary language. tThere is very little evidence that evolution supplied humanity with pre-programmed behavior and it is time for a push-back against these interesting hypotheses and they must headers to article be called out for what they are- entertaining guesses.   

France's Moment To Think Clearly

Readers of this blog may recall this blog post last year in which I discussed the ridiculous policy idea by the new government in France. In a move whose motive is clear but whose logic is just absurd, the government of France initiated to tax citizens for overtime tax. At that same time, there were discussions on further tax policy measures intended to raise the marginal tax rates on individuals whose income passed a certain threshold. Unbelievable as it is, the idea by President Hollande is to raise the marginal tax rates to 75%.

Gerard Depardieu, a very famous and wealthy citizen of France announced that he would take residence in Belgium but denied here that this was driven by this increment in the marginal tax rates. During the last weekend, the same actor received a Russian passport from none other than Vladimir Putin of Russia in an obvious rebuff to the French government.

To my mind, the government of France ought to be take to some reflection if a citizen who has paid substantial taxes over decades is suddenly showing preference for Citizenship in Russia. And I am sure that the differences between France and Russia do not rest with marginal tax rates and so perhaps Depardieu is right that calculations on tax liability is not the reason at all for this change. In spite of that, France's government should consider why a leading citizen is so happy to become Putin's buddy. Part of the answer is that both political and economic freedoms matter and citizenship can be cheapened with poor economic thinking manifest in ridiculously high and oppressive tax rates.  

Update: I have to state that the government of France was stopped from raising the marginal tax rate to 75% by a court decision. For that reason, the rise has not occurred but it is clear that the administration is determined to raise it and will maneuver around the court's decision.