Thursday, April 25, 2013

Gardening Part I: Overview

What do a deer, sprinkler, and 43 million households have in common?
Picture of deer, sprinkler, and garden.
- All can be found in a garden.


I am especially fond of the motion activated sprinkler for predator protection.






According to the National Gardening Association, 2009 saw 43 million households (37%) in the United States participate in home gardening, a 7 million household increase from 2008! In 2008, an estimated $2.5 billion was spent on gardening supplies equating to roughly $70 per household. Breaking down individual gardener characteristics by percentages and comparing to general population percentages:
  • 68% are 45 years and older (20.6% general population are > 45 years old)
    • 3.3 
      • (Individuals 45 years and older are 3.3 times as likely to garden as an individual less than 45 years old)
  • 67% do not have children in the home (38% of general population)
    • 1.76
  • 79% have completed some college (57.3% of general population).
    • 1.38
  • 64% are married (48% in general population)
    • 1.33
  • Economically, middle class households (household incomes of $35,000 to $75,000) are most likely to have a garden
  • Have been gardening for an average (mean) of 12 years
    • Median 4 years
Picture of National Gardening Association Gardening Statistics


Why Garden?
The most common reasons people garden:
  1. Satisfaction
    • 58% to acquire better tasting food
    • 51% to acquire higher quality food
  2. Savings
    • 54% to save money on food
  3. Safety
    • 48% to be sure about the safety of their food
  4. Productivity
    • 40% to feel more productive

How do I compare to the average gardener?
  • Demographics:
    • Meeting the stereotype:
      • Attended college
      • Married
      • No children
    • Straying from the beaten path:
      • 26 y.o. (24 when I started)
      • 3rd year of gardening (median/mean: 4/12 years)
      • Household income
Picture of Russ' Garden
  • Reasons why I choose to garden:
    1. It's fun!
    2. High degree of complexity, autonomy, and strong connection (the more time and resources you invest the greater the likelihood a greater reward will be achieved).
    3. Economically neutral at the moment, potentially economically profitable in the future.
      • I try to gravitate towards economically neutral hobbies.
      • I also enjoy the challenge of designing profitable systems (I know weird!).
    4. Physical exercise
      • As my day job is almost entirely intellectual and indoors, getting outdoors and exercising is very enjoyable.
    5. Socially rewarding
      • As politics and economics interest only a small minority, a secondary benefit of gardening is I feel it allows me to connect socially with a larger sphere of people than I would otherwise.
    6. Food does taste better, especially the lettuce and spinach, wow!
    7. Potentially great teaching opportunity for children cover numerous topics:
      • Learning/Researching
      • Efficiency/Productivity
      • Economics


Researching gardening statistics has produced fascinating results. I am particularly astonished by the recent growth in popularity of home gardening (7 million additional households in 1 year and the average (median) gardener has only been at it for 4 years!).

Picture of Bemidji's Weather forecast for 4/20/13 - 4/25/13 However, as exciting as it has been to write and thumb through gardening pictures from the last two years, it unfortunately appears I am a number of weeks away from getting seeds and plants in the ground. Bemidji currently has more than a foot of snow on the ground and the high temperature of the next 6 days is 42 degrees. In the interim, I plan to start growing seeds indoors and work on brainstorming a list of goals and plans to share in future blog posts.


Next Post Topic: Unemployment Assistance Part II:  Roles and Goals

Study Details (nerds like me!)

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Unemployment Assistance Part I: Overview

"Unemployment Benefits MUST be extended!!

Unemployment benefits are already paid for two years - NOW we have to pay for three years??? Four???

When will it stop? When do you have to be responsible for yourself - after how long?

CORPORATIONS ARE MOVING OFFSHORE TO NOT PAY TAXES!!!!! Really???

So, what you are saying is our ridiculously high corporate tax rates screwed us when the business owners decided to move their business to greener pastures??? You all think there are no consequences to raising taxes... Keep raising them and watch it continue and we will lose more businesses, jobs, and tax revenue.

Corporations OUTSOURCED our jobs!!! Really?

You mean there are people in other countries who are willing to do a job you are not willing to do for much less pay and a much more desolate lifestyle? Oh, I'm sorry, did you read somewhere that because you were born in America, you had a right to make more than everyone else on the planet for doing the same thing?

Everyone in this country needs to wake up. Raising taxes HAS consequences. Companies will move offshore, entrepreneurs will CONTINUE to leave and CONTINUE to move their businesses to other locations. Unless all you people making less then $250,000 are going to start CREATING JOBS, I suggest you stop trying to make sure every corporation and ENTREPRENEUR leaves our country."

- Yahoo! Reader Comment


Disclaimer: I do not endorse, promote, or encourage anyone to read Yahoo! (or other Internet news providers) reader comments. I do admit, for cheap entertainment, I will stoop to reading comments posted below such articles. I do not find this constructive in anyway apart from occasionally finding some humorous and clever insight beneath a massive pile of trash.

This Yahoo! reader left little doubt of his disapproval of America's unemployment system. Regardless of how accurate you believe the statements are, the comment does highlight frustrations and questions surrounding our current unemployment system. Most notably:
  • What should be considered adequate benefits? How much and how long should benefits be offered?
  • What consequences, if any, are there of funding unemployment assistance?


During the next few posts it is my aim to provide clarity on the historical and current utilization of unemployment assistance, outline what roles I believe an unemployment system should fulfill, and breakdown specifics of both the current unemployment system and my proposed changes.


In 2012, ~$156 billion was spent providing public unemployment assistance to an average of 6 million weekly recipients. In 2012, $156 billion amounted to 4.2% of all government spending (6.8% of revenue) and 11.3% of total welfare spending. In comparison, $108 billion was spent on public food assistance in 2012. Thus, as also covered in Food Assistance Part II, I am primarily interested in modifying unemployment assistance on principle rather than for monetary purposes.

Unemployment utilization reached its peak in 2010, amounting to $235 billion spent providing aid with a record 12 million recipients the week of 1/2/2010. Prior to 2008, unemployment spending and the number receiving aid was more or less at an equilibrium as shown in the charts below. Compared to the year 2000,  2010 saw a 1017% increase in money spent and a 425% increase in recipients while America's population increased by 14.4%.



Unemployment Insurance Recipients


Looking at cost of expenditures to GDP standardizes costs to America's total economic production. The important note is the direction the figure is trending. An upwards trend signifies we are spending more of our productivity on unemployment assistance compared to prior years and vice versa. Between 2000 and 2010, a 698% increase in percent of GDP was realized. Currently, in 2012, our nation's unemployment system consumes 1.0% of America's GDP, up 431% from 2000.

Unemployment as % of GDP


Are such substantial increases in unemployment utilization for the better or worse? Who, if anyone, benefits or is harmed by our unemployment system? Data indicates both the number of recipients and total amount of aid recipients are receiving have increased. This growth is likely secondary to the increased duration recipients are now eligible to receive benefits as highlighted in the Yahoo! reader comment. Knowing where we have been, where we are, and where we appear to be going are all important components of analyzing not only what has and has not worked in the past, but what policies provide the greatest potential benefit for future utilization. 


Next Post Topic: Gardening Part I: Overview.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Book Review II: Economics in One Lesson

Overall Rating: 5/5

Estimated Reading Time: 8 hours (224 pages, ~2 minutes per page)


Why I choose to read -

  • Recommended by Ron Paul
  • Interested in expanding my knowledge and understanding of economics
  • Lots of media coverage regarding minimum wage, unions, employer mandated health care coverage, bailouts, tariffs, CEO pay, interest rates, etc.
  • In my limited knowledge I seem to gravitate towards the Austrian camp of economics, of which Henry Hazlitt identifies with
  • Excellent Amazon reviews


Background -
  • Subject:
    • Refuting common economic misconceptions
    • Establishing sound economic doctrine for long term, sustainable, local and national economies
  • First Edition: 1946
    • Subsequent Editions: 1962 and 1978
  • Cultural Context
    • Immediate post World War II rebuilding era
    • Thousands of soldiers returning from Europe and Asia
    • Author lived through Great Depression and Roosevelt’s New Deal implementation
    • Bretton Woods Agreement (1944)
      • Created International Monetary Fund (IMF)

  • Author Details
    • Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • Raised in Brooklyn, New York 
    • Briefly enrolled in New York’s City College
    • First employed by The Wall Street Journal. Also held positions at The New York Evening Mail, The New York Sun, The Nation, The New York Times, and Newsweek.
    • Self identifies with Austrian school of economics

Reflections -
  • What I appreciated:
    • Extremely practical. Coverage of numerous controversial topics from minimum wage to special interest groups.
    • Timely message.
      • Today’s political and economic climate is extremely heated regarding which groups to economically favor and which policies to drum up support for.
    • Entry level economic text providing logical and rational critique of past, present, and future policies.
    • Easy to read and comprehend. Written to the lay person with no background in economics.
    • Needed to understand implications and refute politician’s pet programs.
  • Shortcomings:
    • A little basic on inflation (did reference other work).
    • Falls short on showcasing times to divide from proposed principles (war).


Key Messages -
  • We MUST understand that productivity, not policy, increases real wages.
    • Determining whether an action increases or decreases productivity is the key to solving most economic proposals.
  • Profit provides an incentive to innovation and decreased production costs (efficiency).
    • Greed and dishonesty are the innate problems mistakenly attributed to profit. Profit is not bad, rather it drives economic and technological expansion.
  • It is essential for the health of a dynamic economy that dying industries should be allowed to die and growing industries are allowed to grow.
    • Dying industries (or obsolete) absorb labor and capital that should be released for more efficient growing industries.
    • One occupation can expand only at the expense of other occupations.
  • It is the proper sphere of government to create and enforce a framework of law that prohibits force and fraud.
  • Although capital accumulation (a.k.a saving) may prolong a contraction/depression, it will serve to create a greater boom when all the stored up capital is released.
    • Hoarding is a symptom of economic recession/depression, not a cause.
    • If people are “hoarding money”, interest rates will naturally rise to pull money out of mattresses; don’t need to force people’s hand with artificially low interest rates and inflation.
  • Inflation leads to over expansion of some industries (consumer discretionary) at the expense of others (staples), resulting in misapplication and waste of capital.
    • Inflation is the opium of the people :)
    • Poor are less able to protect themselves from inflation, punishing the poor more than the rich.
  • Government loans are given to the highest risk individuals whom private lenders wouldn’t touch.
    • Places resources in the hands of less efficient entities.
    • Increases tax burden.
    • Market also self-selects the best lenders who make the least amount of bad loans; government does not have competition and bails itself out through taxation or increasing the money supply (inflation).
  • Subsidized housing loans create an oversupply of houses and hurt real people and sound businesses by lowering their current property values (increased supply).
  • Rent controls place a barrier to new construction, the exact thing which would decrease rent.
    • Landlords will also no longer make repairs due to decreased funding.
  • We cannot have maximum production without maximum employment; we can however have maximum employment w/o maximum production.
  • Minimum Wage
    • Exchange higher wages for unemployment.
    • To raise wages we need to raise/increase the productivity of workers, not fix wages/prices.
    • Increases prices of basic goods: food, clothing, etc.
    • Charging higher prices for products hurts exports and helps foreign companies import (hurts trade balance).
      • Eventually leads to tariffs.
    • Encourages black market cash payments (decreased government revenue) when an individual is willing to work for less than minimum wage.
  • Unions
    • Strikes are effective if the employer cannot hire new employees; otherwise strikes are extremely damaging to all parties.
    • Increased wages w/o increased productivity increases prices of products/services which decrease demand which leads to unemployment as less supply is needed.
      • Unions in part lead to the destruction of their own jobs.
    • Unions often are opposed to profit sharing or payment based on output or efficiency (productivity), opting rather for implementing seniority.
  • Tariffs
    • Tariffs benefit a particular producer at the expense of all consumers and all other producers.
    • Eventually trade balances must be equalize. Thus importing will actually increase exporting of goods.
      • Your neighbor is only willing to give you so much (imports) on promise of future repayment. Eventually you will have to pay your neighbor (exports) or your neighbor will stop "trading" with you eliminating both importing and exporting of goods/services.
    • Tariffs decrease labor productivity by funneling resources ($ and work) into less efficient industries.
    • Tariffs always reduce real wages by decreasing efficiency and decreasing productivity
    • Tariffs/boycotts of goods produced without adequate environmental controls, slave labor, or unsafe work practices may be warranted.
      • Understandably very difficult to implement and a better solution may be for individual consumers to research where and how the products they are purchasing are produced.
      • Another potential solution would be businesses would open offering for sale only "fair trade" products. Very similar to fair trade coffee and diamond retailers.
        • A problem solved efficiently and effectively by the private sector without the need for an expanded public sector.
  • Rationing is an interesting topic, but one in which the black market may counteract.
    • Black markets increase dishonesty and in the setting of price controls, inefficiently produce inferior and dishonest goods due to incentives.
  • Prices of goods rise from:
    • Increased demand
    • Decreased supply
    • Surplus of money
  • With corporate income tax, corporations lose 100% of their losses, but may only gain ~65% of their profits.
    • Makes them risk adverse leading to decreased rate of company expansion thus decreased rate of job creation.


To who would I recommend this book? 
  • Everyone 13 years of age and older.

To who would I not recommend Economics in One Lesson?
  • Those who have read in the last 5 years. 
    • If been greater than 5 years should be reread.


Henry Hazlitt delivers a timely, well-articulated, and efficient message of the consequences of unsound economic policy. Serving as an excellent foundational text for common economic thought on a variety of mainstream issues, the need to read and understand Economics in One Lesson exponentially increases as more and more economic and political favors are given to special interest groups. Its messages should be read by all, multiple times, lest we forget and choose of path of slow, ignorant loss of our freedoms and economy.


Next Post Topic: Unemployment Assistance Part I