Transparency

So one of the outcomes of the unfortunate series of events from my last post has been a discovery of Stephen Schneier's excellent blog, Schneier on Security, and a subsequent gaffe on my part. In one of his posts, he linked to an article written by Naomi Klein for Rolling Stone in which she warns of the panopticon currently being built in China with technology being developed by defense contractors in the US. My gaffe was to react to the author's identity and to scan the article for the earmarks of a Naomi Klein piece: half-truths and wild assertions. I found my quarry: first, in that she refers to China, a police state if there ever was one, as an example of a free market, and second, that the alarmist article is riddled with examples of ongoing criminal activities in this totalitarian world, a paradox or irony which she fails to note. Besides those two drawbacks, I find that her alarmism may not be without foundation.

Which is one of the reasons why I find comments like Bernard Yomtov's comment in this thread so meaningless. Yes, there are probably libertarians (Kevin Carson's "vulgar" libertarians) who are more interested in lower taxes and repeal of motorcycle helmet laws than they are in issues like indefinite incarceration on the basis of secret evidence. But the libertarian community with which I am most familiar (a) does not suffer from that affliction, and (b) is more likely to see civil rights as a continuum in which the differences are of degree as well as of kind [1]. Tune in to Radley Balko's blog for a few weeks, see kids arrested and choked for skateboarding, see no-knock drug-war raids turn into murder of innocents, see kids taken from their parents on the slightest pretexts (see below).

In related articles, I see that Kevin has a similar reaction to Naomi in this essay reviewing her The Shock Doctrine [2], and I also see where Schneier makes a good point regarding transparency in this article in which he reviewed David Brin's The Transparent Society, revived on its 10th anniversary. He says,

If I disclose information to you, your power with respect to me increases. One way to address this power imbalance is for you to similarly disclose information to me. We both have less privacy, but the balance of power is maintained. But this mechanism fails utterly if you and I have different power levels to begin with.

An example will make this clearer. You're stopped by a police officer, who demands to see identification. Divulging your identity will give the officer enormous power over you: He or she can search police databases using the information on your ID; he or she can create a police record attached to your name; he or she can put you on this or that secret terrorist watch list. Asking to see the officer's ID in return gives you no comparable power over him or her. The power imbalance is too great, and mutual disclosure does not make it OK.

Which brings me to one of the points of interest I have had with respect not only to corporate security policy, but to large organizations in general: one of the basic problems is the establishment and maintenance of transparency. How are decisions arrived at? Who has the decision authority? What is the basis of a decision? How may the decision be appealed?

This is the genius of Open Source: you don't like it, ultimately, you could change it yourself. But more importantly, Open Source embraces Eric Raymond's reformulation of Claude Shannon's reformulation of Kerckhoffs' principle: a system that is based on the assumption that the enemy -- who could be MegaSoft or the state -- has the code (but not the key) because the code is freely accessible (and therefore subject to close scrutiny) is more secure than a system whose operation is a closely held secret. This same principle would seem to apply to anything that someone would want to do, whether a company or a state, whether developing code or a new chemical or passing a farm bill or budget.

Another aspect of transparency: authority and responsibility must lie at the same locus. Remove one and leave the other and you end up with an irresponsible despot and/or powerless bureaucrat. Most large organizations are filled with both, sometimes the same person acting at different times in different capacities. That is what lies at the bottom of one of the threads undertaken in this post: a mistake by a parent leads to the detention of the child even though everyone at every stage acknowledges it is the wrong thing to do (original story here). In that case, the system is transparent to neither the victims nor to the perpetrators, the latter who don't even know how to appeal a decision they would like to appeal but nevertheless feel compelled to enforce.

Transparency seems more easily achievable in smaller organizations and in less hierarchical organizations. It isn't a slam dunk: presenting a grievance to a single individual with authority may get you further at less cost than attempting to convince the majority of a democratic body. This was the subject of Madison's Federalist X essay: the tension between the need to thwart the "violence of faction" while maintaining some semblance of democracy. It is also the basis of the Public Choice theory in The Calculus of Consent. Given the arguments I made in Local, Action: Issues of Scale, I am claiming a close correlation between transparency and communication and the difficulties of achieving either in large social structures.

-----------------------
[1] As to the difference in kind: some civil rights are undermined in reaction to criminals who harm others, while others are undermined in reaction to citizens who might harm themselves. But it seems to me that each side of the spectrum likes to take their favorite pet peeve of the latter type and turn it into one of the former. Thus, for Bill O'Reilly, drugs should be illegal for adults because they eventually end up abusing their children because of the drugs. For the anti-smoking crowd, Second-Hand Tobacco Smoke was a godsend. And now, global warming is the trump card.

It makes sense that if we do not want the police state that we have, then the first laws we should get rid of are those that purport to defend us from ourselves. If we can't even take these off the books, how can anyone believe that we will be able to take laws off the books (or practices off the table) that supposedly protect us from supposedly bad men? Both repeals would require an admission that the state cannot protect us from all risks. After all, they will point out, 19 men with box cutters very nearly managed to kill tens of thousands of people rather than "just" 3000, and going back to that state of affairs invites another such disaster.

Note that that argument is not my argument, but rather the argument you're going to get from the "protect the kids" crowd. It isn't easy to dismiss since it appeals to our sense of personal security; its most recent manifestation was not a Bush speech, but Hillary's "3 AM call" campaign ads. I would argue that we are no better off under the new state of affairs, under which the FBI and TSA are effectively committing a low level type of terrorism. Yes, they may be catching some bad guys and preventing some bad things in the near-term, but they are creating more terrorists abroad. As they keep pointing out to us, preventing acts of terror is a matter of dismal statistics; the bad guys only have to get lucky once, while the "good" guys have to get lucky every time. Creating more future terrorists who only have to get lucky once seems like more rather than less risk, but the alternative is to have an adult conversation with the public about terror.

The Left punted on that. They chose instead to accuse the Bush Admin of "failing to connect the dots" and being "asleep at the switch". Those accusations contributed to the overwrought response and subsequent invasion of Iraq. They should have asserted that this was an unfortunate event requiring in-depth analysis rather than bold action. But the problem is that winning debate points is far more important to the Left than preventing the growth of the police state, which they rather enjoy when they control it.

[2] I cannot follow Kevin down the pro-Chavista path. Not only has Chavez shown autocratic tendencies (extending his own power, shutting down dissenting media), but if the FARC cache is authentic, he has shown a willingness to support violence to undermine neighboring democracies. Yes, Colombia's democracy is tenuous and questionable, but no less than Chavez' own. When Kevin says,

Quite frankly, if my only choices are corporate liberalism and social democracy, and a banana republic on the neoliberal model, I'll take the former any day. If I get to choose between the paternalism of Brave New World and the jackboot in my face of 1984, it won't take me long to decide. I'm not ashamed to say that if my only choices are the welfare statist and neoliberal versions of statism, I'll take the kind of statism whose yoke weighs less heavily on my own back.

he is, by his own tacit admission ("if my choices are ..."), offering a false choice. Let us hope we have at least a third choice.

Springtime

With the return of Spring, it's time to get back on the bikes. Not only does Kathleen commute, but I like it to get around and to exercise when I'm off work.

One of the things we like to do is to ride over to the Saturday morning Farmer's Market. Somewhere, I remember reading that McKibben's Deep Economy contains a statistic to the effect that 10 times more conversations are struck up in local markets like this than at Wal-Mart. I believe it - I usually don't bother asking Wally World employees for help because they generally are about as familiar with their own stock as I am. But the employees at both the local co-op usually know where to find stuff. Sure enough, the FM didn't disappoint.

The animal shelter was out with a pack of dogs. I met an old friend who was working with them; she said they had adopted out 7 dogs that day. I would have guessed 7 per week was about normal.

Then we came across a bluegrass band (The Salty Dogs). Many dogs sitting around, beckoning the wife to pet them. I struck up a conversation with Matt, who was riding a modified bicycle he used for "bike tramping". It was modified with an Xtracycle, which I thought would be something useful for grocery shopping. Matt had some, um, unorthodox views of the world, including a belief (that we did not explore) that the current economic downturn was intentionally arranged; that fluoride (which he described as an "iron oxide" class of chemical) was used to dumb down the population, a trick we picked up from the Nazis; that Kissinger was a criminal; that Godzilla-derived foods from Monsanto were poisoning us and causing diabetes; that those foods and water in plastic bottles were causing cancer; that this nation has a scary hive mentality; and some kind of anti-immigrant thing. As we parted, I realized that it's probably a good thing I keep my mouth shut since I probably come across the same way to the average person.

After that, my wife stumbled upon someone selling sewn goods [1] right across from someone with a ... is that? Yes, it's a Nolan Chart with dozens of little stick-on stars on it. No doubt as to who these people are. They were just packing up the booth (we got there late), so I stopped to confirm my suspicions. They saw me eyeing the chart, asked if I wanted to take the World's Smallest Political Quiz, I pointed to the top corner and told them I could save them some time if they would just put my star "here". They wanted to know if I wanted to join and I made a crack about being president of the Anarchy Club. "Oh, no, we're not anarchists, but someone called us ... what was that? Minimists?" I suggested, "Minarchists?" "Yeah, that was it." Er, several years ago, the Chair, the lonely, lonely Chair, asked if I would like to be Vice Chair of the county LP. I turned him down. Even then, I thought there was something vaguely wrong, and now I know (thanks to Kevin Carson) that the thing that bothered me most (still does) was the vulgarity of the LP. Anti-tax, anti-regulation, but not necessarily anti-large corporation. As if Wal-Mart sized organizations sprung up shortly after the foundations of the Ziggurat of Ur were laid.

Next up: someone advertising an Earth Day bicycle ride.

Then a woman selling some really interesting red chile sauce mix (note to MR readers: "chili" is a greasy concoction of beans and hamburger meat favored in Texas, "chile" is a red or green fruit noted for its spicy hotness and used in Mexican cuisine). Very good, less than half the price of the canned stuff we were using for enchiladas (its a very particular, locally canned sauce that we like), and much spicier.

Then, two people who were sitting in for the abuelita who sells fresh local herbs and spices (she may be a curandera?). Turns out she is the mother of one. Her meticulously packed plastic bags are hand-labeled, sometimes with very interesting descriptions and misspellings.

Then, our favorite vendor. We usually get a few sticks of incense from her for the shop. Today, she has a new dog that she just adopted (Buddy).

Then, we look at the interesting homemade breads, grains, nuts, and other stuff sold by a family who practices their own faith that seems to be an eclectic mix of Mennonism and Seventh Day Adventism. Good snack cakes, we got there too late to get any. On to the Asian artist who sells really, really decadent deserts, coffee cakes, etc.

Yeah, this is a lot more fun than Wally World or the Sons of Albert.

[UPDATE: Oh yeah, now I remember what Matt's anti-immigrant thing was: actually, it wasn't anti-immigrant so much as it was pro North American Union. He had implied that there was no real enforcement of immigration laws because, as we all know, the USA and the dollar are going to be gone in the next couple of years. Lest it be thought that I am tring to make him out to be a crackpot, let me say that he seems like a really nice guy and someone you'd probably want around in a Mad Max scenario.]

------------------------
[1] I learned from her that Albertson's is offering a $0.05 discount if you bring your own bags. I bought reusable bags from the Albertson's in Albuquerque. I take them into Wal-Mart with me. Gradually, I hope to get their checkers trained to hand stuff to me so I can load my own bag.

Local, Action: Issues of Scale

In a recent debate hosted by Cato, Peter Leeson argues

In a recent study I compared Somali welfare under anarchy to welfare under government using all key development indicators for which data allowed comparison. According to the data, of the eighteen development indicators, fourteen show unambiguous improvement under anarchy. Life expectancy is higher today than was in the last years of government's existence; infant mortality has improved twenty-four percent; maternal mortality has fallen over thirty percent; infants with low birth weight has fallen more than fifteen percentage points; access to health facilities has increased more than twenty-five percentage points; access to sanitation has risen eight percentage points; extreme poverty has plummeted nearly twenty percentage points; one year olds fully immunized for TB has grown nearly twenty percentage points, and for measles has increased ten; fatalities due to measles have dropped thirty percent; and the prevalence of TVs, radios, and telephones has jumped between three and twenty-five times.
...
Should we conclude from Somalia's stateless improvement that it is a nice place to live? Of course not. But Somalia's pre- and post-government performance highlights an important point about the desirability of anarchy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is simply not true that any government is always superior to no government. If state predation goes unchecked, government may not only fail to add to social welfare, but can actually reduce welfare below its level under statelessness. Such was the case with Somalia's government, which did more harm to its citizens than good.

Dani Rodrik responded

I do not have any trouble with the idea that self-enforcing agreements (what Leeson calls "anarchy") can sometimes substitute for third-party (i.e., government) enforcement. Such self-enforcing agreements are maintained through the force of repeated interaction ("if you cheat me now, I will cheat you in the future,") through reputational mechanisms ("see, I am not the cheating kind of guy"), and collective punishment schemes ("if you cheat me, I will bring the wrath of my colleagues on you"). The literature is replete with examination of such informal institutions. See for example Avner Greif's work on medieval merchant guilds, John McMillan and Chris Woodruff's work on commercial dispute settlement in Vietnam, Marcel Fafchamps' work on firms' relations with their suppliers in Africa, and Elinor Ostrom's work on the management of common property resources around the world [1]. Leeson's own account of how pirates have developed self-enforcing arrangements to elicit cooperation fits squarely in this larger literature.

The problem with self-enforcing agreements is that they do not scale up. One of the findings from Elinor Ostrom's extensive case studies is that self-enforcing arrangements to manage the "commons" work well only when the geographic scope of the activity is clearly delimited and membership is fixed. It is easy to understand why. Cooperation under "anarchy" is based on reciprocity, which in turn requires observability. I need to be able to observe whether you are behaving according to the rules, and if not, I have to be able to sanction you. When the size of the in-group becomes large and mobility allows opportunistic behavior to go unpunished, it becomes difficult to maintain cooperation. Imagine that the pirates numbered in the millions and they could easily jump ship to join competing groups mid-voyage; would the arrangements Leeson describes have been sustainable?

Later in the essay, Rodrik concludes, "There is no example of a society that has become prosperous without a state machinery." He doesn't appear to be thinking about the fact that many societies that have not become prosperous in his sense (high GDP) have been sustainable over hundreds of years -- sustainable by definition.

In contrast to Leeson's note that it is not true that any government is better than no government, Rodrik arguees that more government is equivalent to good government. In fact, he is all but saying that state capitalism is the best option we have.

Unlike in pirate societies or pre-colonial Angola, modern economies require an elaborate and ever-evolving division of labor -- among owners of firms, managers, and their employees, among producers up and down the value chain, and between producers and providers of supporting services such as finance, accounting, and legal services. The complexity, fluidity, and geographic non-specificity of these activities leave too much room for opportunistic behavior for self-enforcing arrangements to work well. They require an external backstop in the form of government-enforced rules.
...
Which is why the scatter plot below, showing the relationship between per-capita GDP and the size of the public sector, should not be a surprise. There is a strong, statistically highly significant, and positive association between countries' income levels and the share of their economy that the government consumes. This highlights the complementarity between markets and the state. Those societies in which markets work best are the ones where the reach of the state is longer -- not shorter.

Alas, Rodrik seems committed to conflating the quality of governance to the size and scope of it, as he switches back from size to operation: "Prosperity is achieved when states are effective in setting and enforcing the rules of the game, not when they wither away."

I welcome Rodrik's entry to the blogosphere. So far, he is proving very valuable as a source of material showing that defense of state capitalism is something to which both the Chamber of Commerce Right and Crolyist Left agree. [2] It's a fight between two sides of the same coin, the one side saying that we need government to rationalize the entire economy (by which I mean, "to coordinate everything in accordance with a central plan") while ignoring the side effects (increasing concentration of wealth and power), while simultaneously claiming that it is the other side that is doing this. The other side claims to defend free markets while actually defending the businesses and people benefiting from state policies.

And, in the present essay, Rodrik provides a generous amount of material to help me with the third installment of the Local, Action series. In the first two essays, I explored local commerce and associational activity. In this one, I am more interested in discussing localism as a preferred method for governance. I will gladly concede that dividing the world into loose confederations of local or regional sovereignties will result in a lower rate of growth, but I will simultaneously assert that the median person will not necessarily be worse off, that the least well off will be much better off, and that the society will likely be much more sustainable than the existing system which Rodrik prefers.

It is well-known that interpersonal communications scale poorly with the number of people involved. The most effective means of communication is direct conversation; we evolved to convey and to receive a great deal of information via non-verbal means (gestures, facial expression, voice timbre). People cannot handle the cognitive load of more than a few other people. Anthropologist RIM Dunbar posits

there is a cognitive limit to the number of individuals with whom any one person can maintain stable relationships, that this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and that this in turn limits group size. The predicted group size for humans is relatively large (compared to those for nonhuman primates), and is close to observed sizes of certain rather distinctive types of groups found in contemporary and historical human societies. These groups are invariably ones that depend on extensive personal knowledge based on face-to-face interaction for their stability and coherence through time. I argued that the need to increase group size at some point during the course of human evolution precipitated the evolution of language because a more efficient process was required for servicing these relationships than was possible with the conventional nonhuman primate bonding mechanism (namely, social grooming). These arguments appear to mesh well with the social intelligence hypothesis for the evolution of brain size and cognitive skills in primates.

(hattip: Life With Alacrity blog, at which this is an interesting and related post)

Dunbar calculated that humans could effectively socialize in groups of about 150 people. He also notes that modern military organizations are limited to no more than 200, a limit arrived at by trial and error over several centuries.

Once language and then writing was developed, we had the means to communicate to but not with a wider group. Writing can allow one person to reach more people, it is more precise and can possibly unload some of the emotional content, allowing a more rational conversation, but it isn't interactive. Personal relationships maintained by physical interaction are closer than impersonal relationships maintained by broadcast, a difference of kind, not degree. In Human Scale, Kirkpatrick Sale cites research from sociology and anthropology to argue for two types of naturally sized community: the neighborhood, roughly limited to 500 people, and the community of 5,000 to 10,000, roughly corresponding to the two types of communication. A Pattern Language makes similar arguments for the optimal size of regions, towns, neighborhoods in political, economic, and architectural terms.[3]

Not being able to communicate with many people effectively means that our ability to find out about their activities and intents is limited. We might forgive someone for making a mistake if we understood their motivations. We might also allow a mistake to pass if we knew that person was usually very conscientious. So contract breaches can be handled in a very cost-effective way when we have personal knowledge of the deliverer, but contracts become much more costly to enforce as our physical, mental, and emotional distance from the other party increases.

Thus, reputation and other features of self-enforcing contracts are difficult to scale up because it becomes difficult for people to directly observe compliance and to sanction the non-compliant. Rodrik does not seem to be aware, however, that the same problems stalk state enforcement of its own regulations. [4] Not only can the state not monitor everyone, but citizens can not effectively guard the guardians the further removed they are from them. It is difficult (costly) to hold politicians to their promises, to know the content of laws, and to know the quality and activities of the bureaucrats charged with enforcing the regulations. Laws may therefore work to the advantage of the wealthy and powerful, they may not be enforced effectively, or they may be enforced selectively, giving rise to corruption.

Locally, citizens can engage more freely and more securely in give-and-take. One day, the majority may agree to something that puts some at a disadvantage. We all know it and can confirm it personally. Later, we can agree to do something that compensates the victim(s). We have a better handle on who is getting the shaft and who is getting more than their fair share, and when the numbers are small, we are capable of keeping a running balance sheet on the externalities of our collective actions. [5]

In From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, David Beito describes at length the activities of review committees sent to the homes of the covered. Their direct observation was not only an effective way of weeding out the fakers, but also provided stronger credibility for legitimate cases, so strong that when requesting special grants for hard cases, lodge members gladly forked over. After all, they weren't giving to charity, they were contributing to a mutual fund, one which they themselves might need to draw against one day.

Mancur Olson addresses the scaling issue in The Logic of Collective Action. He argues that small groups are able to use moral and social pressure to maintain group cohesion. The larger the group gets, the more costly it becomes to maintain cohesion. In large numbers, the group must offer some kind of tangible, excludable good in order to maintain he necessary cohesion. Because of the difficulty of herding large numbers to a common goal, small but focused groups may come to dominate the larger groups.

Scaling is the same argument that Tyler Cowen offers against the local food movement (sorry, no link). Sure, it may be possible for a few (usually wealthy or eccentric) individuals to obtain their food locally, and it should be of higher quality, but it becomes more difficult to attempt to feed entire cities from local farms. The Northeast corridor is unlikely to return to self-sufficiency in its current state, though this is interesting.

I would extend the arguments of the local food movement to the state: if you think that government is a good thing, local is better. Just as you can produce inexpensive food products by mass production techniques by giving up nutritional value, loading the environment with pollutants, and allowing national brands to push out local flavor, you can also mass produce your law by giving up legislative quality, loading the legal environment with barriers to entry and regulatory sclerosis, and allowing one-size-fits-all regulations to push out local custom. When your food is produced far away, you have little idea what ingredients or processes are being used. Just so, you have little idea how earmarks are getting into legislation or who stands to benefit from each 30,000 page bill. Transparency does not scale well, publicly or privately.



-----------------------------
[1] Let's also add Lisa Bernstein's study of the diamond industry and Jacob Loshin's delightful piece on how innovation and secrets are kept in the magic industry without Intellectual Property law.

[2] Need evidence of that fact? Check out this blurb for a book advertised on Max Sawicky's site:

In his new book, economist Dean Baker debunks the myth that conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of "nanny state" policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off.

I found it on a post arguing in favor of one of Rodrik's Crolyist, pro-industrial policy posts. Irony was not intended. When I pointed it out, Sawicky nominated me for a Blogalympics Long Jump medal, apparently oblivious to the obvious.

[3] Were the 300 M inhabitants of the US divided into towns of that size (say, 6667), there would be 45,000 such towns. Using Sale's calculation of one square mile per town (admittedly, he only had 5,000 inhabitants) and a 15 square mile green belt around each town, this would require about 720,000 square miles, which he calculated to be less than one-fifth of the nation's total land and less than one-half of the area given over to cropland at that time.

[4] Actually, that's not entirely true. Rodrik himself characterizes federal policies as "targeted on a loosely-defined set of market imperfections that are rarely observed directly, implemented by bureaucrats who have little capacity to identify where the imperfections are or how large they may be, and overseen by politicians who are prone to corruption and rent-seeking by powerful groups and lobbies." So, he seems to recognize it, or perhaps he is just using arguments he has encountered but not really understood or accepted for rhetorical effect?

[5] One way of looking at this is to consider the costs to obtaining consensus and the cost of externalities arising from the decisions. A dictator has nearly zero (0) cost of reaching a decision, but the externality cost is likely to be very high. On the other hand, it would be extremely costly to obtain a 100% consensus of a large group, but there would be no externalities. Given methods of reaching a decision, like log-rolling, the externalities of the final decision may be expensive. The larger the group, the higher the cost of reaching a decision, and given Olson's observations about the ability of small, focused groups to dictate to large, dispersed groups, the cost of obtaining and the external costs grow as the group grows. This is an insanely abbreviated version of one line of analysis in The Calculus of Consent.

Objections to Positive Rights as Basic

Rights are social guarantees for the actual enjoyment of a good. You have freedom of speech, I have both the duty to refrain from interfering and also the duty to provide assistance when you are being deprived of it.

Positive rights may be created by bilateral agreement, i.e. we may contract with one another creating your right to be paid and my corresponding duty to provide payment on the condition that you fulfill my right to whatever you are selling and your corresponding duty to provide those goods.

A basic right is one in which the good to be enjoyed (physical security, the freedom from physical harm, for example) is a prerequisite to enjoying other rights, such as freedom to assemble.

A right to sustenance (among other things) seems different, though many (Hohfeld, Shue, Sunnstein, Rawls) have attempted to argue that they are not. The argument rests on the idea that because a so-called negative right is one in which there are obligations to refrain and to supply aid, then there really is no distinction between that and a right in which there are obligations to provide the good to be enjoyed. That seems to me to fail on several counts.

The first is the obvious distinction between the duty to refrain from interfering with the enjoyment of the good and the duty to provide the good. Everyone may refrain from interfering at no cost, but someone must incur cost to provide the good. The objection may be raised that someone must incur cost to fulfill the second part of the negative right obligation, the duty to provide aid. That seems weak, but valid.

The second problem is that the enjoyment of the goods of positive rights do not seem to be pre- or corequisite to enjoying other goods (Cohen, "Must Rights Impose Positive Duties?"). I could be currently not enjoying food, shelter, or clothing in order to participate in an assembly, but I would have to be enjoying the right not to get beat up in order to enjoy the right to assemble. In fact, I can enjoy not getting beat up without enjoying food, but I doubt I could enjoy food without enjoying not getting beaten up.

A weak objection against positive rights is that which says that negative rights must be violated in order to provide the positive right. That is to say, in order to provide food to others, my right to keep my property must be violated (taxation). Why is no corresponding objection raised to the use of my property to raise a police force? The comeback to this objection seems to be that people are allowed to do certain things in their own defense, and that the state may go that far, also, but that the state may not do what individuals or collections of individuals could do. Individuals could protect their own property but not take from third parties in order to feed the hungry. But this begs the question - how do we know what individuals can do? Social convention? Then what is to keep us from changing social convention and say, "Collective groups of individuals are henceforth allowed to forcibly take some of your property and feed the poor"? You might come back with, "But positive rights are not basic rights!", to which someone might respond, "So? Why does it have to be a basic right in order for it to be public policy?"

The argument goes from there to efficiency at which point it takes on a utilitarian vs. consequentialist flavor. My personal opinion is that the federal government is too large and impersonal to effectively deal with problems of poverty on that scale; at some point, either the burden of fraud and corruption swamps the gains to be made in human capital, or the cost of preventing fraud and corruption do so. And this doesn't even consider the dead weight losses or the human capital lost when private institutions are destroyed in the process. Sure, those might have problems in scaling up to meet the same needs, but all of these arguments seem to me to point toward federalism, regionalism, polycentrism, or whatever you want to call it.

Local, Action: Association

In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville and a French companion toured the 24 United States to investigate their jails in preparation for a reform of French prisons. What we got out of the deal was Democracy in America, a very comprehensive review of the state of the nation at that time, a glance at the country prior to the full onslaught of finance, managerial, and state capitalism (that and a kick-ass C-Span series). One of the more memorable themes of the book was the notion of Americans as association joiners:

Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fetes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.

In America I encountered sorts of associations of which, I confess, I had no idea, and I often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the United States managed to fix a common goal to the efforts of many men and to get them to advance to it freely.

This strikes me as the kind of society in which I would like to live. It is a society in which people form ad hoc associations to deal with problems as they arise, perhaps even creating new institutions for addressing the more serious institutional failures (I'm going to adopt Glen Whitman's semantics). That's a long way from the usual strawman offered as "what libertarians want", a strawman which is usually labeled "hyperindividualism" or "You're On Your Own".

Recently, I came across a Slate article critical of de Tocqueville written by Theda Skocpol. Actually, it's an article critical of people who look at that period as one free of what Skocpol might characterize as beneficial federal government influence. At first, I was intrigued since it seemed to support some of my suspicions, but upon reflection I decided that there were some problems with it.

First, she overlooks the reasons why government was involved in such things in the first place. Sure, the postal service and postal roads are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes...To establish Post Offices and post Roads"). However, it does not follow that because they could, they should. Nor does it follow that because you can plausibly argue that outcome X was the result of action Y that X was an actual and significant outcome of Y. Nor does it follow that Y was necessarily undertaken for X in the first place. Plausibility is not all.

With respect to the first of those objections, it should be pointed out that Thomas Jefferson argued (Virginia Protest, 1825) that federal road subsidies were an infringement of state sovereignty:

But the federal branch has assumed in some cases, and claimed in others, a right of enlarging its own powers by constructions, inferences, and indefinite deductions from those directly given, which this assembly does declare to be usurpations of the powers retained to the independent branches, mere interpolations into the compact, and direct infractions of it.

They claim, for example, and have commenced the exercise of a right to construct roads, open canals, and effect other internal improvements within the territories and jurisdictions exclusively belonging to the several States, which this assembly does declare has not been given to that branch by the constitutional compact, but remains to each State among its domestic and unalienated powers, exercisable within itself and by its domestic authorities alone.

If the state is capable of such things, what reason is there for the federal government to do them? If the state does not desire them, by what theory does the federal government prove the inhabitants are wrong? Not democracy.

With respect to the second objection (still on the first problem, that of why the federal government was involved), that the subsidization of coaches, mails, and newspapers was neither the "non-zero-sum" game nor the Congressionally-directed system that Skocpol describes, I think this seems naive. As Kelly Olds argues, the postal system in place at the time was an extensive patronage system.

Giving out the postage revenues to groups with political power became the Post Office's second function. Measured monetarily, it was the Post Office's primary function. Thomas Jefferson, suspicious of the Post Office, had written:

I view [the Post Office] as a source of boundless patronage to the executive, jobbing to members of Congress and their friends and a bottomless abyss of public money. You will begin by only appropriating the surplus of the post-office revenues; but other revenues will soon be called in to their aid and it will be a source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their states; and they will always get most who are meanest [Jefferson 1892-99: IX, 324-25].

The government resisted subsidizing the Post Office until the 1850s, partly out of fear of that which Jefferson prophesied.

The means by which the system was internally subsidized was that some routes were run at high profits and those were used to support the unprofitable routes. The activity was not directed by Congress, but a result of the way the USPS did business and therefore a benefit to the executive. The constituents favored by the system included coach companies and later railroads, newspapers (as Skocpol points out), representatives with franking privileges, rural voters, and the 1796-1804 Ezekiel Armstrong cycling teams. The reason for the patronage was not to bring general improvement to the country so that people like Alexis de Tocqueville would be amazed at the transportation and literacy in America; they were subsidized so that their purveyors could make money, privileges (jobs) could be handed out, and politicians could win votes. It was not so different then as now; the Halliburtons of that day had their Cheneys, too.

But given that mail, coaches, and newspapers were indirectly subsidized by the granted monopoly, does it follow that people were more informed or that travel was better as a result? More chartered mail coaches does not necessarily mean more or better passenger travel. More coaches who used shunpikes did not benefit turnpikes. More franked junk mail and speeches from congressmen does not mean a more informed populace (in fact, in an age devoid of alternative news sources, we could argue the opposite).

Olds also points out that the use of stamps and intra-city delivery were both originated by private mail companies and later copied by the USPS; for the favor, Congress forced many of them out of business during the 1839-1845 period in which the USPS was granted much of the extensive monopoly powers it protects today. To me those indicate that the system was overpriced and underserved compared to what it would have looked like in a competitive environment. If Congress really intended to increase rural travel and mails, those two things could be directly subsidized while the rest of the system ran privately and more efficiently. Today, I would argue that even the rural service is a red herring: a friend of mine once saw a UPS truck in Beaverhead, NM; you would be hard-pressed to find a place more rural.

The second problem with Skocpol's argument is that it overstates the magnitude of the federal government's involvement in the development of early roads, literacy, and associational tendencies. Skocpol's key claims are that the America De Tocqueville observed was largely the creation of a centralizing nation and the centralizing tendencies:

Social historian Richard D. Brown emphasizes that the Revolution, political struggles over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and deepening popular participation in national, state, and local elections served to spur associational life. So did religious and cultural ideals about self-improvement, and growing awareness of extralocal commercial and public affairs through widespread newspaper reading.
...
In retrospect, it is obvious that what social historian Mary P. Ryan has dubbed the pre-Civil War "era of association," from the 1820s to the 1840s, coincided with the spread of adult male suffrage and the emergence of competitive, mass-mobilizing parties: first the Jacksonian Democrats, then the Whigs, and finally, the Free Soilers and the Republicans.

Daniel Klein has written extensively about private roads in America (see this collection). Of the three periods (the turnpike era, the plank road era, and the western road era), the first is the most relevant to the subject at hand. I am citing from "The Voluntary Provision of Public Goods? The Turnpike Companies of Early America."

Not counting the land grants involved, only four states subsidized roads, and of them only Pennsylvania did so substantially. The charters were means for getting private capital to take over the maintenance of the roads because the municipal governments could not afford it. Tolls were sufficient to keep the roads up, but not enough to make the roads extravagantly profitable. Nevertheless, participation in stock purchasing was surprisingly widespread.

In fact, it seems that many of the roads were the results of the actions of ad hoc societies. As Klein explains it,

The town meeting was a central institution in which all important residents were expected to participate. Sly ... says that in the early 1800s "[t]he town meeting was ... at the highest point of development." The turnpike meetings were well attended and stock pledges were made publicly. For example, Wood ... says the Fifth Massachusetts Turnpike "was formally organized at a meeting held in the inn of Oliver Chapin, probably early in 1799, and sixteen hundred shares were issued with a par value of $100 each. Meetings with attendances of 50 and 100 people have been recorded [Connecticut Courant, March 19, 1798]....

Turnpike promoters relied of course on the most basic form of selective incentive, person-to-person solicitation. In an 1808 letter regarding the formation of the York and Conewago Canal Turnpike, the writer tells ..."

Further, putting to question the Skocpol's assertion that Jacksonian and Tocquevillian era newspapers were the result of mid-century federal investments in road building and post offices, Klein goes on to note newspaper campaigns conducted in 1798, 1804, and 1805. It appears that Skocpol had it backwards: voluntary associations and use of newspapers to convey information about private road companies pre-date the era she is citing as being a result of federal road-building and paper subsidization.

Rather than weakening de Tocqueville's observations, the existence of roads and the history of how they came to be financed reinforces them. Local townspeople noted the potential for the public benefits of a road (increased land value, incomes, access to cultural goods such as theatre, and buggy racing), so they formed organizations to obtain a state charter and raise funds. Despite or perhaps because of Virginia's objections, the federal involvement was extremely limited in those early years. Though the land grants and eminent domain provisions are troubling, this is much closer to the libertarian's understanding of how communal goods can be provided than the caricatures and strawmen normally offered.

A note on those land and eminent domain grants: the land granted was typically land already commonly used as a trail, path, or road. It probably had value for little else (that's why it was used for such). Granting it to a company for the purpose of improving it doesn't bother me much, especially when the company receiving the title is widely owned by the citizens who stand to benefit and who probably asked for the charter as townsman in the first place. The eminent domain powers were apparently not abused: they seem to have used them in conjunction with the voluntary fundraising efforts, i.e. persuasion and trade: "We'll give you stock in return for the title to this part of your land." That is a far cry from today, where a government merely announces they are going to take part of your land in exchange for a take-it-or-leave-it settlement, sometimes for the purpose of transferring it to someone who had the money to negotiate with you directly but didn't want to be bothered (and now that I think about it, I'd cut a break on the price of some land for the opportunity to not have to talk to Donald Trump). I think I'll have more to say on this in a future post on localism.

The Slate article also understates actual outcomes of the America described by de Tocqueville and tries to paint increasing centralization as either benign or beneficial. Mutual associations and the excludable goods associated with them, i.e. insurance benefits, are probably among the best-known examples (well, at least to me, an obviously biased sample). From Mancur Olson (The Logic of Collective Action), we would expect successful societies, i.e. the ones we have heard of, were able to provide something to the members (benefits, prestige, self esteem) that could be withheld from non-members. For this privilege, members would have had to contribute their money, time, and perhaps social capital. As David Beito shows in From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State, these societies continued to be vibrant and active until the government agencies took over the roles they served, i.e. the excludable goods lost their value.*

The penchant for association also worked into the managerial revolution described by Chandler (The Visible Hand). As they were beginning to recognize that rails and other businesses were no longer Mom & Pop operations carried on by partners and their sons, the various professional disciplines (managers, engineers, accountants, researchers) began to form professional associations. Among these, for example, were societies dedicated to promoting the ideas of Frederic Winslow Taylor with its rigidity and emphasis on central planning. These included the Efficiency, Scientism, and Technocracy movements, advocated the idea that all of man's problems could be solved "scientifically" by central planning and were taken seriously at the time both in the US and abroad. Lenin and Mussolini were fans, and many of the repealed provisions of the Second New Deal were an attempt to apply the theory.

Skocpol reads the period thusly:

In short, the early American civic vitality that so entranced Alexis de Tocqueville was closely tied up with the representative institutions and centrally directed activity of a very distinctive national state. The non-zero-sum nature of U.S. governmental and associational expansion becomes even more apparent when we consider that most of the big voluntary associations founded in the 19th century prospered well into the 20th, often building toward membership peaks reached only in the 1960s or 1970s and in full symbiosis with public social provision.

The Grand Army of the Republic spread in the wake of state and national benefits for Union veterans of the Civil War, for example. The Fraternal Order of Eagles was so active in promoting state and federal old-age pensions that the Grand Eagle himself received an official pen when FDR signed the Social Security Act of 1935.

The same mutual aid societies that brought health insurance, unemployment insurance, and pensions went into decline as a result of Social Security and other federal programs. To characterize them (by their association with the FOE) as prospering (as I'm sure many other organizations did) is surely misleading; at best, it was not the "non-zero-sum nature of U.S. governmental and associational expansion" asserted. Though some of the mutual associations themselves bought into the idea of using "free" money from the government to extend benefits universally, support for social legislation was not without internal controversy. Again, Beito is the better guide to the inner workings of mutual aid and service organizations:

There is reason to believe that a relationship existed between the emerging welfare state and the decline of fraternal services. Most notably, the first signs of benefit retrenchment began after 1935, the year the Social security Act became law. Officials of the homes for the elderly and orphans of the SBA cited Social Security and other welfare programs as justification not only for rejecting applications but for closing down entirely. In 1939, Malcolm R. Giles, the supreme secretary and comptroller of the Loyal Order of the Moose, urged the council to consider restricting sick benefits to members under age 65. As justification he stressed that these individuals were eligible for aid under the Social Security Act. The same year Norman G. Heyd, the chairmen of the Moosehaven Board of Governors, reported that Moosehaven had the smallest population since 1931. He asserted that the major reason "for this decrease is undoubtedly the operation of the old-age pensions in most of the states.
...
[M]any fraternalists still voiced opposition to the expanding welfare state, although they were far less influential than in the past.
...
Bina West of the WBA also condemned New Deal programs. ... West ridiculed suggestions that Social Security was just an expanded form of cooperative insurance or represented a culmination of fraternal principles. She charged that the trust fund was not a true reserve but instead a mere "bookkeeping entry." The premiums used to finance the program, she asserted, could be used by the government for "any purpose, good or bad." [>coughLBJcoughVietnamcough<] As with compulsory health insurance, West worried that Social Security would pose a threat to American practices of mutual aid. "Is there any beautiful ritualism or human tenderness in a government bureau?" ... Even fraternal supporters of Social Security, such as Giles, shared these concerns. While Giles praised Social Security as proof that "imitation is the sincerest flattery," he cautioned that government was incapable of approximating the warm handclasp from a fellow member or the "friendly visitation of fraternalists to a stricken brother."

Side note: It is also worth pointing out that unemployment benefits, popularly thought to be a creation of Progressive or New Deal eras, were actually a mutual aid benefit long before, and were also offered by states prior to federal involvement. The federal government was a johnny-come-lately, not providing substantially higher benefits at all. Also, lest it be supposed that fraternalism died as a result of the Depression, it should be noted that many societies had bounced back from early hard times and by some measures fraternalism actually showed an increase during the 1930s, but a rapid decrease after 1940. Given the second rapid expansion of the federal government in Johnson's Great Society, it seems perhaps significant that Skocpol chooses to select that as the period at which the big voluntary associations reached their zenith, having declined ever since.

It seems worthwhile to mention also the labor movements that achieved success prior to the period of federal involvement. Union involvement as a percentage of the workforce peaked in the 1950s and as an absolute number peaked in about 1972. Some would argue that unionism has been in decline because of rather than in spite of the NLRA: the purpose of government involvement was not to support the workers but to support the employers who wanted a union that was interested in form, contract negotiation, and business, not workers' rights. This is indeed a symbiosis, but not of the type Skocpol implies.

Skocpol also never notes the rise of mutualism and syndicalism elsewhere in world as the 19th century progressed. I'm only a novice student in this area, so I'll leave the heavy lifting in this area to people like Kevin Carson, Zhwazi, Shawn Wilbur, Joel Schlosberg, Wally Conger, and Brad Spangler. In any case, there was certainly a growing reaction - Le Chatelier-like - to the rise of the nation-state. In America, the nation-state grew out of both the European model and the town hall meeting, giving rise to a reaction that was highly individualist, i.e. Emerson, Thoreau, Spooner, and others. In Europe, the reaction placed more emphasis on class consciousness, the influence of both the experience with feudalism, its remnants (the aristocracy in England, the Junkers and monarch in Prussia, the remaining monarchs in Austria and Russia), and Marx, giving a reaction that was highly communitarian (Owenism, Fourierism, syndicalism). These are hardly supportive of a "civic vitality" that desired to be "closely tied up with the representative institutions and centrally directed activity of a very distinctive national state." If anything, these are movements that are interested in civic vitality but resistant to centralism and long-distance bureaucracy.

------------------------------

* Hmm, that's interesting. Is a good provided by a fraternal organization with wide membership a "communal good" even though it is excludable?

Local, action: Buying Whole Foods' local claims

In Kevin Carson's book chapter, "Decentralized Production Technology", he has this to say about my comment about Viking appliances and planned obsolescence:

Here I take issue, at least in part, with Husman's analysis. First of all, it's hard for me to understand why the average lifetime of an appliance, as determined by the durability of its components, should as a matter of strict definition be excluded as a matter of design choice. After all, Husman himself mentions Viking refrigerators as an example of a product specifically designed for longevity. Second, he seems to be defining "planned obsolescence" far too narrowly. Planned obsolescence refers not just to how soon or how frequently an appliance breaks down as a result of problems with individual parts, but also to how amenable it is to repair. Planned obsolescence, in this latter sense, includes 1) a deliberate choice among design alternatives in favor of a design that makes repair more costly, difficult, or complicated, and 2) the use of such expedients as patents to control the availability and pricing of replacement parts.

First, as I pointed out, the Viking appliances are expensive, on the order of $6,000 for a refrigerator. And the same is going to be true of many such things: a Mercedes or Lexus is going to last longer, all things being equal, than any economy car. So I'm not opposed to including longevity as a design criteria, but rather pointing out that the longest lasting items are going to utilize the latest and most expensive elements and techniques. On the other hand, a Toyota lasts longer than its similarly priced competitors and people desire that feature. Second, I'm going to definitely concede that Kevin has a good point about repair difficulty/ease being part of the equation. The original Model T was made to be easy for farmers to repair, and they loved it. The current generation of cars is ridiculously difficult for the shade-tree mechanic to do anything but change a tire.

But that's beside the point I'm after in this post. What I'm mostly after is the fact that moving to an economy that we might prefer is going to look expensive. I introduced this with the appliance debate, but I'm going to flog the "controversy" between Michael Pollan and John Mackey for the rest of the material.

I first happened to hear about Michael Pollan during this interview on Fresh Air; I have his book Omnivore's Dilemma on my get-around-to-reading list, but this interview will have to suffice for now. It supported most of the things I have come to believe about our diet, corn, and related issues. Note especially his comments after 29:00, in which he says,

To eat in a way that is healthy for you and healthy for the environment and doesn't use a lot of energy is more expensive. That's an issue we have to grapple with. A lot of this food is elitist food, and can be called elitist food, and often is -- usually by proponents of the industrial food system. Any situation where McDonalds is claiming the high moral ground, I'm a little dubious of and this is one of them. But I think we have to confront this.

There's several different ways to look at it. One is cheap food is not as cheap as it looks. The real cost of that $0.99 burger in terms of ... is charged to public health, is charged to the environment, is charged to your health. Even though it's cheap at the register, that is not the real cost of that food. That is an irresponsible price. I don't know that people want to buy irresponsibly.

Now some people don't have a choice. There are a percentage of people in this country who probably can't afford to eat organic or even to eat more sustainably 'cause organic is not the only answer. Let's not oppose organic to everything else; there are many more alternatives out there. Grass fed beef is not organic but it's better, I think, than organic.

If you go to the supermarket, it is true that -- and you're a rational actor, and you don't have a lot of money -- if you're basically buying energy for you're family -- that's to say calories -- the rational thing for you to do under the system we have is to patronize the center of the store, all the processed food. Because a dollar will get you 2500 calories of cookies, of snacks, of potato chips and if you go to the produce aisle, it will only get you 250 calories of carrots

So, y'know, we're programmed by evolution to seek the most energy with the least effort possible and the supermarket has created an environment where that forces people essentially to buy the least healthy calories. But that's not a function of the free market, that's not a function of nature, either. That is a function of policy. There's a reason that the least healthy calories in the supermarket are the cheapest, and that is essentially "policy": we subsidize the cheap calories. We subsidize ... those calories are calories that come from corn and all those calories -- all that high fructose corn syrup -- is subsidized by our taxpayer dollars, the carrots are not.

So it seems to me that for the people who are shopping this way, the challenge is to change the set of incentives and figure out a way to make the healthy food cheaper and to make the unhealthy food a little bit more expensive.

[transcript acquired the with old-fashioned method: listen and type. I hope it's accurate.]

From the interview, Pollan's point seems to be that we should be more careful about what we eat. For example, avoiding anything with HFCS is a good shorthand for not confusing "food products" with "food". He also differentiates between good and bad organic, where bad organic is the type where free range hens never actually get outside (apparently, they haven't checked their contracts). I believe that the use of petroleum as the major input to our food is a problem since one of petroleum's alternative uses is transportation and that means that the cost of food to our poor people is rapidly becoming impacted by the transportation choices of increasingly wealthier people in China and India.

And we thought we freed ourselves of such considerations when we shucked the gold standard.

So Pollan finally ends up endorsing something like the 100 mile diet described by Alisa Smith and J.B. MacKinnon in their book of the same name. He believes that eating local means that farmers will use better inputs (no pesticides or petroleum) and that local farming will inhibit sprawl. And since localism is the point of this post, I swear I will return to it after dealing with two asides.

First, I believe he could have selected better examples. For example, by having all of our farming concentrated in Iowa, they may have eliminated birds there, but we increase the potential for green space around our cities everywhere else. He is basically proposing that we replace the native species of plants around our cities with food stuffs, which only shifts the problems around a little, but does not eliminate them. Indeed, this is the argument of Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug, the so-called father of the green revolution. In an article in The Economist, he argues

Thanks to synthetic fertilisers, Mr Borlaug points out, global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the amount of land used increased by only 10%. Using traditional techniques such as crop rotation, compost and manure to supply the soil with nitrogen and other minerals would have required a tripling of the area under cultivation. The more intensively you farm, Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest.

Granted, Borlaug and I are offering a false dilemma here*, but the point is that Pollan doesn't seem to have thought this far through the problem (perhaps he has and it didn't come out in the interview; I haven't read the book).

Second, Tyler Cowen's critique at Slate left me flat. Tyler points out that Pollan's approach neglects to value our time and other market signals. Tyler makes a good point when he says that we may respond to higher fuel prices by driving less or buying smaller cars, but that we probably won't start growing grapes in the back yard. However, I'm surprised that Tyler doesn't more strongly endorse Pollan's descriptions of the problems of subsidization. Neither does Tyler recognize a benefit in which I expect him to be most interested, which is the improvement in food quality that might arise from a more local, fresher supply of ingredients.

While Tyler mentions the problem with the corruption of the term "organic", and agrees with Pollan that shopping at Whole Foods is an insufficient response to the three problems in the industrial food system (our health, our environment, the treatment of animals), Whole Foods founder John Mackey responded much more vigorously in a series of blog posts and public forums. As a result, each has moved a little in the direction of the other, Pollan agreeing that the Whole Foods approach is not as bad as he thought and getting better, while Mackey conceded that some of their practices needed review and changing.**

Mackey's summary of his arguments can be found in this presentation. In slides 39-41, he mentions something that has bothered me for some time now. While writing about the theme of self-sufficiency in Kirkpatrick Sale's Human Scale, I told a story about driving out to a local chile farm to acquire the green ambrosia. Even in my high efficiency automobile (46-50 mpg), it probably required a quart or two of fuel to make the round trip. Most other vehicles would require more, and most of the city lives further away from Lujan Farms than I do. The fuel required per pound of a truckload of chile would probably be much lower when delivering to a market in the center of town, but people still have to get to the market. This is an optimization problem, so the least-energy solution will not necessarily be "don't shop at Wal-Mart". Given existing social circumstances, the optimal solution will probably depend on where you live and what you drive; "shop at Wal-Mart" may actually be the solution for many people.

That is only part of the issue. When you account for all of the inputs (soil, sun, water, etc.), the fact that some geographic regions are blessed with some of these in abundance while others are not, and that economies of scale can be realized when using railroads and ships, local may not be the answer for everything. Mackey's summary of this part was, "If you live in Berkeley, you will use less fossil fuel and produce less carbon dioxide by buying rice from Bangladesh than from California." I'm inclined to think that even if that particular claim is not correct, it will be true that some foods will be less energy intensive when grown and shipped from afar rather than locally.

But is Mackey sincere when he claims that Whole Foods' supply chain is not as bad as Pollan claims and getting better? I was originally going to post about an article in Forbes that I bookmarked some time ago (To Fight Rivals, Whole Foods Buys Local). Unfortunately, Forbes can no longer find the article on their own site. Fortunately, Google can find it elsewhere, so I excerpt it here without linking:

Dairy general manager Matt Lucas began bringing the glass bottles himself from the Morning Fresh farm in Bellevue, Colo., 60 miles north of Denver. Until then, Morning Fresh had long made its name on home deliveries.
Since his Whole Foods deliveries began in 2004, Lucas estimated, his dairy's sales have increased 20 percent. Morning Fresh now sells at least 1,000 gallons a week to supply a Whole Foods distribution center serving 10 stores.
"It's a breath of fresh air to get involved with a group like that. They were so excited to get our product in their stores," Lucas said.
By strengthening -- or, as some farmers say, returning to -- their commitment to local products, Austin, Texas-based Whole Foods and Boulder-based Wild Oats Markets Inc. are fending off big chains like Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Kroger Co. and Safeway Inc., which have expanded their own organic offerings and put pressure on the smaller "natural" grocers. "With Wal-Mart barging into the lower-end organic sales, this is a way these other retailers can differentiate from what Wal-Mart is doing," said Dan Hobbs, a cooperative development specialist with the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union.
...

Small local growers often cannot offer lower prices than large-scale operations that benefit from economies of scale and cheaper labor. But fuel costs for shipping food are less for shorter trips, which in turn often require less packaging to preserve food. Buying local also shortens the time it takes produce to get to market, preserving nutrients and freshness, ....
...
Whole Foods defines a local product as having traveled less than seven hours to get to the store.
It sells more than 200 produce and floral items from more than 60 local growers in the region covering Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas and Missouri. Overall, it does business with more than 2,400 independent farms.

Apparently, Whole Foods is looking at local foods (in the article, consumer interest in local food is credited in part to Pollan's book) as a competitive advantage over purveyors of "bad organic" such as Wal-Mart. If true, it means that Whole Foods' conscience and self-interest are aligned with those of their customers, suppliers, and (if you believe John Mackey's New Agey Manifesto) employees and stock holders. If true, that's pretty cool.

A few things can be pulled out of this.

• I think the struggle between Whole Foods and Wal-Mart leaves us all better off than Pollan does. I can't tell which paradigm will win, but I am certain that having them square off with two different formulas -- and having the local farmers market and small grocery stores as well -- means that my food supply is simultaneously more secure, less expensive, and of higher quality than if someone was to start mandating that their favorite approach should be the victor. Also, Wal-Mart is a big boy, so perhaps the merger of Whole Foods and Wild Oats creates a stronger competition between the two.
• Still, as Pollan points out, it is policy that the corn industry should be as large as it is. Frito-Lay and Coke need to occupy all that premium shelf space because they have products that need to be sold to keep the machine running. In that sense, Wal-Mart is a creation of both Sams: Uncle and Walton.
• Mass producers have genuine advantages over craft production. For one, their cash prices are lower. Amana is cheaper than Viking, Kraft is cheaper than the dairy farm down the road, Wal-Mart is cheaper than Whole Foods. If I'm on a limited budget, that's going to be important.
  
• However, there are hidden costs. Note that above I said, "moving to an economy that we might prefer is going to look expensive", not "be expensive". All things considered, and on average, cheaper appliances and vehicles are typically not as long lasting or efficient, cheaper food products are not as tasty or nutritious as organic and artisan foods, and mass production relies on a massively subsidized infrastructure. We taxpayers pay for agriculture subsidies and transportation subsidies, while we as people pay for the externalities (farm runoff, smog and soot).***
  
• The cost of transportation is a factor in whether local or mass produced is less expensive. The railroad ushered in the first age of mass production and broke down state and regional barriers and built a nation while the container and container ship ushered in the age of globalization. If we are entering an era of permanently higher fuel costs, those trends may reverse. That's not all bad.
  

I am interested in understanding how to reverse some of the policy decisions of the past 150 or so years without reverting socioeconomically to what existed then (grinding poverty, extreme inequality -- contra to what populist demagogues would have you believe about today being the worst of times in those regards). Employing lean production can build a local manufacturing base that produces high quality goods at low costs with little waste, benefiting both workers and consumers. Removing taxpayer supports shifts the advantage from ADM and Cargill toward local farmers. And local governance moves power out of distant capitals and bureaucracies into our hands.

In an upcoming post, I want to say something about local energy production.

-----------------------------------------------------

* You could combine localism and organic methods.

** Other takes on the Pollan/Mackey "smackdown turned lovefest":

• An Open Cupboard suggests that Whole Foods should be more diligent about teaching people to shop on a low income. Easy: vegetarian.
• Whole Foods blog: Points out that Whole Foods stock took a $2 billion dive after Pollan's book came out, but also notes that may be attributable to other problems.

*** Yes, it is literally true that the corresponding costs of obesity cost us money through Medicare/Medicaid. However, that also is a matter of policy and I am not going to start using that as a pretext for dictating other people's behavior and food choices.

Energy roundup

1) News from Green Car Congress

• Hybrid sales are continuing to climb. According to the diligent folks at Green Car Congress, hybrids accounted for 3% of cars sold in May. It's weird, almost like there's some kind of incentive, perhaps something to do with the cost of fuel? Yet, the politicians tell us, the market will fail to bring us efficient cars unless we force them to do it via CAFE and hybrid subsidies. Hybrid subsidies might be a factor in their popularity, except that Toyota doesn't seem to be seeing much drop in demand after they hit the magic number that shuts off the subsidy every year.
• In another GCC article, we find that Honda is discontinuing the Accord hybrid. Apparently, "hybrid" does not equal "slam dunk". The Civic Hybrid works, the Accord Hybrid does not. Apparently, consumers haven't gone completely irrational over the "sexiness" of hybrids.
• Honda, Mercedes, and Bosch are exploring diesel-electric hybrids. Apparently they believe there may be a market in 70 mpg vehicles that can run on vegetable oil.
  

2) An NPR article on plug-in hybrids titled, "Corporations push Congress on Climate Policy" makes some fantastic-sounding claims:

A company called A123 Systems invented the battery pack. Les Goldman is the lawyer hired by the company to represent it in Washington. He has been bringing the Prius up to Capitol Hill, singing its praises to senators and staffers. He tells them it gets 100 to 170 miles per gallon — "and that includes charging the battery every 40 miles or so. And one charge, which takes about four hours, will cost you at the electricity rates in the Washington metropolitan area, at night at about 55 or 60 cents."

What A123 Systems wants is a tax break, not for itself, but for consumers. A decade ago, Congress approved tax credits worth up to $2,000, for buyers of new hybrids. It helped dealers sell thousands of the high-mileage cars. Now, Goldman asks the senators, why not do the same thing for these new battery packs?

Now, I assume you caught the fact that they want it for their consumers, not themselves, right? So they selflessly hired a lobbyist to point out that tax breaks helped Toyota sell "thousands of high-mileage cars". At no point does the reporter stop and ask if rising fuel prices were behind that increase rather than the tax breaks, nor does the reporter point out that A123 might perhaps benefit from those increased sales.

But let's go beyond that. Assuming the following:

• Approximately 65% of electricity energy is lost in transmission (see this great graphic). Thus, for each kW-h consumed, 3 must be generated.
• 1 kW-h of electricity is 3,600,000 Joules (3.6 MJ)
• A gallon of gasoline contains 132 MJ of energy
• Electricity costs about $0.10 per kW-h, so $0.55 to $0.60 worth of electricity is about 5.5 to 6.0 kW-h
  

That means that the plug-in hybrid is getting 40 miles per 5.5 kW-h or 40 miles per (5.5*3.6 MJ) = 2.02 miles/MJ. Inverting that, I get .495 MJ/mile, but that is for energy consumed, not energy generated. By multiplying by 3, I find that the vehicle used about 1.485 MJ of energy generated per mile. By inverting that number and multiplying by the 132 MJ/gallon of gas, I can calculate an equivalent mpg. The electricity is giving an equivalent of 267 miles per gallon for energy consumed, but about 89 mpg equivalent of energy generated because of transmission losses. Not bad.

It is also using gasoline at the rate of 170 miles per gallon. Using the higher figure, that's 170 miles per 132 MJ, or about .776 MJ/mile, roughly half the energy required to go one mile with electricity when accounting for transmission loss.

So for every mile it goes, it's consuming about .495 MJ of electricity used or 1.485 MJ of electricity generated and .776 MJ of gasoline. By adding those, I get the total average energy usage per mile. The combined efficiency -- accounting for transmission loss -- is about 58.5 mpg. That's not much more significant that what I can get in my car (50 mpg on the last tank).

Also, gasoline at $3.5/gallon is equal to $0.095 per kW-hr, or slightly cheaper than what I am using for the cost of electricity (diesel currently happens to be a much better deal at $2.70/gal).

So, instead of serving as a panacea, plug-in hybrids shift the fuel from oil to coal, natural gas, or nuclear, and shift the costs from your cheaper gasoline bill to your slightly more expensive electricity bill. Coal is reputed to be dirtier; it also happens to be burned somewhere other than in your own neighborhood. As you might guess, electric companies are behind some of these efforts to promote plug-ins.

Of course, if you were to install a wind or solar generator at the house, the electricity would be "free", but then again the sun and the wind usually aren't very effective at night when the car is parked. And, as I noted near the end of this article, some people are trying to get something for nothing by plugging their electric vehicles in at work. So here are two predictions/suggestions of what we may see in the next few years if fuel prices stay this high:

• Employers providing charging stations at worksite parking areas for charging employees' plug-ins. Install solar panels on the shelters and you increase your "green cred" while simultaneously providing shaded parking and "free" recharging. Sell extra power back to the grid (net metering) and make that unused space pay its own rent.
• Coin-op meters at large parking facilities for car charging. The coin-op serves as both parking fee and recharge fee. It would be nice if they would allow debit/credit/Paypal transactions, too.
  

3) Regarding the previous post on the news that Congress is considering a measure to block states from enacting more stringent measures: this poses a tactical problem for a decentralist. On the one hand, I'm against turning over all decision-making to a large and growing central decision-making bureaucracy and would much rather see local communities working to preserve their environment. On the other hand, opposing the federal/national Leviathan means protecting the paternalist busybody living next door. It puts you in the position of fighting for local decision-making, and then fighting against those decisions. Geez, I guess that's what Jefferson meant by, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." But at least I can meet my neighbors and reason through these issues. And when locals make decisions that help some and harm others, they know the score and can compensate them on the next go-round; when large nations make decisions, the far-flung citizens have little idea who is harmed or benefited, so they will remorselessly slam the same scapegoats in every round.

4) Department of Duh: The Worldwatch Institute claims that photovoltaic (PV) costs are set to decline 40% by 2010. Until just recently, as I noted back in July 2006, PV costs were rising. My guess is that consumer demand driven by both high fuel prices and worldwide government subsidization was driving the trend. Since then, the rise seems to have flattened out and even tipped the other way. If the WI predictions are correct, then Julian Simon should be calling WI founder and perpetual Malthusian doomsayer Lester Brown from the grave to say, "See? Told you so."

40% is a substantial reduction. As I noted in this post, PV is only economical under certain circumstances, but a 40% drop in prices certainly opens that up.

So why "duh"?

Well, if you know that the price is set to drop 40% in the next three years, why would you buy now? And if it is set to drop due to market supply and demand factors (which is arguable, see below), then why would you subsidize it? In fact, if many people would defer planned purchases just a little while, the over-production would create an inventory problem and drive prices down even faster.

Note from the WI report that the primary driver behind the supply increase is the money pouring into China from capital markets. Are they investing because they all believe in Peak Oil, in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, or in capturing some rents through programs like California's Million Solar Homes? If the latter, can this really be said to be a drop "due to market supply and demand factors"?

"Well, no matter" say the Big Government Greens, "whatever it takes to get there. As long as we get to screw Big Oil in the process."

How do you suppose Big Oil got that way? Hint: Among the biggest sellers of solar panels are little mom & pop companies like Shell and BP. Baptist, meet thy Bootlegger.

Running on glue and tar

My wife and I have been discussing where the world is going to go in the post-Peak Oil era. I for one am optimistic, but concerned about the transitional period. I think that we (humanity) will develop a variety of responses to the problem(s), and that we will be better off in the end, but I am concerned about the rate at which the transition will occur. There may be upheaval and pain in the interim, regardless of who is in the White House or what policies we follow to get there.

In the comments on Matthew Yglesias recent post on gouging, we see a response to higher fuel prices that I think is indicative of lazy, uncreative thinking. Simply keep piling on one supposed remedy after another. This is creative thinking in much the same way that fixing your mistakes after rushing through a job is productive work. (for my previous thoughts on gouging, see here, here, and here).

Some things seem to escape the attention of people who think like this. For example, the crimes committed by a gas station owner can be determined by looking at his prices compared to his competitors' as follows:

• higher: gouging
• lower: predatory intent
• equal: collusion

In this environment, it might be worthwhile to keep a lawyer on staff, nicht war? And since the laws are subject to change, a lobbyist might be useful. If everyone has to have lawyers and lobbyists, that creates a competitive advantage for larger businesses. I think I can assume that people who are against gouging are also against large businesses, so why don't they understand or acknowledge these problems?

---------------------------------

Then, I was reading about heterodoxy, Cowen, and Veblen, looked up Veblen, got side-tracked by Giffen Goods, and finally came across an essay in The Nation by Sasha Abramsky entitled, "Running on Fumes". He raises the idea that gasoline is a Giffen Good, one that poorer people will come to spend more on even as its price rises because they are locked into it.

Sasha says,

Indeed, the very fact that some commentators, such as the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor, so glibly assume (or, at least, assumed pre-Katrina) that an oil price shock can be painlessly absorbed shows just how invisible the country's poor have become to much of its pundit class.

Since Taylor's offending comments are neither quoted nor referenced, I can only guess that Taylor said something like, "let the price mechanism work" in response to calls for price controls. The month prior to Abramsky's piece, Taylor wrote about fuel prices in NRO. I would recommend reading both before proceeding with the rest of this post.

Back?

It is of course debatable whether the price mechanism will work well with regards to energy. In the comments on James Hamilton's Peak Oil in America post, Stuart Staniford claims that recent empirical research indicates a short-term price elasticity of -0.05. An older survey indicates that the long term price elasticity is around -0.8 and the short term is around -0.2. In any case, this is for a general population, not the poor, so it is only indirectly relevant to the point. If these two articles can be taken as accurate, the indicated decrease in elasticity (magnitude) indicates that it will be harder to curtail gasoline use as price goes up than it was in 1979-1983; I would assume that it would be harder for the driving poor, but perhaps not so much for the urban poor who have access to other options. (I graph oil use vs. oil price here, but have not updated it since October 2005. Note how much reduction was achieved 1979-1983.)

Near his conclusion, Mr. Abramsky claims that the decline of the rural area about which he is writing is preventable, but

prevention involves the sort of innovation the Bush Administration, besotted as it is with laissez-faire triumphalism (not to mention oil-industry campaign cash), has been reluctant to embrace.

Did you just experience a self-administered lacto-nasal enema upon reading -- in a single sentence -- that the Bush Administration favors laissez-faire policies and that laissez-faire and oil-industry campaign cash are not mutually exclusive?

Indeed, this seems to be common in discussions of gouging, Peak Oil, current pricing, and related issues. Are Mr. Abramsky and the commenters on Matthew Yglesias' blog really claiming that the oil industry enjoys laissez-faire trade policy? That seems so absurd on its face that I cannot believe it needs rebuttal.

The oil industry came of age in the Progressive Era. Oil production had steadily increased and prices decreased for the entire history of the industry through the antitrust prosecution of Standard Oil. As the automobile caught on and demand heated up, Progressives were excited to be able to subsidize a competitor to railroads. Then, as the US got involved in World War I, businessmen eager to be freed from antitrust regulation jumped at the invitation to participate in the Commodities Section of the Petroleum War Services Committee and the Oil Division of the United States Fuel Administration. Dominick Armentano points out in Antitrust and Monopoly, that A. C. Bedford, president of Standard Oil of New Jersey, was appointed as chairman of the War Services Committee. Their experience of cooperation and "supervised competition", and the concurrent worldwide embrace of central planning (think about what was happening in Russia, Germany, Italy, and even England in the period between wars), paved the way to the corporative-creating National Industrial Recovery Act. When that was struck down, the Connally Hot Oil Act of 1935 was passed without hearings to maintain stability in the oil industry. It allocated state production quotas and provided a means to enforce restrictions on interstate transshipment in excess of those quotas.

The military has been tied in to oil production or at least the Middle East arguably since Eisenhower placed troops in Lebanon in 1958 and Kennedy defended Saudi interests in 1963. More recently, in 1980 Jimmy Carter announced the Carter Doctrine, stating that the US would defend its oil interests there. You have the obvious Bush wars since then, with Clinton lobbing a few bombs and establishing bases in Saudi Arabia in between.

In addition to regulatory and military support, we also have regulatory intervention and distortion. As James Hamilton has pointed out, one reason for the increase in gas prices during the tight markets in 2005 was the fact that the national market is segmented by EPA requirements and refineries cannot easily switch between the various boutique fuels favored by - you guessed it - Mr. Abramsky's fellow travelers. Finally, we have people who insist that we need to increase gas taxes so that we, like Eurotopia, will have gasoline prices near $10 per gallon.

Any guesses as to whether The Nation favors those higher fuel prices? I searched for "carbon tax" on their site and got 78 hits; the first one says, "A carbon tax would be simple --" The author goes on to add that

And as Charles Komanoff of the Carbon Tax Center argues, at least part of the proceeds of the tax could be rebated to poor and middle-income households through the income tax system, neutralizing any inequities. The unrebated balance could be used to subsidize alternative energy research and production. Given the historical successes of government funding of basic research in computing and medicine, there's every reason to believe the products of this work would be very promising.

Another two-fer: not only do we learn that the simple tax now has lots of other little simple ancillaries, like using the simple income tax system to rebate for gas, but we also discover that the government's funding of basic research has a proven track record. They don't explain exactly how we figure out the difference in rebates between subway-riding New Yorkers and rural Californians, so perhaps it is not as simple as they first insist. Nor do they actually compare the government's track record in conducting research to anything else, like privately funded applied research. Now, I think it's possible that government gives the private sector a good run in basic research, but recall that the human genome was first decoded by a private company in 1/10 the time and budget as that proposed by a government agency. But the private sector is much better at applied research, which is what was meant by "subsidize alternative energy research and production." So they call for applied research based on the government's track record in basic research? Nice sleight of hand.

--------------------------------------

A greater protest must be registered over Mr. Abramsky's nearly complete silence on the century of other Progressive policies that have pushed the poor out of town and into the oil-based lifestyle. Once again, we can refer to Gabriel Kolko's Railroads and Regulation and The Triumph of Conservatism for an understanding of the politics underlying regulation in the Progressive Era. The tongue-in-cheek, short version is that competition was largely working for everyone except the capitalists themselves. Competition was forcing costs down so far that they were all headed for bankruptcy, so they tried cooperative arrangements. When those failed, they turned to the federal government to act as the cartelizing agent. Though Kolko doesn't specifically address it, it is easy to see that the electric power industry faced the same logic of high capital costs, low marginal production costs, and the resulting expansion, competition, system building, bankruptcy, and "need" for regulatory intervention. This eliminated the "destructive competition" in rails & utilities by constraining competition and innovation. The whole point of regulatory oversight was not consumer protection, as the unsophisticated, narcissistic state-worshipper would have you think, but rather stabilization for the industries so they could go back to peace, quiet, and regular dividends. That is why deregulation and people like Craig McCaw and Michael Milken were so upsetting to AT&T in the 1970s and 1980s, and why electric utilities are so resistant to deregulation today.

The same public who first wanted to give land grants and rights of way to railroads and canals in order to get rid of private turnpikes, and then wanted to constrain railroads because the average voter didn't understand the logic of the capital-intensive industry they had spawned, and now didn't like the fact that their regulations created a de jure cartel, wanted roads. They joined the Good Roads movement and fought for public subsidies for bicycles and then cars. When Louis Brandeis brought Harrington Emerson to the stand in the 1910 Eastern Freight Rate Cases to argue that every industry could be rationalized with and every consumer benefited by Taylor's Scientific Management, the public caught the bug for the Efficiency Movement and Technocracy Movement. They wanted to centrally manage everything. The goal was, as Herbert Croly put it, to produce "Jeffersonian ends with Hamiltonian means".

As outlined above, the Progressives in WWI and FDR's cabinet in the Depression and WWII supported a state-industrial oil policy to further rationalize oil production and distribution. In conjunction with the Good Roads and subsidization of the automobile (which gave rise to the Golden Age of manufacture and its corresponding anomie and unionism which many Progressives yearn for), the stage was set for moving out of high density urban areas and to the suburbs.

The push to suburbia has also been helped over the years with some uniquely Progressive policies. Rent control in New York City, for example (I once read that poverty-stricken Walter Cronkite lives in a rent-controlled building). The aforementioned utility subsidization, including the TVA and REA, which replaced farmer-owned windmills with investor-owner utilities. More recently, to "preserve their character" (a euphemism for "preserve their property values"), many cities (bastions of Right Wingerdom, like San Francisco) have banned urban development, forcing people out of town to find affordable housing. To pay for a wide variety of programs, some of which used to be privately provided by the working classes for themselves, cities have raised property and sales taxes (Santa Fe, for example: there's a reason you need to make $10/hour to live there, and it mostly has to do with California millionaires moving into the City Different; most of them are not exactly Goldwater Republicans). While the upper and middle classes were leaving the city to live in clean, quiet neighborhoods, these policies were all pushing the poor even further out of town.

In the specific case Mr. Abramsky addresses in his essay, the size of those towns probably needs to be smaller. They were dependent on mineral extraction and timber, both repeatedly attacked by people like Mr. Abramsky, but probably not by Jerry Taylor. Indeed, it's probably a safe bet that when people like Jerry Taylor raised the issue about the impact of stopping resource extraction on the workers, people like Mr. Abramsky glibly dismissed it, saying that the economy could easily absorb the jobs lost. But I will go further than either of them and point out something both should agree to (if they want to be logically consistent with their probable core values): continuing to live in a non-agricultural rural area is inherently energy intensive, and we should not continue to subsidize it if we really think Peak Oil is a concern.

I recently came across a site (probably something on Gristmill dealing with global warming) that claimed all of the skeptics of (Kyoto?) never provide any suggested solutions of their own. Does Mr. Abramsky offer a suggested solution for the poor people he exploits for his article? He offers a vague mention of mass transit, a system that works well in high density areas like Europe and the Northeast Corridor, but probably not in Northern California. He seems to imply that George Bush is personally responsible for the lack of mass transit despite the fact that ridership is higher than it was under Clinton.

Abramsky makes a quick offer to help them pay for oil, thus furthering the addiction that has them in this situation in the first place, and contributing to a 150 year legacy of trapping people in a state-underwritten prison. The latest insult in that legacy has been the ethanol subsidy, a Carter-era program with bipartisan support for all the wrong reasons: it reduces imports, it supports "family farmers", and it is "renewable". First used to replace lead (Pb) and reduce pollution, it actually increases certain types of pollution. The subsidies for "family" corn farmers mostly end up in the pockets of ADM. And the renewability, touted by Progressives, is having growing implications for poor people. As I noted in my review of Joshua Tickell's From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank, "Some bio-cheerleaders ... claim that a large scale shift to biofuels won't affect food prices, but that is almost certainly wrong. The amount of land required to make a dent into our petro-fuel usage would easily require both the fallow fields and some land currently used for food production. Demand up, price up, QED." Given recent headlines, I'm going to claim prescience, but I think every clear-headed person could figure this out on their own. Even Noam Chomsky figured it out in hindsight.

Finally, Abramsky also mentions the possibility of subsidizing efficient vehicles, something that has been going on for several years with mixed results*. In other words, we get some paeans to Progressive programs and a demonstration of how much good Mr. Abramsky can do with other people's money to prove that he cares. Some of h