A Farewell to Farms

Posted on by Matt Simpson

Missourinet reports that the federal farm bill has increased the maximum loan under the Beginning Farmer Loan Program from $250,000 to $450,000. The rationale for this? According to Tony Stafford, director of the Agriculture Business Development Division within the State Department of Agriculture:

[…] too many young people are leaving the farm. He hopes the enhancement of the program will lure more Missourians to return to farming.

Au contraire; it is more likely that not enough young people are leaving the farm. There is nothing intrinsically important about farms. Farms are valuable because they do one thing: produce food. If we can produce more food with fewer farmers, great! Then people — the most important resource we have — are freed to work on something else of value.

Throughout the 20th century, U.S. farm output has increased despite the fact that fewer people have chosen to be farmers. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas:

Since 1948, agricultural production has doubled, while total input use, including labor, land and machinery, declined slightly. […] Between 1948 and 1996, agricultural labor productivity increased more than eightfold. The number of people fed by one farmer has jumped from 15 in 1950 to 128 in 1995, including 34 outside the United States.

Because production doubled and productivity increased by a factor of eight, fewer people are working in agriculture despite this doubling of production.

In A.D. 1000, almost everyone was a farmer. Now, almost no one farms in industrialized nations. A quick comparison of living conditions seems to favor present times. You might object that the driving factor here is technology, not the amount of farmers we have. But you would be missing my point: The fewer people we have farming, the more people we have working on other things, like technological advances.

Farm subsidies such as the Beginning Farmer Loan Program only serve to slow down the tremendous gains in prosperity we have been achieving during the past couple of centuries. And for what? According to Stafford, to get a few Missourians back on the farm. Why, exactly, do we want them on the farm again?

Is This What Supporters of the Village Law Wanted?

Posted on by David Stokes

The Springfield News-Leader has a great article (link via Combest) about what happened in the one county that allowed people to go ahead and form their own villages under the now-thankfully-repealed Village Law. Camden County, along the Lake of the Ozarks, had three microvillages incorporate, and more applications coming in, when they established a moratorium — and then the state law was repealed. Here’s how government works in a village of two:

“I had to second the nomination,” Dave Krehbiel said, laughing. “My wife accepted the appointment of clerk.”

“He’s had way too much fun with this,” Dana Krehbiel said.

And it is going to cost other people money (emphasis added):

He may even develop it someday and is considering passing some new ordinances, like mandating utility companies bury the telephone and power lines that run across his lawn, somewhat blocking his otherwise stunning view of the lake.

Moving utility poles and wires is expensive. Other people are going to pay for that in their bills. What if you had hundreds more villages like this, some forcing buried lines and others mandating above ground lines? This is supposed to be a show of individual liberty?

The older system worked fine for people willing to pay the costs of their proposals and plans, rather than those who intend — like some wannabe developers — to move forward in developing property for homes, leaving the infrastructure costs to others:

The Christian County commission (in 2002) gave developer Clyde Lorance clearance to develop the land after he offered to pay for the water, sewer and road systems. He even built Spokane-Highlandville Fire Protection District a station, giving his village full fire service.

So that is all you had to do before the Village Law, and all you need do again now that the law has been repealed. This is not trampling on anyone’s rights. Missouri does not need more government, particularly of the Liliputian variety.

Setting Ourselves Up for Catastrophe

Posted on by Matt Simpson

The Lincoln County Journal reports that a team of bureaucrats has descended upon Winfield, Mo., to assess and remedy the damage caused by the now-receding Mississippi flood waters:

The question of the day for the state and federal officials seemed to be how the government could help area farmers as the water begins to recede out of their crop fields.

If this is the question, the mistake has already been made. Disaster relief programs often come with nefarious long-term consequences. When government agencies bail out the victims of a disaster, we all feel good in the short term. It’s easy to see the repairs for the farmer’s damaged barn, for example. But, in the spirit of Bastiat, I have to point out what we can’t immediately see.

By consistently sending relief to disaster-prone areas, the government insulates them from some of the risk of living, working, and operating businesses there. This is essentially the same as a government subsidy for areas that are more likely to experience a disaster. As a result, there is more investment in and migration to these areas than there would be otherwise. Because this shifts people and businesses away from areas that experience relatively fewer disasters, the disaster-prone areas come to contain more stuff that can be damaged — and, thus, the average disaster causes more damage than it would have without the existence of government bailouts.

Paradoxically, disaster relief literally sets us up for catastrophe. Of course, once the catastrophe occurs, it leads to an increased demand for even more disaster relief, which, in turn, sets us up for even worse disasters, which … well, you get the idea. Very quickly, this turns into a rather vicious cycle. Let’s hope Missouri voters and politicians choose not to perpetuate the cycle.

Property, Properly

Posted on by Audrey Spalding

On average, the largest source of money for Missouri public school districts comes from each district’s local property tax levy. On July 1, Gov. Matt Blunt signed into law Missouri Senate Bill 711, which will change the way many school districts collect that money.

Generally, there are three main sources of revenue for a public school district: Local tax revenues, state funds, and federal funds. Each school district goes to district voters for a property tax levy increase when it needs more money. In the end, voters approve the maximum percentage of assessed land valuation that a school district can collect each year.

But what about rising property values?

Continue reading “Property, Properly”

Lose the Cruise

Posted on by Patrick Eckelkamp

One of America’s oldest pastimes is coming under attack, and possibly for good reason. According to an article in today’s Post Dispatch, St. Louis is considering an ordinance that would curtail “cruising” in and around Fairground Park, especially during the weekends. City officials cite a spike in violence and congestion on Sundays as reasons why a new ordinance is needed:

Over the last two summers, Saturday has proved to be the most dangerous day of the week in the area. Every Saturday, an average of eight to nine violent crimes were reported. But this May, Sundays were the most violent day of the week there, with an average of about 11 violent crimes.

Normally, I would be against city ordinances restricting seemingly harmless activities such as cruising, but — assuming that there really are legitimate safety concerns — I have to side with the city. Granted, I’ve never before thought of cruising as a real threat to safety, so I am taking their word for it in this particular case. As much as it pains me to agree with limiting the activities of individuals, as soon as they infringe upon the safety of others, it is no longer their right to continue that specific activity.

Also, by congregating in large masses, these cruisers have made it almost impossible for other city dwellers to enjoy the benefits of Fairgrounds Park:

Antionette Bullay, who lives in the area, said the weekly caravan has grown so large and rowdy that all other activity comes to a standstill. It’s like a Mardi Gras every Sunday.

Considering that the park is public grounds owned by the city, everyone should have equal rights when it comes to utilizing this particular public good. These cruisers are infringing on the rights of others, therefore the city is acting within its realm of responsibility by limiting their ability to cruise. However, having never visited Fairgrounds Park or possessing any statistics on increased crime due to cruising, my position on this issue is based solely on the information contained within the Post-Dispatch article.

Should Cities Operate Water Parks and Rec Centers?

Posted on by David Stokes

Hazelwood, a suburb of St. Louis, has just opened a new water park. The Suburban Journals has the story. The park continues a long trend of municipalities operating substantial recreation centers, with swimming, exercise equipment, basketball courts, meeting rooms, indoor rinks, etc. To name just a few in the St. Louis area, there is The Heights in Richmond Heights, The Center of Clayton, The Pointe at Ballwin Commons, and so on. My family belongs to, and we frequently use, University City’s Centennial Commons. But let’s step back a moment and ask whether this is something governments should be doing.

To some extent, clearly yes. Outside of a few radical libertarians (a category that does not include me) just about everyone believes government should provide parks. Public swimming pools are an obvious part of a park system. But what about exercise equipment? Private gyms are certainly able to meet the needs of people wanting to work out, and putting together a fitness facility at one’s home is not that tough or expensive, assuming you go with a Rocky IV–style training regimen and skip the Ivan Drago excesses.

I generally believe that government should not provide services that the private sector is able to provide. Parks and swimming pools are things everyone should be able to enjoy, and not everyone can get to what the private sector provides in those areas and join a country club. But its not like these new rec facilities are free. You pay for them with your taxes, and then you pay for the membership. At least at Bally’s, you only pay for the membership. So while I will be enthusiastically using the University City fitness facility tonight, I admit I am somewhat torn about it. The private sector can, and did, give me a fine option with Wellbridge, before Centennial Commons opened. What’s worse is that the taxpayer-subsidized facilities are competing with private gyms and clubs, and that is hard to argue for. Competition is great, but not when one entity is supported by tax dollars.

These facilities are an obvious example of Tiebout’s theories of municipal competition at work, which is a good thing, albeit an expensive one. People can choose to live in a city with higher taxes that provides extra services like a recreation complex, or they can choose to live elsewhere, like unincorporated St. Louis County, which is closing some of its rec centers and pools as attendance declines — largely because cities are opening up their own new facilities as part of increased annexations.

So, like many a good blog post, this one ends with no conclusions. I do think many of the new rec centers are excessive, but I love Centennial Commons. So, hey, that’s why we have a comments section now!

Crank That Radio: SMI Policy Analyst On the Air Monday Morning

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Show-Me Institute policy analyst David Stokes will be interviewed Monday morning at 7:10 a.m. on the Allman and Crane show, broadcast on 97.1 FM Talk. Stokes will be talking about his recently published case study, “The Economic Impact of the Missouri E-10 Ethanol Mandate,” which he cowrote with Justin Hauke.

Be sure to tune in, and tell your friends to do the same!

The Ins and Outs (Or Ups and Downs) of Turnout

Posted on by Cynthia Juedemann

Let’s talk about turnout.

Specifically, let’s talk about turnout in Missouri school district elections. And not the usual rant about how it’s shamefully low (it is), but about what affects it.

For more than a month now, I’ve been working to create a database, which will eventually be publicly available, that details voter turnout in Missouri school district elections. Out of the number of eligible voters in any given district, how many show up to express an opinion? The answer? Usually 20 percent or less.

The real answer? Well, we just don’t know.

Continue reading “The Ins and Outs (Or Ups and Downs) of Turnout”

Religious Beliefs Aren’t Special

Posted on by Matt Simpson

Blogging about 120 miles away from me, in the Columbia office, fellow intern Audrey Spalding claims that we should offended by a Missouri superintendent’s decision to put a biblical quote at the bottom of his emails. Imagine for the moment that, instead of placing a religious quote at the bottom of his emails, the superintendent had a pet philosohpical quote with no religious relevance. For the sake of concreteness, consider this quote from David Hume:

Actions may be laudable or blameable; but they cannot be reasonable: Laudable or blameable, therefore, are not the same with reasonable or unreasonable. The merit and demerit of actions frequently contradict, and sometimes controul our natural propensities. But reason has no such influence. Moral distinctions, therefore, are not the offspring of reason. Reason is wholly inactive, and can never be the source of so active a principle as conscience, or a sense of morals.
— A Treatise of Human Nature, book 3, part 1, section 1

This quote is bound to be controversial. Other philosophers would surely disagree — e.g., Kant — and I’m sure the average Joe would take issue with calling morality “irrational” in any sense, which is essentially what Hume is doing. Should we be offended if a school superintendent includes this in his emails? I don’t see why. Sure, the belief is controversial, but we shouldn’t be offended by beliefs merely because they are controversial. There is nothing in the quote to suggest that people who believe otherwise are stupid, immoral, evil, or anything else of that nature.

Including the quote in emails may be motivated by a desire to convert others to the same belief. I have a hard time seeing how this is objectionable, though, considering that the purpose of schools is to do essentially the same thing. Do we not desire to convert children to the belief that 2 + 2 = 4? Perhaps it’s the desire to convert someone to this type of belief that is at issue. Perhaps moral issues should be left out of the classrooms, then. But, first of all, I don’t think a school can function without addressing moral issues. What are we doing when we tell kids that it is wrong to hit each other? Second of all, if this were the issue, it is relatively minor compared to other forms of ideological indoctrination happening inside the classroom.

The method of conversion isn’t objectionable, either. No one is forced to read the quote; they are merely given the opportunity to do so. The same can’t be said for ideological peddling, which goes on inside the classroom.

The only thing that seems to be different is that the superintendent’s quote refers to a deity, and my quote does not. Should it really be offensive to simply to hear about a deity?

Someone might argue that the Constitution has specific language regarding religion, but not regarding meta-ethics — and that is why religion is special. While completely true, this is irrelevant to the question of whether we should get offended about such a quote. This argument ignores the possibility that the Constitution simply got something wrong.

I agree that the superintendent shouldn’t have included the quote in his emails, but not because we should be offended, or because it is intrinsically immoral. The problem is that some people will be offended, which will only cause problems for the school district.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging