Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Friday, December 27, 2013 12:57 pm

And you thought the bursting of the housing bubble was bad …

From the Nov. 11 New Yorker (paywall) on a company called Climate Corporation that uses big data to project crop sizes for every field in the country and insures crops on the basis of that data:

(CEO David) Friedberg is convinced that climate change has the potential to alter land values dramatically, and soon. “We had this economic bubble because of a major housing crisis,” he said. [Strictly speaking, that’s backward — we had an economic crisis because of a (burst) housing bubble — but forget it; he’s rolling. — Lex] “Residential real-estate values dropped, and the debt-equity ratio was so high that there were massive economic consequences for the nation. There is almost certainly a much more significant devaluation that needs to occur with land affected by climate change.” In Kansas, he noted, real estate trades at prices that make sense only if a farmer gets the kind of yield on an acre of corn that is now rare. “In parts of Kansas, farmers should simply not be growing corn,” Friedberg said. “Historically, you would have a heat wave every 20 years there. Now it happens every three years or so, and in those years the crops die.”

The Climate Corporation charges roughly forty dollars an acre to insure crops, and its customers farm more than ten million acres. Many of them give little credence to terms like “climate change” and “global warming.” That doesn’t bother Friedberg. “You don’t need to talk about climate change per se,” he told me. “Statistically, you are looking at a series of numbers. If it were a roulette wheel, you could say, ‘It’s coming up black more and more frequently.’ Can I attribute that to black being overweighted by the croupier? Or to the pit boss, or to the machine being broken? It doesn’t matter. Some people will argue that ice ages have waxed and waned for tens of millennia and that this is part of a natural cycle. That doesn’t change the fact that black is coming up more frequently and you will get less out of an acre of corn than you used to. The price for that land simply cannot be justified by the income it can generate.”

He went on, “It’s going to take a few climatic events in a row, I guess, and then everyone will say, ‘I’m not going to keep buying Kansas real estate at this price,’ or, ‘I’m not going to keep developing in this harbor zone in Florida.’ If you mark down all the stuff to what the discounted value should be — holy shit.” He practically shouted, “It is bad. I am convinced it is going to happen because, the math says it has to happen in at least one or two or three parts of the world. And if it happens at any of them at any point in the next ten years, it will make the housing crisis look small.”

Advertisements

Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:04 pm

You want scary? Here’s scary: Congressional Democrats trying to help poor people.

Why are millions of Americans about to have their food stamps (SNAP) cut tomorrow? Because Congressional Democrats are the worst, most inept defenders of America’s most vulnerable in the history of, well, forever:

WASHINGTON — A group of nine Democratic members of the House of Representatives held a press conference outside the Capitol on Tuesday to demand Congress avert an automatic food stamp cut scheduled to take effect on Friday.

“The average family of four will see a $36 cut in their monthly benefits, bringing the average per-person benefit from $1.50 a meal to $1.40 a meal,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said. “Shame on this Congress for allowing this to happen.”

But the cut, which will reduce monthly benefits for all 47 million Americans enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by roughly 7 percent, is happening thanks mainly to Democratic votes that hastened the demise of a benefit increase from the 2009 stimulus bill. Each of the representatives at Tuesday’s presser voted with their party for a pair of 2010 spending bills that set the cuts in motion.

The first bill took money allocated for future food stamp use and used it instead to prevent states from laying off teachers. Democrats supported the bill grudgingly, lamenting that it would cause a food stamp cut in 2014. When it came time to support a second bill that raided future food stamp funds once again, pushing the cut to November 2013, they protested — at least at first.

“This is one of the more egregious cases of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and is a vote we do not take lightly,” more than 100 Democrats wrote in an August 2010 letter to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

But then President Barack Obama smoothed things over in a meeting at the White House, because the bill in question was the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act — a priority of the first lady’s. The measure provided free lunches and updated nutrition standards for schools.

“I am very pleased we were able to work together with the president and his team to address concerns regarding cuts to the food stamp program that are included in the child nutrition bill,” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said in a statement at the time. On Tuesday, Lee told HuffPost the president had pledged to support replacing the SNAP funds, a vow he fulfilled in subsequent budget blueprints that didn’t become law. Congress and the White House have been otherwise silent about the issue for the past three years.

Now, you may have heard that the GOP is seeking cuts — $40 billion over the next 10 years — in food stamps, while continuing to support the indefensible agricultural subsidies that, along with food stamps, are part and parcel of the same agriculture bill now under discussion. And you’re right; they are. But the cuts that are going into effect tomorrow are a separate issue and were aided and abetted by a nontrivial number of Democrats — and this was back in 2010, when Democrats still controlled the House. Democrats hope you won’t notice this.

Digby comments:

They are actually defending the fact that they were forced into choosing between vegetables and fruits for school lunches and food stamps for poor people. Our progressive representatives passively capitulated to the absurd notion that we could not do both. How many of these “deals” have Democrats made over the past few years?

Too damn many, is how many. On pretty much every issue of importance to the poor, the middle class, women, minorities, consumers — basically every constituency except rich white men and large corporations — Democrats have gotten rolled over and over and over again.

I sometimes get asked why, given how nutzo the party has gone in the past 20 years, I remain a Republican. My reasons are my own, but, swear to God, some days I feel like saying something stupid like, “Because at least they’re competent.”

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: