A few points I would like to make about this nifty article about Growing Money on Trees: I do not recommend growing cottonwoods or sycamores on any residential lot smaller than an acre. I would not recommend putting a cottonwood anywhere within 100 feet of any structure, power lines, street, or any other potential target. As far as sycamores go, I guess they're OK, but they become very disease-prone, and consequently very high-maintenance, as they mature. I do like the Mexican sycamore, however, but there are few to be found 'round these parts mature enough to know whether or not they belie my statements about their more common American cousins.
A good home economist should always consider the hidden costs of a seemingly simple solution, such as planting a rapidly growing tree to help cut down on cooling costs. When it comes to average-sized residential properties (less than 1 acre), the cottonwood tree's middle name is "liability". This is true for many fast-growing shade producers. This means the cost of future structural damage or worse should be factored into the money-saving calculations.
Better to plant a high-quality tree, preferably one of the white oak family of oaks, or a hickory or walnut if you can find one that will tolerate your area and your soil. Some of these grow quite rapidly thank you very much, particularly if the old rule is followed:
Put a $50 tree in a $500 hole. That's right: If your neighbors aren't laughing at you, saying, what are they doing putting that tiny tree in that wide hole, then you're wrong. Prepare an area 2-4 times the diameter of the root ball by cultivating and incorporating compost. This creates a favorable growing medium in which to encourage radial root establishment, and reduces the risk of a root-bound tree (in subsequent posts I will argue against the "tough love" planting approach espoused by most forestry programs. I will also address the common objections of students of the so-called soil-food-web to the concept of cultivating soil altogether).
I guess I have to see the studies showing that trees on the north side actually increase cooling bills.
An important note about John Teas (we have you in our thoughts, by the way, John)recommending that a tree be planted 12 feet away from a structure. That 12 feet is a minimum; farther would be ideal. Also, any tree you have that is 12 feet from a house should be considered a candidate for a lightning protection system.
Please feel free to leave a comment or send an email. If you're looking for a TCIA Accredited Houston Tree Service or Certified Arborist, call the company I've worked for since 2002, Bartlett Tree Experts, at 713-692-6371. This is my personal blog--it is not affiliated with Bartlett Tree Experts.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Dear George III, Where's the Change?
Dear George III,
Hey, it's your constituency here. You know, the ones who voted for change and hope? Just wondering: why are there still troops in Iraq? Why did we step up the "war" in Afghanistan? Why are we even there? Why is Gitmo still open? Why are we still bailing out the unproductive at the expense of the productive? Why are we still taking the advice of the same "economists" who got us into this mess? Why do you still think we can tax, spend and print our way out of this hole? Why are we still engaged in imperialist foreign policy? Why are still engaged in profligate spending? Why are we still torturing (ref: Benyam Muhammed)? Why haven't we taken steps to repeal the Patriot Act? Why are we not investigating your predecessors for war crimes? Why are we not investigating the Federal Reserve?
More to the point: why are Republicans complaining? They should be the happiest of all: they're apparently getting 4 more years of Bush.
Hey, it's your constituency here. You know, the ones who voted for change and hope? Just wondering: why are there still troops in Iraq? Why did we step up the "war" in Afghanistan? Why are we even there? Why is Gitmo still open? Why are we still bailing out the unproductive at the expense of the productive? Why are we still taking the advice of the same "economists" who got us into this mess? Why do you still think we can tax, spend and print our way out of this hole? Why are we still engaged in imperialist foreign policy? Why are still engaged in profligate spending? Why are we still torturing (ref: Benyam Muhammed)? Why haven't we taken steps to repeal the Patriot Act? Why are we not investigating your predecessors for war crimes? Why are we not investigating the Federal Reserve?
More to the point: why are Republicans complaining? They should be the happiest of all: they're apparently getting 4 more years of Bush.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Hayek's Challenge in Motor Trend Magazine?
Wow! I never thought I would read a columnist in a car magazine using a Hayekian argument! But here it is, in the March 2009 edition of Motor Trend magazine. In "Prius or Pickups?", Angus Mackenzie states: "If no one can figure out what vehicles American consumers will buy from one month to the next, how on earth is Capitol Hill going to be able to determine in which direction Detroit's salvation lies?"
That, folks, is the big question. Even if we were to accept the absurd premise that the state's role is to play deus ex machina for selected players in the economy, while the rest of us remain subject to the strictures of the self-regulating market, how could it possibly know what to do? How could one car czar, or a board of ten or a hundred or even a thousand experts, possibly replace the combined knowledge and experience of three hundred million market participants making billions of rational decisions?
Let's pretend for a moment that morality had nothing to do with economics--not hard for modern economists--how could Plato's and Marx's and Keynes' enlightened elite possibly muster the requisite knowledge to make all the decisions on behalf of all members of society?
That, folks, is the big question. Even if we were to accept the absurd premise that the state's role is to play deus ex machina for selected players in the economy, while the rest of us remain subject to the strictures of the self-regulating market, how could it possibly know what to do? How could one car czar, or a board of ten or a hundred or even a thousand experts, possibly replace the combined knowledge and experience of three hundred million market participants making billions of rational decisions?
Let's pretend for a moment that morality had nothing to do with economics--not hard for modern economists--how could Plato's and Marx's and Keynes' enlightened elite possibly muster the requisite knowledge to make all the decisions on behalf of all members of society?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Challenging Some Conclusions: Arden Andersen at the OHBA Seminar in Houston
Yesterday (2009.01.21) I had the pleasure of attending a seminar hosted by the Organic Horticulture Business-Education Alliance (OHBA). It was attended by approximately 150 Green Industry Professionals, and the two Major-League speakers were Arden Andersen, author of Real Medicine Real Health, and Jeff Lowenfels, author of The Soil Foodweb. Both gave great lectures; however, I would like to expound a little on Dr. Andersen's lecture.
I agree with Dr. Andersen, that the sad state of nutrition and health has far-reaching consequences. However, I wish to challenge some of Dr. Andersen's conclusions, the first being that the "nutritional content of the food is the responsibility of the farmer".
I submit that the ultimate responsibility lies with the consumer. Now, I acknowledge that some of us are less susceptible to government disinformation than others, but in the end, we are indeed responsible for ourselves. By acknowledging that we are responsible for our own nutrition, we, the consumers, place market pressure on the producers to meet our demand.
This is the essence of any grassroots campaign. This is exactly why the movement is growing. This is why there were 150 attendees instead of 20. The movement isn't growing because farmers suddenly began to change their wicked ways. The movement is growing because the word is spreading! Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Andersen, the OHBA and others, the word is spreading among the consumers. This results in increased demand! Agenda-driven disinformation stands in the way of consumer education, and therefore inhibits the natural workings of the free market. It is our acknowledging our individual responsibilities that will bring about change, not shifting the responsibility to the producer.
This is not to say that pressure should not be placed on the producers. In fact, according to Say's Law, production inherently creates demand. But as long as the state's interventionist policies distort the risk/reward ratio, there is only so much the producer will be willing to change. Restated: state intervention in the market distorts producers' decisions, as I discuss below, and provides them an irresistible incentive to foist a nutrient-deficient product on an unsuspecting consumer base.
This could not happen in a free market, where consumer demand corrects producer errors as a natural matter of course. If, for instance, I produce a jack-in-the-box that is painted with lead paint, and my neighbor produces one that is painted with non-lead paint, then the market will put me out of business. No governmental agency is actually needed, by the way, to raise consumer awareness. Voluntarily-formed organizations, such as the OHBA, do that job quite effectively in free markets!
The second conclusion I wish to challenge is that the blame for the current state of affairs is to be laid at the feet of agriculture. Now I may be accused of splitting hairs, but when it comes to solving problems, I believe that our energies should be properly focused. "Agriculture" is not a homogeneous group. There are farmers, and there are large agricultural corporations. Large corporations pool resources and use a corrupt legislature and an inherently corrupt bureaucracy to eliminate resistance to profits. I would go so far as to say that the culprit is not only he government bureaucracy, but the entire state apparatus. If state intervention were eliminated from the marketplace, large agricultural corporations could not wield their influence in government to push for legislation and regulations that benefit them and their bottom line.
This is another example of the Economic Law of Unintended Consequences. It is with the best of intentions that we institute our governmental agencies--the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Education--yet before we know it, wealthy and influential corporate interests are having their way at the expense of the rest of us! This is basically the definition of corporate socialism.
Unholy alliances between the State Bureaucracy and Big Business are not how free markets work. In free markets, the state is not allowed to intervene, and therefore such mycorrhizal relationships, if you will, cannot emerge in the marketplace.
Which brings me to my third challenge: blaming profit. To quote Dr. Andersen again, "It is profit, pure and simple." Actually, it is not quite so simple. We all seek profit, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not. We may not like to admit it, but it is something we should not be ashamed of at all! Profit is nothing more than the natural human desire to make our little corner a little more comfortable for ourselves and those we love. (This is not, by the way, the same as greed, which is the desire for profit by any means.)
In an unrestricted free market, the desire for profit is tempered by the risk of failure. Business are always looking for ways to manage or minimize risk, so when a business becomes large enough to throw money around in Washington, why there is a whole sty full of bureaucracies just waiting to grease the wheels of profit. Here is where our problem lies.
We cannot change human nature, but we can restore the restrictions of runaway greed by working to sever the ties between Big Business and the State. In short, removing government from the equation.
I agree with Dr. Andersen, that the sad state of nutrition and health has far-reaching consequences. However, I wish to challenge some of Dr. Andersen's conclusions, the first being that the "nutritional content of the food is the responsibility of the farmer".
I submit that the ultimate responsibility lies with the consumer. Now, I acknowledge that some of us are less susceptible to government disinformation than others, but in the end, we are indeed responsible for ourselves. By acknowledging that we are responsible for our own nutrition, we, the consumers, place market pressure on the producers to meet our demand.
This is the essence of any grassroots campaign. This is exactly why the movement is growing. This is why there were 150 attendees instead of 20. The movement isn't growing because farmers suddenly began to change their wicked ways. The movement is growing because the word is spreading! Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Andersen, the OHBA and others, the word is spreading among the consumers. This results in increased demand! Agenda-driven disinformation stands in the way of consumer education, and therefore inhibits the natural workings of the free market. It is our acknowledging our individual responsibilities that will bring about change, not shifting the responsibility to the producer.
This is not to say that pressure should not be placed on the producers. In fact, according to Say's Law, production inherently creates demand. But as long as the state's interventionist policies distort the risk/reward ratio, there is only so much the producer will be willing to change. Restated: state intervention in the market distorts producers' decisions, as I discuss below, and provides them an irresistible incentive to foist a nutrient-deficient product on an unsuspecting consumer base.
This could not happen in a free market, where consumer demand corrects producer errors as a natural matter of course. If, for instance, I produce a jack-in-the-box that is painted with lead paint, and my neighbor produces one that is painted with non-lead paint, then the market will put me out of business. No governmental agency is actually needed, by the way, to raise consumer awareness. Voluntarily-formed organizations, such as the OHBA, do that job quite effectively in free markets!
The second conclusion I wish to challenge is that the blame for the current state of affairs is to be laid at the feet of agriculture. Now I may be accused of splitting hairs, but when it comes to solving problems, I believe that our energies should be properly focused. "Agriculture" is not a homogeneous group. There are farmers, and there are large agricultural corporations. Large corporations pool resources and use a corrupt legislature and an inherently corrupt bureaucracy to eliminate resistance to profits. I would go so far as to say that the culprit is not only he government bureaucracy, but the entire state apparatus. If state intervention were eliminated from the marketplace, large agricultural corporations could not wield their influence in government to push for legislation and regulations that benefit them and their bottom line.
This is another example of the Economic Law of Unintended Consequences. It is with the best of intentions that we institute our governmental agencies--the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Education--yet before we know it, wealthy and influential corporate interests are having their way at the expense of the rest of us! This is basically the definition of corporate socialism.
Unholy alliances between the State Bureaucracy and Big Business are not how free markets work. In free markets, the state is not allowed to intervene, and therefore such mycorrhizal relationships, if you will, cannot emerge in the marketplace.
Which brings me to my third challenge: blaming profit. To quote Dr. Andersen again, "It is profit, pure and simple." Actually, it is not quite so simple. We all seek profit, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not. We may not like to admit it, but it is something we should not be ashamed of at all! Profit is nothing more than the natural human desire to make our little corner a little more comfortable for ourselves and those we love. (This is not, by the way, the same as greed, which is the desire for profit by any means.)
In an unrestricted free market, the desire for profit is tempered by the risk of failure. Business are always looking for ways to manage or minimize risk, so when a business becomes large enough to throw money around in Washington, why there is a whole sty full of bureaucracies just waiting to grease the wheels of profit. Here is where our problem lies.
We cannot change human nature, but we can restore the restrictions of runaway greed by working to sever the ties between Big Business and the State. In short, removing government from the equation.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Life, Liberty and Economics Pop Quizzes
I once read that if you live your life based on principles, then 97% of your decisions are already made. Well, is a 96% close enough?
A very dear friend mentioned at dinner the other day that he had taken an economics pop quiz on mises.org, and the result was that he was part Austrian School and part Chicago School. So I took the quiz (http://mises.org/quiz.aspx) and got a 96%. I guess that makes me an Austrian!
I don't know much about economics, much less Austrian economics, or any other school of economic thought for that matter (but you can be sure that now I'll be reading up on the subject). But I like to think I know a thing or two about individual liberties and the need to protect them above anything else. You know, those quaint old notions that our country, society and economy were built on? And I also know from a pragmatic standpoint that the state breaks everything it touches. So with a couple of guiding principles and zero knowledge of economics, you too can take the quiz!
I think this quiz happens to be an excellent meter of one's understanding of individual liberty. If you want to get the most out of the quiz, then I would answer all the questions without pausing to do research. Just take it. You might just find yourself looking up that socialist professor with his or her stale, intellectually compromised cliches and asking for your money back!
Once you take the quiz, I would advise anyone who cares about the economy, the environment and about helping to make the world a better place for those less fortunate, to review the questions and answers and do a little homework. After following up on the questions that kept me from getting a 100% (I had chosen the Chicago School answers), I discovered that if I'd had a stronger understanding of the subject, I would have chosen the Austrian School answer.
After I took the quiz, I looked at Chicago School Economics, starting with the famous Milton Friedman. I really think this school of thought is philosophically and morally compromised. Not to mention logically. I'm guessing it must be popular among neoconservatives, who honestly believe in the completely contradictory idea of forcing the American Way on other people. It gives them an avenue to claim they are defenders of liberty without having to waver on their obsequious devotion to the state.
The point is, it doesn't matter how much you know about economics--in fact, the less the better in my opinion. Go with the the same principles you use to guide you in your daily life and see how you do on the test. Assuming of course, that you have any guiding principles. If you don't know what your guiding principles are, then just go back to how you felt last time somebody forced you to do something you didn't want to do, and build from there. Basically if you agree with the Golden Rule, then apply that to the quiz. (And yes, the Golden Rule applies to governments, too. It also happens to apply to the unplanned, spontaneous, unfettered free market system ).
Frankly, I think the test was over my head, which is good. It provided an impetus for looking more closely at the economic topics behind the questions. I also especially liked the grading system: the lower your score, the more of a socialist you are. It's quite a hard look in the mirror. I guess now I can say that I'm 100% Austrian! (I guess it could be true.:I saw a photograph of Zell am See once, does that count?)
A very dear friend mentioned at dinner the other day that he had taken an economics pop quiz on mises.org, and the result was that he was part Austrian School and part Chicago School. So I took the quiz (http://mises.org/quiz.aspx) and got a 96%. I guess that makes me an Austrian!
I don't know much about economics, much less Austrian economics, or any other school of economic thought for that matter (but you can be sure that now I'll be reading up on the subject). But I like to think I know a thing or two about individual liberties and the need to protect them above anything else. You know, those quaint old notions that our country, society and economy were built on? And I also know from a pragmatic standpoint that the state breaks everything it touches. So with a couple of guiding principles and zero knowledge of economics, you too can take the quiz!
I think this quiz happens to be an excellent meter of one's understanding of individual liberty. If you want to get the most out of the quiz, then I would answer all the questions without pausing to do research. Just take it. You might just find yourself looking up that socialist professor with his or her stale, intellectually compromised cliches and asking for your money back!
Once you take the quiz, I would advise anyone who cares about the economy, the environment and about helping to make the world a better place for those less fortunate, to review the questions and answers and do a little homework. After following up on the questions that kept me from getting a 100% (I had chosen the Chicago School answers), I discovered that if I'd had a stronger understanding of the subject, I would have chosen the Austrian School answer.
After I took the quiz, I looked at Chicago School Economics, starting with the famous Milton Friedman. I really think this school of thought is philosophically and morally compromised. Not to mention logically. I'm guessing it must be popular among neoconservatives, who honestly believe in the completely contradictory idea of forcing the American Way on other people. It gives them an avenue to claim they are defenders of liberty without having to waver on their obsequious devotion to the state.
The point is, it doesn't matter how much you know about economics--in fact, the less the better in my opinion. Go with the the same principles you use to guide you in your daily life and see how you do on the test. Assuming of course, that you have any guiding principles. If you don't know what your guiding principles are, then just go back to how you felt last time somebody forced you to do something you didn't want to do, and build from there. Basically if you agree with the Golden Rule, then apply that to the quiz. (And yes, the Golden Rule applies to governments, too. It also happens to apply to the unplanned, spontaneous, unfettered free market system ).
Frankly, I think the test was over my head, which is good. It provided an impetus for looking more closely at the economic topics behind the questions. I also especially liked the grading system: the lower your score, the more of a socialist you are. It's quite a hard look in the mirror. I guess now I can say that I'm 100% Austrian! (I guess it could be true.:I saw a photograph of Zell am See once, does that count?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)