Just where does the legendary Gene Basler stand on the organic-chemical spectrum? Seeing as how I work for "one o' them evil 'chemical' companies", I guess I ought to clear the air a bit, so that my clients, prospective clients and Green Industry colleagues might have a better understanding of how I approach every property, every landscape, and indeed every plant. In this article I intend to clarify what I mean when I myself use the term "organic", the key role organic matter plays in my diagnoses and prescriptive regimes, and why I consider the term's use in common Green Industry parlance is less than ingenuous, and in many cases, downright deceptive.
First of all, the notion of an organic-chemical spectrum, wherein "organic" resides way over on the left and "chemical" on the right, is as absurd as the widely-held misconception that there is any substantial difference between Democrat and Republican in Twenty-First Century politics. According to this linear model, anyone whose garden, household, dietary habits and energy sources aren't 100% organic is somehow morally compromised and out of synch with Momma Gaea.
Second, the idea that anyone who goes to the local bureaucracy to obtain a license to apply pesticides must surely be bought and paid for by Dow Chemical and Monsanto, is just as absurd. For my part, no pesticide manufacturer has ever approached me with offers of coke and back-room massages in exchange for peddling their poisons.
Third, many companies, within the Green Industry and without, play fast and loose with terms such as "organic" and "sustainable", as though they were really just marketing gimmicks, without really understanding what they mean for the average residential or commercial landscape, much less for the individual plant.
Trees and landscape plants actually ask very little of the people whose job it is to care for them. Provide a healthy growing medium in which to grow and thrive, and they will reward you with vigorous growth and very few problems. What do I mean by healthy growing medium? By healthy growing medium I mean rich soil, high in organic content, porosity, internal drainage, and containing a vibrant soil biology. Once this fundamental first step has been accomplished, then the tree or landscape plant will better withstand the countless stresses that the urban and suburban setting impose upon them, and the need to intervene with pesticides and fungicides will be virtually reduced to nil.
Therefore, my position on "organics" is that soil needs lots of organic content, not just residing on the surface in the form of a layer of mulch, or poured into the soil in the form of a tea, but incorporated into the soil to as great a depth as is practical (in another post I intend to address the exhortation on the part of the good folks at Urban Harvest not to till or otherwise disturb the soil--a philosophy I agree with, with important exceptions).
So, put another way, organic matter plays the central role in the remedial and preventive courses of action that I routinely prescribe for people's plants. But it's important to realize that by the time I or one of my arborists is called out to inspect a tree, it is usually in an advanced state of decline. The objective in stabilizing a tree that's heading South, is to arrest leaf loss and root loss by as many means at our disposal as possible. This means (dare I ustter it?) that we may have to kill some bugs.
If I have a headache, I may take an aspirin to get some immediate relief. But if I really want to stop the headache, I have to address the imbalance in my life--stress, diet, rest, exercise--of which the headache is merely a symptom. This applies to sick trees as well. Look at the typical residential or commercial property that I visit (my YouTube videos provide examples of both). You will find that not every homeowner or property manager is willing to rip up the driveway or parking lot, eliminate the turf grass from every square inch of the tree's root zone (which can extend well beyond the drip line in most cases), apply compost, install a permanent mulch bed, cut off the irrigation, and cease any and all human activity that could cause soil compaction. And even if we were to succeed in retrofitting the ailing tree with the ideal cultural correction, we'd still have damaging and defoliating pathogens, insects and mites to contend with.
On that note, I regard the practice of keeping trees permanently under-the-weather and dependent on arboriceutical intervention to be nothing more than horticultural Muchausen-by-proxy Syndrome.
This is not to say that I espouse the philosophy (held to one extent or another by anyone who believes in the existence of the State), that the end justifies the means. Quite the contrary: this is why I believe in using the least toxic, least harmful control available. And I'm not just talking about avoiding leaching into the water supply or protecting kids and pets. I want to avoid harm to beneficial insects, mites, fungi, bacteria--to wit, all the elements of a landscape's ecosystem, both above and below ground.
See, the science of pest and disease management has come a long way, as has our understanding of plant nutrition. It's been nearly 30 years since the company I work for abandoned the use of most harsh general pesticides, such as malathion, diazinon, Sevin, and Orthene. Why nuke 'em all, when nowadays you can target the pest without harming beneficials?
Now for a little calling-out of some of my brethren in the Green Industry.
I don't like being sold a bill of goods. I don't like the FDA telling me what's best for me and my family. I don't like hormones and antibiotics being sneaked into my food, and I don't like deceptive use of language. So when it comes to pest and plant disease management--as well as gardening, agriculture, diet, medicine, air, water and energy--what's most important to me is to ask whether one's practices cause unintended harm, harm to beneficial soil biology, non-pest insects and arachnids, non-pest plants, wildlife, pets, kids, people.
I have long held that the terms "organic" and "chemical" are used disingenuously by so many garden show hosts, landscape architects, professors and other trendsetters in the Green Industry. The "organic" movement has frankly gotten out of hand, having in large part piggy-backed itself onto the more fascist/authoritarian aspects of the environmental movement as a whole.
I won't insult anyone's intelligence by pointing out the dictionary definition of "organic", which is any compound that contains carbon. If we dig down to the meaning of the original Greek word, organikos, which pertains to organs of the body, we learn how the term found its way into modern parlance. Early scientists thought that anything containing carbon came from a plant or an animal. Later, scientists discovered that numerous compounds containing carbon could be synthesized, putting that old notion to rest. But the notion that all things related to agriculture and horticulture should only come from plants or animals, persists. What most Green Industry professionals mean when they use the term "organic" is "free from chemical pesticides or fertilizers", which begs the question: What is "chemical"?
Everything is chemical, in a manner of speaking. Every component of the physical world is composed of elements on the Periodic Table. The real question is whether the method you employ to solve plant problems such as nutrient deficiencies, diseases and pests, is harmful to people, pets, wildlife, or beneficial insects.
Many methods touted by radio show hosts as "organic" might better be described as "homeopathic". One example is aspartame. I have heard self-described "100% Organic" garden show hosts say that it's a great way to get rid of sugar ants in the kitchen. Well that may be--I've never tried it--but organic it surely ain't.
I'm more concerned with toxicity. I want to avail myself of the research in suppressing diseases and pests without harming non-target organisms. For instance, on any given spring day, we might find whitefly pupal casings, box elder bugs and genista caterpillars, all of which can really damage the plant. But at the same time, the plant might be covered with ladybugs, assassin bugs, and even praying mantis. The typical tree guy or landscaper will apply a general insecticide, which will upset the balance in unintended ways.
So, in summary, take radical ("radical" means pertaining to the root, by the way, and I'm using it in its most literal etymological sense, here) steps to promote healthy soil, and with time--and not as much time as conventional horticultural wisdom would have one believe--pests and diseases will become less and less of a problem in your landscape.
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.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Post Oaks All Over Houston
2010 has been a tough year for post oaks in Houston. Some have died, while others have lost all or most of their leaves. Once a post oak has defoliated in the middle of the summer, it's really difficult to stabilize the plant and keep its systems going until the following spring, when the new foliage offers an opportunity for recovery. Post oaks are notoriously sensitive trees, and how they respond to site alterations, such as home construction, turf grass installation, irrigation installation, paving and landscaping, is a flip of the coin. Let's face it, if you have a post oak on your property or under your care, you should be prepared for it to die just to spite ya. If you have a post oak, and you're worried about its health, then don't panic. There may be a few simple corrections that can help keep it stable and (more or less) healthy.
What I've been looking at this summer have been three main sets of symptom expression. One is the flash, in which the entire tree flashes paper-bag brown. Another symptom is premature defoliation, wherein the leaves begin raining down from the tree. The leaves aren't necessarily brown in this case, but they may appear scorched. The third is leaf scorch; here, the leaves appear scorched, particularly at the ends, and leaves don't necessarily rain down wholesale from the crown. I happened to visit a property with all three of the above-mentioned symptoms in the same front yard, which you may look at in the linked YouTube Video. There are numerous other symptoms that can be identified on post oak, including sticky-cottony yuck on the leaves, nipple galls, stippling, powdery mildew, and others. I do not address them here, but I'll be happy to do so--just ask!
Flashing brown has over the years been called post oak decline. Whenever you hear the word "decline", you should understand that this is a generally amorphous term used to describe a set of symptoms or pattern of mortality, the causes of which have not been determined. I use the term in a different way; generally I use it to describe a tree that is slowly dying from the tip down, and that has multiple stress agents associated with the symptoms. Whenever I go onto a site to inspect a post oak that's flashed brown, The prognosis is always the same: the tree is dead and needs to come down. Determining a cause of death is difficult, because there are usually so many factors that can be pointed to. Every conceivable way the site was altered in the last few years is a possible causal factor. Is the home less than ten years old? Was an irrigation system recently installed? Was sod put down on the root zone? Was the grade changed? Is the soil compacted? What is the internal drainage like? What is the soil's organic content? These questions are important if you have surviving post oaks that you want to preserve, but they don't really change the prognosis about the one that's flashed.
Premature defoliation can frighten a homeowner or property manager just as much as flashing brown. It usually happens some time after midsummer, and well before normal fall leaf drop. Premature defoliation has many causes, including nutritional deficiency, root loss, root stress, drought, leaf spot disease and bacterial leaf scorch. The best ways to prevent premature defoliation are to promote healthy soils with good internal drainage, aeration, soil biology and high organic content, to eliminate turf grass from the entire root zone of the tree, to take the tree off the irrigation schedule, and to apply a layer of mulch, taking care not to bury the root collar. Topical leaf spot diseases can, as mentioned, cause premature defoliation. One of the best ways reduce spore counts on a property is to rake, bag and haul off (or compost) the leaves after they have fallen. While I will apply fungicide in the springtime to reduce the incidence of leaf spot disease, I usually only prescribe this course of action when the tree is either in an emergency state, or the homeowner or property manager is unable or unwilling to improve the growing conditions.
The third symptom is leaf scorch. Here, the leaves appear damaged, but don't necessarily fall from the tree. Note that there is some overlap here, between what I described above as defoliation and leaf scorch. There's this nifty little bacterial pathogen called Xylella fastidiosa, which is transmitted to the plant by some types of sucking insect. This has only recently been found to be the cause of decline and mortality of a great number of trees and landscape plants, the cause of whose problems was previously lumped into the "decline" category. While it's great to be able to pin the cause of one symptom, it's important to remember that when we're talking about the urban/suburban landscape setting, there are many other stress factors that need to be addressed. Bottom line, if your tree's leaves look scorched, and if you notice a little yellow halo between the brown, scorched area and the green part of the leaf, then it could have bacterial leaf scorch.
There is no cure for bacterial leaf scorch, and the disease usually causes slow decline and death. The symptoms can be suppressed, however, and this is a great way to get continued enjoyment out of one's trees. Symptom suppression can also be argued to prolong the life of the tree. This is only done in the spring--usually the spring following diagnosis. The only known treatment for suppressing symptoms is application of the antibiotic oxytetracycline by trunk injection. Please note that this is one of a very few instances in which I will advocate the injection of trees. I point this out, because there are so darn many arborists out there leaping on the trunk injection bandwagon for all manner of ailments--diagnosed and undiagnosed--from micronutrient deficiency, to fungal disease to borers. Before you ever sign on to a treatment regime that includes capsules or injections, please get a second opinion from a grown-up arborist.
While I'm on the topic of post oaks and diagnosis, let me address some common diagnoses bandied about by some of the other arborists out there. The most common are anthracnose, Asian ambrosia beetle and borers (gotta get them borers!).
Anthracnose is a general term used to describe a number of different symptoms on a number of different host plants, caused by a number of different pathogens, most of them fungal. Now, with a definition like that, it's little wonder that a homeowner can be confused by his or her arborist! Anthracnose isn't really a term I associate with post oaks, but there are some symptoms--usually fungal leaf diseases, and arguably even bacterial leaf scorch--that could, I guess, be described as anthracnose. In any case, I'd be wary of anyone who wants to spray fungicide at the time of diagnosis. In keeping with what I stated above, most fungal leaf diseases infect the foliage as they emerge in early spring, although the symptoms don't show up until later in the growing season. This does not mean that I never apply fungicide any time other than in the spring: quite often, in fact, I'll see newly emergent foliage on a tree--especially live oak--and apply fungicide to protect it. But we're talking about post oaks, and for me to observe newly emergent foliage on a post oak that has any of the above symptoms would be a surprise indeed.
Asian ambrosia beetle mainly attacks fruit trees, and post oak is not currently considered to be a host plant for this pest. There is a native ambrosia beetle, by the way, but it's not interested in oaks, either.
Borers are blamed for decline, decay, cavities, etc. more than just about anything. It's so easy to look at a distressed tree and find a hole or two on the trunk. See? Look here, there's borers on the trunk. There's your problem, right there! Fact is, most wood-boring insects are simply capitalizing on exposed dead wood. It's best to think of them as a friend: their presence can be evidence of decay that you might otherwise not have known about. So, while I may treat a tree to help suppress borers, it's usually a newly transplanted tree.
In summary, the recommendations I make for post oaks are the basically the same as the recommendations I make for all shade trees, only with ten times the urgency: promote healthy soil in the entire root zone of the tree, and it will have few problems. This means, in a nutshell, good soil organic matter. High organic content in the soil means good soil biology. Good soil biology means good plant nutrition, decreased susceptibility to diseases, pests, moisture extremes and abiotic stress factors. Put a protective force field around your tree, starting at the dripline, and don't allow the soil to become compacted. You just might get years of enjoyment out of your post oaks.
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.
What I've been looking at this summer have been three main sets of symptom expression. One is the flash, in which the entire tree flashes paper-bag brown. Another symptom is premature defoliation, wherein the leaves begin raining down from the tree. The leaves aren't necessarily brown in this case, but they may appear scorched. The third is leaf scorch; here, the leaves appear scorched, particularly at the ends, and leaves don't necessarily rain down wholesale from the crown. I happened to visit a property with all three of the above-mentioned symptoms in the same front yard, which you may look at in the linked YouTube Video. There are numerous other symptoms that can be identified on post oak, including sticky-cottony yuck on the leaves, nipple galls, stippling, powdery mildew, and others. I do not address them here, but I'll be happy to do so--just ask!
Flashing brown has over the years been called post oak decline. Whenever you hear the word "decline", you should understand that this is a generally amorphous term used to describe a set of symptoms or pattern of mortality, the causes of which have not been determined. I use the term in a different way; generally I use it to describe a tree that is slowly dying from the tip down, and that has multiple stress agents associated with the symptoms. Whenever I go onto a site to inspect a post oak that's flashed brown, The prognosis is always the same: the tree is dead and needs to come down. Determining a cause of death is difficult, because there are usually so many factors that can be pointed to. Every conceivable way the site was altered in the last few years is a possible causal factor. Is the home less than ten years old? Was an irrigation system recently installed? Was sod put down on the root zone? Was the grade changed? Is the soil compacted? What is the internal drainage like? What is the soil's organic content? These questions are important if you have surviving post oaks that you want to preserve, but they don't really change the prognosis about the one that's flashed.
Premature defoliation can frighten a homeowner or property manager just as much as flashing brown. It usually happens some time after midsummer, and well before normal fall leaf drop. Premature defoliation has many causes, including nutritional deficiency, root loss, root stress, drought, leaf spot disease and bacterial leaf scorch. The best ways to prevent premature defoliation are to promote healthy soils with good internal drainage, aeration, soil biology and high organic content, to eliminate turf grass from the entire root zone of the tree, to take the tree off the irrigation schedule, and to apply a layer of mulch, taking care not to bury the root collar. Topical leaf spot diseases can, as mentioned, cause premature defoliation. One of the best ways reduce spore counts on a property is to rake, bag and haul off (or compost) the leaves after they have fallen. While I will apply fungicide in the springtime to reduce the incidence of leaf spot disease, I usually only prescribe this course of action when the tree is either in an emergency state, or the homeowner or property manager is unable or unwilling to improve the growing conditions.
The third symptom is leaf scorch. Here, the leaves appear damaged, but don't necessarily fall from the tree. Note that there is some overlap here, between what I described above as defoliation and leaf scorch. There's this nifty little bacterial pathogen called Xylella fastidiosa, which is transmitted to the plant by some types of sucking insect. This has only recently been found to be the cause of decline and mortality of a great number of trees and landscape plants, the cause of whose problems was previously lumped into the "decline" category. While it's great to be able to pin the cause of one symptom, it's important to remember that when we're talking about the urban/suburban landscape setting, there are many other stress factors that need to be addressed. Bottom line, if your tree's leaves look scorched, and if you notice a little yellow halo between the brown, scorched area and the green part of the leaf, then it could have bacterial leaf scorch.
There is no cure for bacterial leaf scorch, and the disease usually causes slow decline and death. The symptoms can be suppressed, however, and this is a great way to get continued enjoyment out of one's trees. Symptom suppression can also be argued to prolong the life of the tree. This is only done in the spring--usually the spring following diagnosis. The only known treatment for suppressing symptoms is application of the antibiotic oxytetracycline by trunk injection. Please note that this is one of a very few instances in which I will advocate the injection of trees. I point this out, because there are so darn many arborists out there leaping on the trunk injection bandwagon for all manner of ailments--diagnosed and undiagnosed--from micronutrient deficiency, to fungal disease to borers. Before you ever sign on to a treatment regime that includes capsules or injections, please get a second opinion from a grown-up arborist.
While I'm on the topic of post oaks and diagnosis, let me address some common diagnoses bandied about by some of the other arborists out there. The most common are anthracnose, Asian ambrosia beetle and borers (gotta get them borers!).
Anthracnose is a general term used to describe a number of different symptoms on a number of different host plants, caused by a number of different pathogens, most of them fungal. Now, with a definition like that, it's little wonder that a homeowner can be confused by his or her arborist! Anthracnose isn't really a term I associate with post oaks, but there are some symptoms--usually fungal leaf diseases, and arguably even bacterial leaf scorch--that could, I guess, be described as anthracnose. In any case, I'd be wary of anyone who wants to spray fungicide at the time of diagnosis. In keeping with what I stated above, most fungal leaf diseases infect the foliage as they emerge in early spring, although the symptoms don't show up until later in the growing season. This does not mean that I never apply fungicide any time other than in the spring: quite often, in fact, I'll see newly emergent foliage on a tree--especially live oak--and apply fungicide to protect it. But we're talking about post oaks, and for me to observe newly emergent foliage on a post oak that has any of the above symptoms would be a surprise indeed.
Asian ambrosia beetle mainly attacks fruit trees, and post oak is not currently considered to be a host plant for this pest. There is a native ambrosia beetle, by the way, but it's not interested in oaks, either.
Borers are blamed for decline, decay, cavities, etc. more than just about anything. It's so easy to look at a distressed tree and find a hole or two on the trunk. See? Look here, there's borers on the trunk. There's your problem, right there! Fact is, most wood-boring insects are simply capitalizing on exposed dead wood. It's best to think of them as a friend: their presence can be evidence of decay that you might otherwise not have known about. So, while I may treat a tree to help suppress borers, it's usually a newly transplanted tree.
In summary, the recommendations I make for post oaks are the basically the same as the recommendations I make for all shade trees, only with ten times the urgency: promote healthy soil in the entire root zone of the tree, and it will have few problems. This means, in a nutshell, good soil organic matter. High organic content in the soil means good soil biology. Good soil biology means good plant nutrition, decreased susceptibility to diseases, pests, moisture extremes and abiotic stress factors. Put a protective force field around your tree, starting at the dripline, and don't allow the soil to become compacted. You just might get years of enjoyment out of your post oaks.
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
Don't plant the wrong tree just to get a lower a/c bill!
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.
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.
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)