AntiRust

Fair Trade Coffee: A Pittsburgh Connection

"Fair trade" coffee seems like a great idea. From a lot of perspectives. In fact, it's the kind of thing that even some libertarians love, seeing that it provides a social good without any kind of government intervention. For the uninitiated, it involves customers paying more for coffee, provided that the extra cash goes directly to the farmers, most of whom are impoverished third-world types. For more details, check out this profile of Ugandan Gold coffee in the Pittsburgh City Paper.

It took about four years to turn the first crop; today there are 16,000 trees planted on the site. Ugandan Gold has also sought to rise above the corruption that dominates the area.

And it's not just Pittsburgh. Check out this recent article about fair-trade coffee in the New York Times.

But I wonder. The way I understand it, the major problem with world coffee prices is over-production. And a lot of that has to do with misguided government policies in these third-world nations. Bureaucrats wanted subsistence farmers to switch to a cash crop. Coffee was a good one. Until people kept growing more of it. And suddenly, despite booming demand, there was a glut. Prices? Toilet.

So how do you deal with a glut? The "natural" way is to let marginal producers fall out of the market. And as supply falls, prices rise. But doesn't fair trade coffee do the opposite? It provides a price floor. But only for a well-connected few. The farmers from Ugandan Gold get $5 per pound. But what's that do to the farmers working the next farm over?

From what I can tell from the City paper article, it seems like Ugandan Gold is actually a NEW FARM adding NEW PRODUCTION to the market. In essence, isn't that making the overall problem worse?

(Update: I am clearly not the first person to ask such questions.)

This doesn't make fair-trade a bad idea in general. I think it's definitely worth a look. Still, unintended consequences can be a bitch.

Update 2: Here's a general response to the overproduction question from some fair trade folks. It amounts to, "Well, it's better than your idea." Fair enough, I guess. But not necessarily convincing.

Update 3: Here's an even more interesting response from Ben & Jerry's:

Evidence shows that Fair Trade farmers use their additional income from Fair Trade to improve their homes, send their children to school, and improve the quality of their existing crop, rather than to increase production. Farmer co-ops also invest Fair Trade premiums in crop diversification in order to escape from their dependence on coffee as their primary source of income.

That sounds nice. But it also runs counter to a fundamental rule of economics: When prices rise, so does supply.

Either way, check it out. The people are trying to do something good. So maybe there is a way to work it out.

Manufacturing and Manliness: I'll Take My Stand. Again.

I generally like to consider myself a proponent of "substance" over "style." It seems more... what... manly? This pretense--along with nostalgia, personal experience and a host of other biases--mixes economics and aesthetics in strange ways. One result is a personal preference for "manufacturing."

I am infatuated with people and communities that "make stuff." Particularly big stuff. Turbines. Steel. Cars. Refrigerators. Ore of any kind. And I have a related skepticism about more esoteric pursuits such as tourism, healthcare and academics. Again, I attribute a lot of this to nostalgia. (My family is almost entirely blue collar. I am a writer. Go figure.) Either way, my predilections lead me to be very skeptical of plans to "revitalize" places like Pittsburgh by attracting yuppies. We have replaced smokestack chasing with something even stranger.

Or have we? In the interests of equal time, I present to you this article, which details the folly of using subsidies to support manufacturing. The argument is nothing new in terms of economics. What strikes me as interesting is that it focuses on the one region that seems particularly convinced that these subsidies work: the American South. Talk about a place infatuated with "manly." So much for "I'll Take My Stand."

On the other hand, if you are familiar with "I'll Take My Stand," you'll recognize it as the work of a bunch of writers who were painfully, romantically nostalgic for the work that they thought their granddaddies had done. Whether any of it was true or not. Yep. They thought farm life was far more manly and independent and rewarding than... manufacturing.

Weird.

Arena Politics: Thus Spaketh the Pierogie

The Pittsburgh City Paper's candidate for mayor is a talking Pierogie. And to me, he (she?) seems like the best candidate in the race. So put me down for a write-in. Still, I think the candidate's recent musings on the arena are worth discussion:

When Los Angeles built the Staples Center arena, residents demanded -- and got -- a host of benefits. These included more than a million dollars for parks, set-asides for affordable housing, local hiring and job-training guarantees ... even a residential permit-parking permit. Cities across the country are following suit, using tax-subsidized developments as leverage to address longstanding needs.

OK. But doesn't this seem like a really circuitous way to get government funding? That is, the government gives the team owners millions to build an arena. Then the community puts pressure on the owners to provide social services. Because the government is broke. Because it is busy building arenas.

How about the owners build the arena on their own, leaving the government more money to provide social services? I know. The argument is that politicians prefer the "Big Bang" project. The ribbon cutting. Better PR, and all that.

But you watch and see. The Pens will give SOMETHING to the Hill District. And we'll be awash in media coverage about it. God bless Ron Burkle and his generous ways! Etc. So why don't we just have Ron do his own ribbon cutting, and let the politicians sing the praises of social services? Instead, we get this ridiculous shell game and all the associated corruption.

I can see Pierogie's point. We are giving Burkle millions upon millions of dollars. So someone ought to soak him for something. But doesn't this all seem a little... backwards? (I was struggling for an effective pierogie metaphor, but failed.) 

The Post-Gazette on Gun Control: Predictably Loathesome

So it took the Post-Gazette two full days to write a loathesome, opportunistic editorial about gun control. loathesome? Not my words:

However, [Virginia Governor Tim] Kaine said he wasn't interested in arguments about gun control.

"People who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them," Kaine said at a Tuesday evening news conference.

"To those who want to try to make this into some little crusade, I say: Take that elsewhere. Let this community deal with grieving individuals and be sensitive to those needs."

This is so predictable and stale. As every single meta-analysis of the event has pointed out, the tragedy at Virginia Tech appears to be doing exactly what these sorts of things always do: Solidify peoples' positions. If you thought gun control was a good idea three days ago, you really think so no. And if you thought it was a bad idea three days ago, you think it is a really bad idea now. That is, people are using the event to make a political point.

Which is really not cool. And why most people ought to just shut their damn mouths until I don't know, the funerals are over. It's disgusting when the NRA and Michelle Malkin do it. And it's disgusting when the Post-Gazette does it.

Jesus. Could you give it a week?

Houses Versus Apartments: Is This Why People Love Suburbs?

Why is it so hard to get people to move downtown? After all, downtown in convenient. Fun. Vitality, and all that. The theater! Coffee shops! Universities!

Do people resist because there are too many roads that make suburban living too easy? Because of too many cars? Because of racism and white flight?

Maybe.

Or maybe people just like living in houses. From an article in Slate:

Even in countries such as France, Germany, and Russia, where many people still live in apartments, the number of single-family houses is growing. "Polls consistently confirm that most Europeans, like most Americans, and indeed most people worldwide, would prefer to live in single-family houses on their own piece of land rather than in apartment buildings," writes University of Illinois professor Robert Bruegmann. It is the global nature of this desire, as much as the Anglo-Dutch tradition, that explains the popularity of single-family housing in the United States. Fast food, Hollywood movies, and American professional sports are a matter of taste, but most immigrants don't have to be sold on the idea of the individual house. It's a universal preference.

A universal preference. Hmmm... I suspect this will raise a few hackles.

Eco-Pittsburgh: Should Western Pennsylvania Be Like Vermont?

I am a day late getting to this... but who saw the op-ed in the Post-Gazette about making western Pennsylvania more eco-centric, and using Vermont as a model? Mike Madison saw it and thought it quite good. I agree that it was quite interesting and well-written. But I have two quibbles and one larger point. Quibble number one comes in response to this claim about the Allegheny National Forest:

Drive two hours to the north and you've entered the primal woods of Allegheny National Forest, a virginal kingdom of cliffs, canyons, reservoirs and mountain hikes.

If granola-centric nature enthusiasts are looking for the "last, best places on earth," they had best look elsewhere. Because the Allegheny more closely approximates one of the "first-worst." That is, from the 1880s to the 1920s, it was hit heavier and harder than almost any forest in the history of mankind. Today, it is home to one of the most lucrative stands of hardwood in the world--not to mention more oil and gas wells than all the other national forests combined. In short, it is an industrialized forest. Maybe that ought to change. But for better or worse, the Allegheny is about as "virginal" as Traci Lords. And about 80 percent less "primal."

Then there was this quibble:

Picture it: Youth hostels in the South Side and East Liberty. Rows of bike shops and gear suppliers in Oakland and Shadyside. Day-spas atop Mt. Washington. Kayak rentals up and down the Allegheny River. More micro-breweries popping up in Bloomfield and the North Side.

This is where, for me, things start veering away from "environmentalism" and towards some kind of different aesthetic judgment. What do "micro-breweries" have to do with eco-anything? It sounds a lot like the snooty cosmopolitan sensibility that many hillbillies (like me) fear from "outsiders." It's not just that we are raping the land. We're stupid rednecks who don't even know enough to hate Budweiser. Now, I am aware of the fact that many, many people are overly touchy about such things. But take a look at another section of the op-ed:

Few people realize that Vermont was once similar to Pittsburgh: Outsiders perceived it as a rustic backwater. The people sounded ignorant and the mountains had been deforested by loggers.

Well, thank goodness they don't "sound ignorant" anymore. Was it their accent that made them sound ignorant? Their political ideas? Or was it hard to hear them at all, given all the incest noise that must have been echoing across hill and dale? Either way, I guess us Pittsburghers ought to get to work on not sounding like that anymore.

Look, I don't know the guy who wrote this. And like I said, there appear to be a lot of good ideas here. But good gracious. A LITTLE discretion might be a good thing.

But last, my major point. The writer talks about "transforming" the way this region imagines itself, and uses Vermont to show how that can happen. But how did that happen? Did all those granite workers up there just wake up one day and start hiking, biking and voting for gay marriage? Uh... no. That's not what happened. In fact, there has been a huge amount of speculation about a concerted take-over of Vermont. By hippies. I am not kidding. Way back in 1972, for instance, Playboy ran a fascinating piece called "Taking Over Vermont."

That is, those old-school granite workers did not just decide to become hippies, or otherwise commune with nature. What happened was, a whole bunch of people already predisposed to commune with nature moved to Vermont. And started voting. Whether it was a conspiracy orchestrated by some forward thinking left-wingers, or it just happened organically (heh!), it happened.   

Is that going to happen here? Would that be a good thing?

In the meantime, keep in mind that Vermont almost suffered the same fate again. A group of ambitious libertarians have formed something called the Free State Project. A few thousand of them are planning to move to one location en masse. They wanted to pick a state with a small population so they can immediately impact elections. Vermont was on the short list. But they chose New Hampshire.

Damn. Maybe we should have recruited them to Pittsburgh.

Either way, yes, fine. People ought to ride bikes if they like to ride bikes. And drink $6 micro-brews if that's what they like. But I think it is tough to imagine people who don't like such things suddenly changing their minds.

Abating the Abatements: Too Much of a Good Thing?

Pittsburgh is currently toying with the idea using tax abatements to spur residential development in certain city neighborhoods. Cleveland has been trying its own version of that strategy for a few years now. Many folks have thought it a grand success. But now Cleveland's mayor wants to scale back the abatements.

The editors at the Cleveland Plain Dealer are none too pleased.

Lower the Drinking Age. Please.

There seems to be growing momentum for the idea of lowering the drinking age. Or even eliminating it.

Yes. Let's do that. This brief article offers a useful primer on the history of the issue, and a bit of musing on why it's a good idea.

Let's Talk Sprawl

Jonathan Potts leads the discussion.

Well done.

In Your Street-Face: Proof that Revitalization Won't Work?

The Post-Gazette is offering news about public support for buildings located next to the new hockey arena site. And it strikes me as odd:

Having a new $290 million arena for a neighbor could mean public money for face lifts for several Uptown buildings.

The city's Urban Redevelopment Authority board is expected to vote today on a proposal to designate buildings along a section of Fifth Avenue, opposite the site of the new arena, as eligible for funding for facade improvements under the URA's popular Streetface program.

I just don't get it. Like every other government-supported mega-project, the arena is supposed to be "good for the city." It's supposed to bring "revitalization" and "buzz" that will draw people and money downtown. Or Uptown, or whatever it is they are calling it.

But this new facade program would seem to counter that, no? If people and developers are really buzzing about the new arena and clamoring to be next to it, why do taxpayers need to PAY for people to fix up their buildings? We are already paying. For the arena. And the buzz and revitalization is supposed to be connected to that investment. An integral part of it. But now we are learning that buildings DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET from our favorite new revitalization project need help. To be revitalized.

Look. Let's say your husband told you he wanted go to a Guitar School, which promised to make him a rich and famous rock star. And inexplicably you agreed to invest the money in that program because you thought it would be good for your family's finances. Rock stars live pretty well, after all. Wouldn't you become a little suspicious if, on the first day of classes, his adviser told him he also probably ought to enroll in a few paralegal classes at the local community college? Wouldn't that call into question the promises about the rock star life?

A tortured analogy, sure. But it seems pretty clear that this is going to keep happening. We were promised that the arena would do this and that and the other thing. But we are already hearing that now, if we want "this," we'll have to pay for it.

Again.

If the arena can't revitalize buildings directly across the street from it, what CAN it do in terms of redevelopment?

And if extra public money is going to be required to make that promised revitalization happen, shouldn't that be included in the overal cost of the arena project? That is, shouldn't this count towards the calculation of cost overruns? It is a public expense incurred as a direct result of the arena project.