The Brazilian government is sponsoring genetic research to improve the country's coffee. Reuters reports:
After over two years of work, the world's biggest coffee grower is using the DNA map to create the world's biggest genetic data base on the plant. It contains information on the 200,000 DNA sequences, and 35,000 genes that create different aromas and caffeine levels in the beloved tropical bean.
Brazil, known for mass-market "junk" coffee, hopes to use the data to raise production of gourmet, organic and new caffeine-free beans within two years. It also plans to cut coffee prices in Brazil, the world's second-largest coffee consumer.
"We are going to create a super coffee that everyone can benefit from eventually," Brazilian Agriculture Minister Roberto Rodrigues told reporters in Brasilia.
New genetically engineered plants could double coffee production per hectare, experts said, allowing Brazil to cut production costs by 20 percent.
If the Brazilians succeed, with the European Union ban their genetically modified coffee?
Posted by Virginia Postrel on August 11, 2004 • Comments
The Chinese government is deliberately hurting private businesses. From the WaPost report:
In the evolving world of Chinese capitalism, officials from Premier Wen Jiabao down have pledged to open the way to a new crop of entrepreneurs, encouraging them to create jobs and expand the economy even as many of the old state-owned companies disintegrate, deprived of the connections to government officials and finance that have sustained them for decades.
But the shutdown of Tieben, along with the slowing of other private projects around the country, has called into question just how far China is willing to go in allowing private capital to compete with state-run enterprises, and how far its central bureaucrats are willing to step back from their traditional role of picking who succeeds economically.
As the government tries to cool an overheated economy, it is tightening credit and cracking down on the sort of corrupt financial and land trading that has been an everyday part of doing business during China's period of swift growth. But the burden of these new policies appears to be falling disproportionately on private entrepreneurs.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on August 11, 2004 • Comments
I was delighted to hear from reader James Blakey that C-Span 2 will be replaying Brian Lamb's 1999 Booknotes with me about The Future and Its Enemies. The "Encore Booknotes" presentation will air Saturday, August 14 at 7:00 pm ET and Sunday, August 15 at 11:00 am ET. (Details here.)
Given that news, I was especially sorry to read this WaPost report that C-Span is canceling Booknotes. As an author, I've had my once-per-lifetime interview, but as a viewer I enjoy Brian Lamb's unique (and long-form) interview style and the program's unusually serious selection of authors and books.
Hey, MSNBC, how about picking up this format? You need some new programming, and it's cheap, cheap, cheap.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on August 11, 2004 • Comments
This WSJ article and this USA Today piece report on separate examples of a single trend: Sharply rising raw-material costs are starting to hurt the construction and home-remodeling businesses, which have helped sustain the economy through recent tough times.
The Journal reports on rising lumber costs: "The wholesale price of low-grade boards and plywood used in home-improvement projects like decks and additions is up 24% from June of last year, according to the government's producer price index. An ordinary eight-foot-long, two-by-four, a common type of lumber used for building construction, costs $2.95 today, up from about $1.85 in January 2003."
And USA Today surveys the crippling effects of a growing shortage of cement: "A recent survey of purchasing managers found cement and concrete, which is made with cement, were in short supply in July for the third consecutive month, according to the Institute for Supply Management. And while statistics show cement this month is selling for more than $84 a ton, up nearly 2% from a year ago, anecdotal reports suggest the increase is much larger, according to the Engineering News-Record, a publication that tracks construction costs.
Buried deep in each article is a barely noticed angle. Each of these trends is exacerbated by protectionism directed at our closest neighbors: a 27 percent tariff on Canadian lumber, dating to May 2002 (thanks, Bushies), and a 40 percent tariff on Mexican cement, dating all the way back to 1990 (thanks, other Bushies). To retaliate against Canadian and Mexican producers for charging low prices, the U.S. government is imposing special taxes on construction, depressing production and reducing employment. Always bad policy, this protectionism is particularly stupid right now.
The construction industry is lobbying to have cement tariff temporarily lifted. The Mexican competition wouldn't even hurt U.S. cement makers. It would replace imports from Asia that are increasingly going to China instead.
The construction groups claim there is enough excess cement in Mexico to put a large dent in the U.S. shortage if the cement could come in unencumbered. Plus, the [National Association of Home Builders] says, the impact could be felt quickly, noting it takes only four days for cement to be imported into the USA from Mexico, less than one-tenth of the time it takes for the product to come from Asia.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on August 11, 2004 • Comments
Because of travel and questionable Internet access, blogging will be sparse this week. The next postings will be late Wednesday night.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on August 08, 2004 • Comments
A week ago, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Wayne County, which includes Detroit, cannot use eminent domain to seize 19 properties to complete a business park. A private business park, said the court, is not a "public use" under the state's cosntitution.
If this ruling sounds like a no-brainer, it wasn't. In fact, it's a very big deal, as you may know if you read various legal blogs.
The new decision,County of Wayne v. Hathcock, overturned the Michigan court's infamous Poletown decision of 1981. That decision, which has been cited by courts around the country, drastically expanded the use of eminent domain to benefit private businesses.
In its 1981 ruling, the court said that Detroit could seize and clear the entire Poletown neighborhood--hundreds of businesses, more than 1,000 homes, six churches, and a hospital--to give General Motors a site for a huge new plant. Local officials believed the deal would boost the economy, and the court said that goal was enough to let the city take the property.
Poletown popularized the idea that since the general public gains from economic growth, the government can seize private property to help out businesses. In this view, the positive spillovers from a private activity make that activity a public good.
But, of course, all economic exchange has ripple effects. If that's all you need to invoke eminent domain, nobody's property is safe.
We've all heard that "your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." As a heuristic, this metaphor is fine. But what if I bring my nose into your martial arts practice area or poke it right below where you're conducting a symphony? Do I get to stop your arm swinging then? What if I stretch the metaphor to encompass not just physical harms but intangible ones--from the nasty smell of your upraised underarm to my vague fears that your hand might, just might, crash into me?
And what about the positive effects on me? Maybe I get aesthetic pleasure from watching your lovely arm-waving, or perhaps you create air currents that keep me cool. Should I have to pay you for those positive spillovers?
In other words, a catchy slogan can't make the fundamental problems of living around other people go away. Everything people do in society has spillover effects, whether it's how we dress, how we raise our children, how we worship God, or where we decide to live. If you're clever, you can define every action as an "externality" that either imposes costs on third parties or creates beneficial ripple effects.
The expansive definition of "public" in Poletown is just the flip side of the increasingly common idea that any negative effects of private activity should be public concerns--that ugly architecture is "visual pollution," vulgar movies are "cultural pollution," and personal habits like smoking cigarettes or eating too much are a matter of "public health." Follow that logic, and pretty soon everything we do has to be either subsidized, regulated, or banned.
For more on Hathcock and Poletown, see these posts by Tim Sandefur, who co-authored one of the amicus briefs, and this link-rich page from the Institute of Justice, which also filed an amicus brief. This Detroit News page provides a historical report on the Poletown controversy.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on August 07, 2004 • Comments
This WaPost article reports a common analogy:
Activists on both sides have begun to speak of the issue as "the new abortion" -- a passionate and uncompromising struggle that will be fought in Congress, the courts and state legislatures, and through referendums for at least a decade to come.
The comparison doesn't hold in one, very important respect: Abortions are sad. Weddings are happy. Having an abortion--or having a friend or relative who has one--may make you more supportive of abortion rights, but it won't make you celebrate the idea. Abortion won't make you smile.
People support abortion rights out of fear. They support gay marriage out of love. There are, of course, non-emotional arguments on both sides of both issues, but the fundamental feelings are different. That changes the politics, particularly with time and experience.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on August 03, 2004 • Comments
I've finally got some more details on the when and were of my speech on "The Substance of Style" this Thursday evening at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena. Here's the official notice:
Toyota Motor Corporation Endowed Lecture Series at Art Center
Virginia Postrel
Thursday August 5th, 2004
7:30 p.m.
L.A. Times Media Center (auditorium)
Art Center College of Design
1700 Lida Street
Pasadena, CA 91103
Here's the Yahoo map. Admission is free.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on August 03, 2004 • Comments
In light of this week's terror warnings, this terrific new column by Jonathan Rauch is especially timely:
The 51st-floor corner office of Stuart Z. Goldstein offers a panoramic view of the New York City financial district, with the World Trade Center site smack in the middle. Goldstein was in London on September 11, 2001, but his colleagues gathered in his office to watch as many of their customers died. On the bookshelf by the door, Goldstein now keeps a binder with a blazing red cover. "Emergency Response Plan Reference Material," the cover says.
Only a few weeks ago, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., of which Goldstein is communications director, held an evacuation drill, with staff emptying the building and then reassembling at designated sites around the city. Employees, Goldstein says, need to know they can handle the walk down 51 flights of stairs.
America has changed since September 11. You don't always see the change, but it is there, nowhere more pervasively and importantly than at DTCC. DTCC? Chances are you've never heard of it. With luck, you will never need to.
If the economy were a house, DTCC would be the plumbing. It clears and settles the millions of stocks, government and private bonds, mortgage-backed securities, mutual fund shares, and other securities that are traded in the American financial markets. The markets, remember, trade only promises to buy and sell. After the trade, money and securities need to change hands. Only if the books close every night can buyers and sellers know their positions and resume trading the next morning. ...
If a major bank, a brokerage, or even an exchange were to go down, others could step in. "If we went out," says Jill M. Considine, the chairman and CEO of DTCC, "there would be no other, and the books and records of who owns what would be gone." As of September 10, 2001, the settlement system operated according to the adage of Pudd'nhead Wilson: "Put all your eggs in the one basket and -- WATCH THAT BASKET."
Things work differently today. Read how.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on August 03, 2004 • Comments
I agree with Roger Simon that there's something particularly disconcerting about the coordinated attacks on Iraqi churches. Fayrouz Hancock, an Iraqi Christian living in Dallas, posts her reaction, with relevant links.
For the big picture, be sure to read Larry Wright's feature in the current New Yorker. Always the careful reporter, he looks at what the Madric attacks show about al Quaeda's evolving strategy and tactics and what they say about Spain's place in Islamicist dreams. The conclusion:
One of the most sobering pieces of information to come out of the investigation of the March 11th bombings is that the planning for the attacks may have begun nearly a year before 9/11. In October, 2000, several of the suspects met in Istanbul with Amer Azizi, who had taken the nom de guerre Othman Al Andalusi—Othman of Al Andalus. Azizi later gave the conspirators permission to act in the name of Al Qaeda, although it is unclear whether he authorized money or other assistance—or, indeed, whether Al Qaeda had much support to offer. In June, Italian police released a surveillance tape of one of the alleged planners of the train bombings, an Egyptian housepainter named Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed, who said that the operation "took me two and a half years." Ahmed had served as an explosives expert in the Egyptian Army. It appears that some kind of attack would have happened even if Spain had not joined the Coalition—or if the invasion of Iraq had never occurred.
"The real problem of Spain for Al Qaeda is that we are a neighbor of Arab countries—Morocco and Algeria—and we are a model of economy, democracy, and secularism," Florentino Portero, a political analyst at the Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos, in Madrid, told me. "We support the transformation and Westernization of the Middle East. We defend the transition of Morocco from a monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. We are allies of the enemies of Al Qaeda in the Arab world. This point is not clearly understood by the Spanish people. We are a menace to Al Qaeda just because of who we are."
The link to the article is only temporary, so read it now (or by the magazine on the newsstand).
Posted by Virginia Postrel on August 01, 2004 • Comments