text:
Reports » USDA GAIN: Oilseeds, Cotton, Sugar, Grain and Feed » USDA GAIN: Canada Grain and Feed Update - February 2013
USDA GAIN: Canada Grain and Feed Update - February 2013
The grain and feed sector in Canada has been experiencing ongoing changes, including reforms to the way that Western Canadian wheat and barley producers contract their grain, and subsequent changes to infrastructure, services and transportation. The open market for western Canadian wheat and barley began August 1, 2012, with the implantation of the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act.
Wheat:
MY 2012/2013 saw an increase in wheat production of 8% over MY 2011/2012 production, driven by increased wheat acreage. Production was up 10% over the five-year average of 24,736 TMT.
There is much speculation on how recent regulatory and structural changes to the Canadian Wheat Board -- which has recently remarketed itself as simply "CWB" -- will affect planting decisions for wheat in the 2013 production year. Prior to the August 1, 2012 enactment date, the CWB had held the exclusive right to purchase and sell western wheat and barley for domestic food use or export. With the end of the legal monopoly, the CWB will operate as a purely voluntary option; growers who wish to market their products through it may still do so.
It may be premature to attribute any market fluctuations as reflective of a trend in the new open market environment due to several factors. When farmers made their planting decisions for the 2013 production year, CWB changes were in effect for only several months. Additionally, there are a number of logistical factors (transportation, infrastructure, and services) that have yet to be ironed-out. Some of the changes are directly related to the loss of the CWB's monopoly, while other changes have more to do with industry adjustment to the new grain marketing environment. The latter includes, for example, some of the changes that have been made to services once provided by the Canadian Grain Commission. These factors will have an impact on the market environment, but this impact won't be quantifiable until infrastructure is finalized and the market has fully adjusted. In many respects the market is currently operating like "business as usual." Drought conditions in the United States have also contributed to the atypical nature of the current market environment. Post forecasts that 10-20% of crops will be seen by the CWB in MY 2012/2013, and that 20-25% of farmers will continue to use CWB pools.
In production year 2013 (MY 2013/2014), wheat plantings are expected to increase from a year ago. A Reuters poll of 15 analysts shows that spring wheat planting is expected to go up 4%. Other analysts have predicted that planting could go up 5-10%. Statistics Canada will come out in late April with their planting intention estimates. Attractive prices are expected to lure producers to wheat, perhaps at the expense of canola, a crop that disappointed in yield in the last production year. In the 2013 production year we expect to see a diversion from the longer term trend where wheat acreage follows upon canola planting decisions. In recent years, wheat has been rotated with canola approximately every two to three years, or as often as producers feel that they can push the limits.
Currently, the price spread between high protein and feed wheat is tight. If any premium on high protein wheat arises, it may not occur until the summer, too late for producers to change their planting decisions. Livestock herds are being rebuilt, which will put upward pressure on demand for feed going forward.
Wheat imports in MY 2012/2013 are forecast to decrease by 19% to 400 TMT. Regulatory changes to the CWB are not anticipated to result in an increase in wheat imports in MY 2012/2013. Although the Canadian Government eliminated the CWB's function as the sole buyer and marketer of wheat, durum and barley produced in Western Canada, there are still varietal registration requirements. These requirements, administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) under the Seeds Act and Regulations, tied to the Canadian grading system operated by the Canadian Grain Commission (GCC) under the Canada Grains Act, impact the free flow of imports.
Wheat exports in MY 2012/2013 are forecast to reach 18,500 TMT, a 7% increase over MY 2011/2012 estimated levels and above the five-year average of 18,000 TMT. An increase in supply resulting from an increase in production, positions Canadian exports to meet growing demand and production deficiencies in North Africa and the EU.
Domestic Consumption
Post forecasts domestic consumption of wheat in MY 2012/2013 at 8,662 TMT, which represents a decrease of 11% from the domestic consumption levels in MY 2011/2012. Wheat for feed use is forecast to fall 24% to 3,700 TMT from year MY 2011/2012 estimated levels. Wheat for food, seed, and industrial use is forecast at 5,150 TMT in MY 2012/2013, similar to year MY 2011/2012 levels. No increase in wheat for biofuel usage is expected at this time as there are no new wheat-feedstock biofuel plants scheduled to go on-line in MY 2012/2013.
Stocks and Supply
Stocks in MY 2012/2013 are forecast to increase 4% as production will not be high enough to offset exports and domestic feed consumption.
Barley:
Supply is expected to be down about 2% in MY 2012/2013 as stocks remained low going into the year and production increased by only 1.5%, well below the five-year average of 9,700 TMT. Weather and depressed prices limited barley production in recent years.
Post projects that Canadian barley planting in production year 2013 (MY 2013/2014) will remain unchanged from a year ago. The trend of planting wheat, oilseeds and pulses at the expense of barley is expected to continue. Downward pressure on barley planting may be offset by expectations of a new price dynamic, following the integration of the North American feed grain market.
Changes to the CWB may result in changes to the types of barley that Canadian producers plant as Canadian maltsters will be able to have more direct relationships with the Western Canadian barley producers. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in artisanal beer production in Canada. Along with the "Buy Local" movement, has been a movement for the artisanal breweries to source their hops locally.
Demand for barley imports has been relatively small and stable over time. Barley imports are forecast to reach 25 TMT in MY 2012/2013. Generally, nearly all barley imported into Canada comes from the United States.
Low supplies resulting from low production has limited barley exports in recent years and kept barley exports well below the five-year average of 1,655 TMT. Post forecasts exports in MY 2012/2013 to remain close to flat. Despite the increase in production in MY 2012/2013, barley exports remain limited by low supplies.
Domestic consumption has been limited by supply in recent years. Total domestic consumption for barley in 2012/2013 is forecast to increase only slightly above year MY 2011/2012 levels of 6,903 TMT, remaining below the five year average of 8,225 TMT. Nearly 85% of the domestic usage of barley is for feed purposes. Domestic consumption for feed use in MY 2012/2013 is forecast to edge up only slightly over MY 2011/2012 levels of 5,697 TMT. Barley for food, seed, and industrial use is forecast to remain near MY 2011/2012 levels of 1,206 TMT.
Supply and Stocks
Lower supplies in recent years caused by low production levels and steady domestic demand resulted in extremely low carry-out stocks for MY 2012/2013, about 20% lower than beginning stocks of 1,247 TMT.
Corn:
Corn production in MY 2012/2013 increased 15% over the previous marketing year to 13,060 TMT.
Biotech corn plantings have been steadily increasing, and biotech corn currently accounts for 71% of all corn planted in Canada. Traditionally, Quebec and Ontario are the primary corn-growing regions, accounting for 86% of total Canadian corn acreage. The adoption of biotech varieties in 2012 totaled 335,000 hectares for Quebec and 755,000 hectares for Ontario. Quebec has 74% of their total crop as biotech, up from 47% in 2007. In Ontario in 2012, about 75% of total corn planted was biotech, up from 41% in 2007. In 2012, Post started including Manitoba in the calculation of the estimate for the total biotech corn seeded in Canada, given the upward recent trend in corn seeding intentions in the province (a 67% increase in overall corn acreage in 2012 compared to 2011). The main biotech crops in Canada remain canola, corn and soybeans, with small amounts of sugar beets added recently. More information is available in Post's Agricultural Biotechnology Annual (2012) report: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/RecentGAINPublications/Agricultural
BiotechnologyAnnual_Ottawa_Canada_07-20-2012.pdf
Corn imports are expected to fall somewhat in MY 2012/2013, down from an already low 2011/2012 level of 872 TMT. This decrease is in part due to high domestic supply due to increased production in Canada. The five-year corn import average (2005/2006 to 2009/2010) is approximately 2,236 TMT. MY 2011/2012 corn imports were 872 TMT, well below historical trends. Nearly all corn imports come into Canada from the United States.
MY 2012/2013 exports are forecast to increase about 185% over MY 2011/2012 levels of 493 TMT. The expected increase is driven by higher demand in the United States coupled with increased production in Canada. Exports in MY 2012/2011 fell after historical high corn exports in MY 2010/2011 of 1,709 TMT. The MY 2010/2011 jump in exports was due to high domestic supplies resulting from a bumper corn crop, as well as strong demand from the United States. The five-year average for corn exports (2005/2006 to 2009/2010) is 396 TMT.
Domestic consumption has remained relatively steady, although there has been an increasing usage of corn for industrial purposes due to the use of corn as a feedstock for biofuel production. This trend is forecast to continue in MY 2012/2013 as domestic consumption is forecast to increase about 3% to 12,000 TMT.
Corn ending stocks in MY 2012/2013 are forecast to increase due to increased production.
Oats:
Oat planting pulled back, and area harvested to fell from 1,084 TMT in MY 2011/2012 to 956 TMT in MY 2012/2013. Production fell 15% from MY 2011/2012 levels to 2,684 TMT, well below the five-year average of 3,802 TMT.
In production year 2013, oat plantings rates are expected to remain flat or go down slightly. Oats continue to be priced as a feed grain and net returns continue to be lower than wheat, corn and barley. Oat supplies are expected to continue to tighten.
Imports are expected to rebound to 20 TMT in MY 2012/2013, above the five-year average of 18 TMT. Generally, nearly all oats imports into Canada are from the United States.
Oats exports in 2012/2013 are forecast to remain nearly flat due to sufficient supplies, supported by increased beginning stocks, to meet sustained demand from the United States. Exports for MY 2012/2013 are forecast at 1,700 TMT and remain below the five-year average of 1,827 TMT, but above the MY 2010/2011 export levels that resulted in part from wet planting conditions and low supplies which limited exports. Oat exports in 2010/2011 were 1,375 TMT.
Reduced domestic demand, in part due to large amount of feed wheat available coupled with low supplies of oats, has resulted in domestic consumption falling in recent years and remaining well below the five-year average of 1,902 TMT. In MY 2011/2012, total consumption hit a six-year low of 1,374 TMT. MY 2012/2013 is expected to show a continuation of the downward trend, with domestic consumption forecasted to fall about 7%.
Lower than average stock levels combined with low production levels in the last three years have limited oats exports and domestic consumption usage. Carry-out stocks in 2012/2013 are forecast to decrease as a forecasted decrease in production will not be offset by carry-in stocks. Stocks in MY 2012/1013 are expected to fall to 600 TMT.
The Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act:
The December 15, 2011 decision by Canadian legislators to pass into law the divisive Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act transitioned the CWB from a state trading enterprise into a commercial enterprise over a period of five years. As previously stated, prior to the August 1, 2012 enactment date, the CWB had held the exclusive right to purchase and sell western wheat and barley for domestic food use or export for the last 68 years. With the end of the legal monopoly, the CWB will operate as a purely voluntary option; growers who wish to market their products through it may still do so. Under the new framework, if the CWB fails to become a viable commercial entity within five years, the CWB will be dissolved. For more information on the CWB, visit: http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/.
Structural Changes to the CWB:
The legislation consists of five parts which introduce legislative changes in stages. A detailed description of this legislation is available in a previous GAIN report, located at the following URL address: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Bill%20C-
18%20%20The%20Marketing%20Freedom%20for%20Grain%20
Farmers%20Act_Ottawa_Canada_11-03-2011.pdf
During the period of transition, the CWB continues to retain government guarantees of its borrowing and other financing by the Canadian government. In addition, Canadian producers who contracted with the CWB will continue to receive government approved and guaranteed initial payments early in the crop year (to help with operating expenses) and will receive subsequent payments based on the crop that the CWB is able to sell on world markets. If the CWB fails to make sales to cover the initial payments, the government will cover the cost. The Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act ends the government guarantees/backing of the CWB's borrowing, as well as the government-backed initial payments after a period of five years.
Commercial Practices:
Under The Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, Canadian grain farmers are now free to sell their grain through any entity they choose. The CWB is continuing to operate as a marketing option. In August, The CWB announced that it completed agreements with all Prairie grain handlers and that farmers can now deliver CWB wheat to any elevator in the West. Among the companies who signed agreements with the CWB are three of the largest grain handlers in the country: Richardson International Ltd, Viterra Inc, and Cargill Ltd. The CWB's agreements also extend to farmer-owned independent grain terminals. Farmers can also choose to deal directly with any of these entities. One of the factors driving farmers to continue to deal with the CWB is the desire for security provided by the pool. There have been some barriers to a smooth transition, including court challenges and reports of elevators refusing to accept CWB grains, citing a number of different reasons – no room in the elevator, easier to handle non-CWB grain, no basis available, no rail cars, etc. A positive market environment will increase the willingness of producers to switch from entering CWB pools to contracting with grain companies. Generally, pools are more attractive in a falling market. Post has heard varying predictions of the quantity of grain that will be handled through the CWB. Another factor affecting these predictions is whether one analyzes the amount of grain handled by the CWB or the number of farmers who sell through the CWB. Post forecasts that 10-20% of crops will be seen by the CWB in MY 2012/2013, and that 20-25% of farmers will continue to use CWB pools.
Recently, the CWB initiated marketing of canola, creating pools that they argue meets a demand that always existed among small farmers who lacked confidence and/or sufficient quantities to market their own crop. Time will tell if the canola pools actually succeed, but with the high canola price this year and record crop, it is an ideal year to start. The CWB also suggested that it will announce a marketing program to include pulse crops in the future. It will require significant capital to purchase assets like grain handling facilities and to make CWB viable when it goes private in a few years.
Additionally, several strategic purchase agreements have been made by Canadian grain companies since the initial December 15, 2011 decision. On June 21, 2012, grain handler Viterra Inc. and the CWB announced a commercial agreement, whereby Viterra accepts deliveries of grain that farmers commit to CWB contracts at all Viterra locations across western Canada. The agreement also includes port handling services. Subsequently, Glencore International Plc won a bid to take over Viterra for C$6.1 billion. Glencore's takeover won the approval of Canada's Competition Bureau, and on December 7, 2012 it received a nod of approval from the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM"). This was the final outstanding regulatory approval of Glencore's acquisition of Viterra pursuant to a court approved plan of arrangement. On December 17, 2012, Glencore announced that it has completed the acquisition of Viterra and made key management appointments. Glencore had agreed to sell C$2.6 billion in assets to Agrium Inc (a Canadian company with a U.S. subsidiary) and Richardson International Ltd (a privately-owned Canadian company). CF Industries Holdings, Inc (an American fertilizer giant) entered an agreement with Glencore to buy a minority 34% interest in a nitrogen facility in Medicine Hat, Alberta, for C$911 million. CF Industries was nominated by Agrium as the buyer of the facility under the support and purchase agreement between Glencore and Agrium. CF Industries is the second largest nitrogen fertilizer producer in the world.
Since the dissolution of the CWB monopoly, millers in Japan have expressed concerns about grain quality, which is largely driven by negative experiences after the dissolution of the Australian wheat board's monopoly. In response to the concerns, the CGC offered their assurance that the Canadian experience will be different. Unlike in Canada, in Australia the marketing board not only marketed the wheat, but it also acted as the quality control agency and looked after varietal registration issues. In Canada, The Canadian Grain Commission deals with these issues, and their ability to control quality won't be impaired. Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries agreed to take 50% of CWB offering and 50% from other Canadian companies, and do their own quality and protein level comparisons.
Not only do recent reforms change the way that Western Canadian wheat and barley producers contract their grain, but there have also been changes to infrastructure, services, and transportation services that were previously handled by the CWB.
Revision of the Canada Grain Act: Inward Weighing
On October 18, 2012, legislation was tabled by the House of Commons, within the federal government's omnibus budget bill, Bill C-45, to make changes to the Canada Grain Act. One of the changes included in this bill, is the removal of the mandatory requirement for the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) to conduct inward weighing and inspection. Since the dissolution of the CWB's monopoly, some of the CGC's inspection services have become redundant; Prairie grain elevators are often shipping grain to a terminal or transfer elevator owned by the same company. Where this is not the case, a shipper or an elevator can request an inspection, to be handled by a service provider authorized by the CGC. The federal government says that this amendment will eliminate about C$20 million annually in costs from the grain-handling system. The CGC will retain responsibility for outward inspection of vessel cargo.
Revision of the Canada Grain Act: CGC Insurance-Based Producer Payments
Another important change tabled in Bill C-45 is a movement towards an insurance-based producer payment security program and away from the single option of bonding, which is currently found in the Canada Grain Act. The bonding option is considered to be costly and to provide only weak coverage.
CGC: User Fee Changes
On November 1, 2012, the Canadian Grain Commission released its User Fees Consultation and Pre-proposal Notification document, which outlined proposed individual fees, service standards and performance measures. Stakeholders had until November 30, 2012 to provide written submissions regarding the document. The Canadian Grain Commission is proposing to implement a new fee schedule for August 1, 2013, the start of the new crop year.
CGC: Changes to Other Services and Cost Recovery
New, higher user fees are expected to form the basis of a cost recovery structure that will maintain the Canadian Grain Commission's role in grain quality, quantity and safety assurance, producer protection and the integrity of grain transactions. The CGC plans to move to 91% cost recovery instead of the current 50-50 split between government and industry.
The Canada Grain Commission is continuing its exercise of determining which services should be mandatory and which should be voluntary.
Support for Port of Churchill
Manitoba's Port of Churchill, on Hudson Bay, part of the Arctic Ocean, is also being affected by the new grain marketing environment. Prior to passage of The Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, the CWB had been the primary shipper (90 to 95% of total grain volumes each year) through the Port of Churchill. Concerns have arisen whether the port can remain economically viable, especially since its operating season is limited due to weather. In reaction to this concern, in April 2012 the federal government announced the Churchill Port Utilization Program (CPUP), which includes a subsidy for grain handlers for shipping grain through the port. In 2012, the subsidy was valued at about C$9 per ton. The subsidy is available to legal entities on a first-come-first-serve basis, and to a maximum total of C$5 million. CPUP is a five-year program.
As of publication date, three companies have been awarded the subsidy, Richardson International, Nearco Transportation Consulting, and the CWB. Richardson loaded its first wheat vessel out of the Port of Churchill on August 25, 2012. The vessel set out for Colombia with 27,500 MT of No. 2 Canadian Western Spring Wheat originating from Richardson Pioneer elevators in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. As part of the CPUP, Richardson has thus far been awarded two grants valued at C$2,346,750.00 and C$355,689.00, Nearco Transportation Consulting has been awarded a grant of C$225,000.00, and the CWB has been awarded two grants for C$102,060.00 and C$1,470,501.00. The CPUP is now closed for the 2012 shipping season. The "economic incentive rate" for 2013 will be published in spring 2013.
In 2012, use of the port was down from a historic average. During the 2011/2012 shipping season (late July to November), 416,930 tons of grain went through Churchill, compared to the five-year average of 513,050 tons.
Receipt of Canadian Grain at Ports from August to November of Each Marketing Year
Source: Canadian Grain Commission; Graphic: USDA/FAS Ottawa
Whether grain will continue to flow through the Port without the push of a subsidy remains to be seen.
CPUP is part of a comprehensive package of government initiatives to support economic development in Churchill that, in addition to the subsidy, includes:
providing up to C$4.1 million over three years through Transport Canada for Port maintenance;
extending the project completion date from 2013 to 2015 for infrastructure improvements funded through Western Economic Diversification Canada; and
exploring options for the development of the community of Churchill.
Rail Transport Reform
CWB monopoly or not, the performance of the railways continues to be a contentious issue and there have been calls for the government to reconsider the Rail Service Legislation.
On December 11, 2012, the government announced the introduction of the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, which will establish service agreements with railways. The bill would create an arbitration process when commercial negotiations fail. An administrative monetary penalty of up to C$100,000 could be issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency for each violation of an arbitrated service level agreement. This is in addition to other existing remedies in the Act (e.g. Level of Service Complaint) to ensure railways meet their service obligations. Further details about the bill can be found at the following URL: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/releases-2012-h134e-6990.htm
Under the current Rail Service Agreement, railroads have the right to charge companies for failure to perform (i.e., not load within specified timelines, failure to provide adequate documentation, etc.) However, shippers did not have the ability to charge for poor performance by the railroads. Under the new legislation, both parties (i.e., railroads and shippers) are allowed to negotiate service level agreements and go to arbitration if there is a failure to perform.
There remain serious limits to rail capacity. While there are two rail lines, each operates on separate rails. So an elevator is limited to the company which operates the rail line located next to their facility, unless they choose to truck to a different rail line. Moreover, rail rates are set via a revenue cap which is established in the Transportation Act. The revenue caps are on the overall revenues received by the railroads from the transport of grain.
Movement of Grain
The shift to a new grain marketing environment does not appear to be the source of any significant problems related to the movement of grain by rail or by shipments from port. However, Canadian media have reported that some companies have allegedly faced challenges managing their sales and supply lines. The Western Producer newspaper cited reports of grain ships being partially loaded and then sent to anchor for up to a month before getting fully loaded, something that rarely happened when CWB's monopoly was intact. Whether this is indeed happening is still uncertain at this point. The rational is that formerly the CWB had access to wheat from all port terminals and could send a vessel to be filled at any terminal.
In January, Canada National Railway (CN) announced that its grain and fertilizer handle.
Varietal Registration Requirements
An additional, on-going issue, independent of the end of the CWB monopoly, is challenge posed by Canada's varietal registration requirement for seed wheat, as well as the issue posed by the variety-based wheat grading system. Canadian officials have indicated a willingness to discuss these concerns further. Canadian officials and Canadian industry representatives understand the U.S. objection to unequal treatment for U.S. grains which might move to Canada. The Canadian government acknowledges that non-Canadian-origin wheat and barley is not eligible for any Canadian grade other than feed grade. They have agreed to look into eventual changes. In the meantime, the United States and the Canadian industry representatives have worked together to develop contracts based on specification that will give U.S. wheat and barley access to the Canadian market at fair prices. Clearly, sales based on specifications are only a temporary solution to U.S. concerns as it does not address access to the Canadian grain handling system.
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Issues
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) continues to seek and review comments to its draft directive, "D-12-05 Phytosanitary import requirements for grain of field crops including pulses, oilseeds, cereals (other than barley, oats, rye, triticale, and wheat), forages, and other special crops from the continental United States." The objective of D-12-05 is to prevent the importation and dissemination of viable weed seeds and plant pathogens that present environmental and commercial risk to Canadian agriculture. Due to a significant amount of feedback from industry and stakeholders, the 30-day comment period was extended until February 15, 2013, and the original adoption date of December 1, 2012 was dropped. No new enforcement date was established. On December 5, 2012, the CFIA removed the deadline entirely and stated it would continue dialogue with industry and stakeholders.
Canada-U.S. Grain Industry Task Group
A number of Canadian and U.S. grain industry organizations have formed a Task Group to address and resolve current and foreseen impediments to Canada-U.S. bilateral grain trade. They established a website to provide answers to important questions on cross-border trade. The website includes updated information on the regulatory requirements in both Canada and the United States for cross-border grain and seed trade, including differences in varietal registration, labeling and phytosanitary requirements. The group has also prepared a questionnaire in order to assemble some baseline information about the importation and end uses of commodities from the United States that will be subject to the aforementioned D-12-05 proposed by the CFIA.
The Task Group's website, http://canada-usgrainandseedtrade.info, provides a detailed frequently asked questions section. Visitors can also submit comments and additional questions through the website.
Growing Forward 2 – The New Farm Bill
In Canada, agricultural policy is coordinated through a joint five-year initiative among the Federal Provincial and Territorial (FPT) governments called Growing Forward (GF1), which replaced Canada's original agricultural policy, the Agricultural Policy Framework, in July 2008.
Growing Forward 2 (GF2) is the successor to the GF1 and will guide Canada's agricultural policy between 2013 and 2018. Agricultural policy under the Growing Forward programs consists of two branches – first, a suite of Business Risk Management (BRM) programs designed to protect Canadian farmers from severe market volatility and disasters; and second, a set of strategic initiatives intended to advance policy goals, agreed upon in the Saint Andrews Statement, related to innovation competitiveness and market development.
To better understand the changes to GF2, it's helpful to have an understanding of the political framework. Agriculture Agri-Food Canada's (AAFC) budget constraints, dictated by the federal budget, were to be met in GF2. The federal budget indicated that AAFC needs to find C$310 million in savings by 2014-2015. Budget restrictions for AAFC will begin in 2013-2014, the first year of GF2, with savings of C$168.5 million.
While the federal budget gave no details on where the reductions would come from, the BRM portfolio was considered to be the only area that could provide that level of savings. The AgriStability program was a prime potential source of savings. Grain and oilseed producers had built up large margins, while livestock margins were beginning to recover. There was concern that increasing reference margins in the grains and oilseeds sector had created a significant unfunded liability for governments. AgriStability has been difficult for governments to b udget. The design of the program is such that a loss is generally not compensated until 18 months after the disaster has occurred. Producer feedback has been that the program is complex, unpredictable and not bankable.
On September 14, 2012, federal, provincial and territorial (FPT) Ministers of Agriculture reached an agreement on the content of the GF2 policy framework for the sector. The policy framework is Canada's equivalent of the U.S. Farm Bill. The new five-year agreement represents a fundamental restructuring of farm support programs. Governments will continue to deliver a suite of Business Risk Management (BRM) programs to help protect farmers against severe market volatility and disasters, only now they will rebalance the management of risk between government and industry, giving greater responsibility to the latter. GF2 includes changes to AgriStability, AgriInvest and AgriRecovery.
Growing Forward 2: Detailed Changes to BRM Programs
AgriStability is a margin-based program where payments are triggered when the program year margin falls below a percentage of the reference year margin (where the reference year margin is an Olympic average of historic margins). To trigger the AgriStability benefit, the required 15% drop in margin will increase to a 30% drop. Further, producers will no longer be paid for the first 30% of their margin decline. The remaining 70% of the margin decline will be paid out, however coverage will be reduced from 80% to 70%. AgriStability fees for program participation will be reduced accordingly. A further change is that the reference margin will be restricted to the lower of actual or "prior year's allowable expenses."
Changes were also made to AgriInvest, a program that aims to help producers manage small income declines, and provides support for investments to mitigate risks. Up to and including the 2012 program (fiscal) year, producers are able to contribute a matchable deposit based on 1.5 % of their allowable net sales (ANS), meaning gross commodity sales less qualifying purchases, such as seed and plant expenses. The ANS is currently limited to C$1,500,000 at 1.5% for a maximum AgriInvest benefit of C$22,500. Effective 2013, this rate will be reduced to 1%, which has the effect of reducing maximum benefit to C$15,000.
Finally, AgriRecovery guidelines have been tightened to limit the frequency of payouts given to producers who have been impacted by catastrophic events.
Growing Forward 2: Strategic Initiatives and a Push for Innovation
Aside from the changes to the BRM branch of GF2, changes were also made to the set of strategic initiatives intended to advance policy goals, including a significant push for innovation. The three strategic initiatives of focus are innovation, competitiveness and market development. GF2 includes new investments in strategic initiatives of over C$3 billion in innovation, competitiveness and market development, including a 50% increase in governments' cost-shared initiatives.


text:
As the cute young lady behind the counter handed us our lunches, Jack noticed she was wearing a badge with her name on it.
"You know," he said, "your name, Sarah, spelled backwards reads 'Haras' – like 'harass'. Almost like an invitation."
"You're not the first one to tell me that," Sarah responded.
"And if you take one 'a' away, it spells 'rash'. And if you add an 'a' it spells Sahara. How about that?"
"Nobody ever told me that," Sarah admitted.
Taking advantage of his tactical edge, Jack said "Do you ever date older men?"
"Yes," said Sarah, "my boyfriend, he's three years older than I am"
"Damn!' said Jack.
"Go find yourself a nice old lady," advised Sarah, "there are always lots of them around in the mall."
We went to find a table instead.
Jack and I have been having these lunches for almost a decade now. I've noticed that Jack has begun either to lose some interest in women, or not to tell me about his latest affairs. I thought I'd clear up my uncertainty.
"A propos of nice ladies – old or young," I said, "I haven't heard you talk of any lady friends for quite some time. Any problems?"
"I hate to admit it," said Jack, "but I'm not the man I used to be. That exchange with Sarah was just for show. The dating part, I mean."
"Jack," I said, "you're, what? five years younger than I am, and you're telling me you've come to the end of the line?"
"No, not quite," said Jack, "but the flames don't reach as high; in fact, sometimes the embers barely glow. Sometimes it seems hardly worth the effort."
"Are you alright, Jack?" I asked.
"'All good things come to an end'", quoted Jack. "I mean I've had a good run at it, maybe it's time to hang up my amatory hat."
That wasn't the Jack I know. This wasn't the Jack who'd reveled in love and all its attendant delights, and suffered many of its miseries.
"Maybe it's just a phase," I said to comfort him. "Maybe you're just low on vitamins or essential minerals."
"I don't want to talk about it," said Jack.
Which was fine with me. We ate in silence.
"Read any good books lately?" Jack asked.
I said that I was going through my complete collection or Ross Macdonald's detective books for the umpteenth time, and that I could read them every few years or so, without remembering whodunit.
I said I noticed that quite a few times the men Lew Archer spoke to would refer to "the wife". "Me and the wife did this or that…" Not "me and my wife", or better yet "My wife and I…"
"Seems to me that 'Me and a wife' is better than 'Me and my wife' That sounds pretty possessive.
What did you want them to say," asked Jack, "Me and a wife?" That would sound adulterous, wouldn't it? What do you say?"
I said "maybe we should learn to walk around the problem, something like "the lady whose husband I am"
That's not only cumbersome, but it's still implies ownership, this time you're hers."
I said in light of his comments, I'd have to think it over, and get back to him.
And I will. Maybe after I finish reading Macdonald.
Test Your Bridge
If Bad Things Get Badder
The Big Con
Canada Post Fitting Rooms
The Last Parade
A Puffed Up Problem
Venting a Spleen
Moribund Ouch
Book 'em
Sea Stories 2
Truth Unbound
Dead Spots
The Peepee Dance
Writing Cheques
Time Lock Wedge
More Olympics 2014
Satirizing Richard Nixon
Richard Kramer
Habit-forming
A Total Disgrace
Squirrel Blitzkrieg

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Which NBA Player Provides the Most Intangible Value?
By: Aaron Phung and Matthew Sasaki
Analysts tend to emphasize box score statistics such as points and rebounds when assessing the greatness of an NBA player. Because they are the only objective pieces of information recorded, statistics overshadow other methods of determining a player's value. However, there are many ways to contribute to an NBA game that do not show up on the box score. Setting screens, hustling for loose balls, and boosting team morale during critical moments of the game are also essential to team success and can turn the tide of the game. Factors like these that are not tracked as stats are called intangibles.
The purpose of this article is to determine which NBA player provides the most intangible value to their team. Our definition of "intangible value" is how much a player contributes to a team's win compared to the box score statistics they put up. Our first step was to collect players' total stats recorded. We used ESPN's fantasy basketball scoring system with a few modifications in order to receive a single number for a player's total stats recorded. Next, we collected players' regularized adjusted plus/minus (RAPM) as a representation of their impact on the game. RAPM first calculates the point differential of a player's team and the opposing team while the player is on the floor. Then standard errors are accounted for by using a technique called ridge regression. A positive RAPM means that the team performed better while the player was on the floor. Next, we created a best fit line for the data. The player whose RAPM is the highest above the best fit line is deemed the one with the highest intangible value. We only looked at statistics from the 2018-2019 season to the 2020-2021 season, and we only included players who played 118+ games and averaged 20+ minutes per game during this time.
Source: FanSided
Calculating total stats recorded
In order to determine how many stats a player contributes, we first collected their per-game stats from the past three years (2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021 seasons). Next, we used the ESPN fantasy basketball scoring system with a few modifications to calculate each player's statistical value. Below is our scoring system.
If you are familiar with ESPN's fantasy basketball scoring system, each block and steal is normally awarded 4 points. We lowered it to 2 points in order to match it with the point value of a turnover because all of them deny the opposing team an opportunity to score a field goal. By adding a player's box score statistics together using our scoring system, we will get one number. For example, if a player averaged 4.2 FG, 9.6 FGA, 7.4 REB, 2.6 AST, 0.8 STL, 1.1 BLK, 1.9 TO, and 12.5 PTS, their total score would be:
([2*4.2] - 9.6 + 7.4 + [2*2.6] + [2*0.8] + [2*1.1] - [2*1.9] + 12.5) = 23.9.
We will refer to this calculated number for each player as "statistical value" for the remainder of the article. Below is a table of the players with the highest statistical value.
Source: Hustle Franklins
Calculating RAPM
Basketball is all about scoring more points than the other team. One common box score statistic is plus-minus, which essentially gives us the point differential while a certain player is on the court. While plus-minus may seem to be a good indicator of a player's impact, it can often be misleading. For example, someone playing alongside Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant, and Draymond Green on the 2017 Warriors may have a disproportionately high plus-minus, while someone equally as impactful that only plays in garbage time may have a disproportionately low one. RAPM attempts to correct these other factors. In short, RAPM looks to quantify a player's contribution by accounting for things like the strength of their team or their opponents. Like plus-minus, however, it's important to recognize that RAPM isn't perfect. Regardless, we thought that RAPM did the best job at measuring a player's impact without considering their box score contributions. We collected each player's each player's average RAPM from 2018-2021 for further analysis.
For more information on how RAPM is calculated, visit this website: https://basketballstat.home.blog/2019/08/14/regularized-adjusted-plus-minus-rapm/
Statistical Value vs. RAPM Plot
With the statistical value and RAPM for each player calculated, we created a scatter plot with statistical value on the x-axis and RAPM on the y-axis. Our regression yielded an R squared coefficient of 0.33, which indicates a slightly positive but weak correlation between statistical value and RAPM. These results show that statistical value alone cannot accurately predict a player's RAPM. While players with greater statistical value have a higher chance of having a high RAPM, it is possible for players with a low statistical value to have a high RAPM, and vice versa. Other factors that are not included in the box score must be looked at to accurately determine a player's impact on the game.
Histogram and Scatterplot of Residual Values
The left scatterplot plots the statistical value on the x-axis and the residuals of each player on the y-axis. Those above the x-axis outperformed their projected RAPM based on their statistical value, while those below the x-axis underperformed. Those on the right side of the plot had a higher statistical value, and those on the left had a lower one. Looking at the below table of residuals, we can identify the top three points as Alex Caruso, Paul George, and Danny Green.
On the right, we have a histogram show that shows the distribution of the residuals. We see a pretty standard bell curve, which is to be expected. Most of the residuals were relatively close to 0, so we know that the regression worked.
Players with the Most Intangible Value
Above is a table that ranks the top 15 players with the most intangible value. Alex Caruso tops the list with an RAPM that is 4.748 points higher than his projected RAPM, which is surprising because he is not considered one of the best players in the league. While there are a few superstars on this list such as Jayson Tatum, Kawhi Leonard, and Paul George, many players on this list are role players like Joe Ingles, Duncan Robinson, and Reggie Jackson. The drastic differences in stat production between these players may be misleading. Although it appears as if these players share no similarities, there are some patterns. First, this list is mainly comprised of veterans, with ten of them being over 30 years old. In addition, many of these players are great defenders. The average defensive rating among them is 108.28. Defensive rating is the number of points allowed while a player is on the court, per 100 possessions, signifying that a lower defensive rating is better. For reference, the average defensive rating in the NBA is about 110. The last category of players on this list is known for its elite 3-point shooting. Among all the players on this list who attempted at least 500 attempts since the beginning of the 2018-2019 season, the average 3-point percentage is 39.49%. For reference, the average 3-point percentage in the NBA is about 35%. Below is a table of the 3-point percentages and 3-point attempts for the 15 players with the most intangible value (minimum 500 attempts).
Players with the Least Intangible Value
We will now look at the bottom 15 players with the least intangible value for the stats they produce. Sitting at the bottom of this list is Collin Sexton with a residual of -4.860, classifying him as the player with the lowest intangible value in the NBA. Similar to the top 15 players list above, the players on this list range from superstars like Russell Westbrook to almost unknown players like Glenn Robinson III. Interestingly enough, these players also share similarities in the factors we used to compare the top 15 players. However, they occupy the opposite side of the spectrum. For example, while the top 15 players are older, 6 out of the 15 players on this list are under the age of 24 years old, and 4 are between the ages of 24 and 28. Another similarity most of these players have is their below average defensive rating. While the average defensive rating in the NBA is about 110, the average defensive rating among players on this list is 112.1. Lastly, their 3 point percentage is lower in comparison to those in the top 15. On average, the bottom 15 players shot 35.3% from 3 (minimum 500 attempts). While this isn't necessarily a low 3 point percentage, this is about 4 percentage points lower than those in the top 15.Below is a table of the 3-point percentages and 3-point attempts of the top 15 players with the lowest RAPM (minimum 500 attempts).
The three main traits that differentiated those who outperformed their statistical value versus those who underperformed them were age, defense, and three-point shooting.
Age was an important element that affected players' impact on the game. We saw far more experienced players on the top 15 list than in the bottom 15. This makes sense, as most players go through an adjustment period of sorts when entering the NBA. Those that belong in the NBA eventually come into their own as they learn to adapt, both mentally and physically. Along with this, many players develop leadership skills as they gain experience. Basketball is a team sport, so having good leaders is instrumental. While they may not put up a lot of stats, being able to uplift teammates and keep locker room morale up can be just as important to winning a game.
Defense has long been an aspect of the game that has been underrepresented in traditional box scores. While our formula for statistical value accounted for steals and blocks, there is more to defense that can affect the outcome of a game. One example is taking a charge. There is much more to this simple play than a change of possession. It penalizes the opposing team with one foul, which can lead to bonus free throws. In addition, charges can cause an opposing player to get into foul trouble, could result in them playing less aggressively to avoid fouls. A charge has even more hidden value by the morale boost it gives one's team. When taking a charge, a defending player must stand still, letting the offense make significant contact. This is often physically painful for the defending player, as they are usually the ones that end up on the floor. However, stopping the offense in such a manner can quickly change the flow of the game. The act of sacrificing one's body for a play is something teammates can rally behind, and the effort will prompt the rest of the team to increase their effort. Taking a charge is just one of the aspects of defense that can make a noticeable impact on the game, which explains why so many great defenders have high RAPM's for their statistical value.
The last factor we saw that separated the players on each list was 3-point shooting. In recent years, the number of 3 pointers attempted has increased significantly. Being a good 3-point shooter has its benefits: it grants more points for one possession and opens up the court for other players to drive in to the basket. Making a long-distance, high-arcing 3-pointer can also be a morale booster. On the other hand, missing a 3-pointer can have more detrimental effects than just a missed opportunity to score. If a player shoots a 3-pointer above the free throw line, they are often the person closest to the basket they are defending. Because they are most likely watching their own shot rather than getting back on defense, their team is susceptible to fast breaks if the shot misses. Therefore, not only does the team lose an opportunity to score but they also give the opposing team a chance at an easy basket.
Source: The Orange Country Register
In our analysis, we focused on two statistics: our calculated statistical value and RAPM. Neither of these stats are perfect. We chose arbitrary coefficients for our statistical value equation, and RAPM definitely doesn't completely describe a player's impact on the game. However, for our purposes, these numbers were sufficient. For future studies, maybe a more refined statistical value equation and some combination of RAPM with other advanced stats could yield more consequential results.
Nonetheless, our analysis shows that while there is definitely a correlation between box score contributions and a player's impact, there must be several other factors at play. Leadership, chemistry with teammates, and other personal attributes can affect a player's performance. Also, it's pretty much impossible to completely eliminate a player's circumstances when evaluating their impact. This is why some players may be a hindrance on one team but shine on another. Kyle Kuzma is a great example of this. While playing for the Los Angeles Lakers last year, he was ridiculed for underperforming, averaging only 12 ppg. The Lakers finished 7th in the Western Conference in the 2020-2021 season. In the offseason, Kyle Kuzma moved to the Washington Wizards, and he seems like a completely different player. While his points per game only rose by 1 point, his team's performance has drastically improved. Last year, the Wizards finished 8th in the Eastern Conference. In the 2021-2022 season, the Wizards are 3rd in the Eastern Conference as of December 2nd, 2021.
Kuzma's story is just one example of why we should not judge a player's performance on box score statistics alone. This leads to the question "What factors or combination of factors can most accurately predict a player's impact on the game?" Based on the patterns we found when looking at the top 15 players, 3-point percentage and defensive rating may be more telling of an individual's RAPM. It would also be interesting to see how a player's chemistry with his team is correlated with his RAPM, although there is no direct statistic that measures this. While further investigation is needed to uncover the primary factors affecting RAPM, we hope this article will encourage fans and analysts to account for other details when determining a player's greatness rather than relying only on box score statistics to tell the story.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/ ,http://nbashotcharts.com/rapm?id=-2146555570
https://basketballstat.home.blog/2019/08/14/regularized-adjusted-plus-minus-rapm/
https://www.statmuse.com/
The Mystery That is the NFL Draft
The Rise of Neo-Positions in Basketball
What Makes a Winner in Volleyball


text:
#ifndef REPAIR_H
#define REPAIR_H

#include <memory>
#include <cstddef>
#include "Prototype.h"
#include "EvolutionaryState.h"

namespace adef {

class Repository;
class Individual;
class Problem;

/**
@brief Repair is the abstract base class of repairing infeasible solution.

@par The configuration
Repair has no extra configurations.@n
See setup() for the details.
*/
class Repair : public Prototype, public EvolutionaryState
{
public:

    virtual ~Repair() = default;

/**
@brief Clone the current class.
@sa clone_impl()
*/
    std::shared_ptr<Repair> clone() const
    {
        return std::dynamic_pointer_cast<Repair>(clone_impl());
    }
/**
@brief Set up the internal states.

If @em Class is derived from Repair, its configuration should be
- JSON configuration
@code
"Repair": {
    "classname" : "Class"
}
@endcode
.
*/
    virtual void setup(const Configuration& config,
                       const PrototypeManager& pm) override = 0;
/**
@brief Repair infeasible solutions.
@param repos The Repository which contains infeasible solutions to repair.
*/
    virtual void repair(std::shared_ptr<Repository> repos) const;
/**
@brief Repair infeasible solution according to the problem.
@param individual The individual to be repaired.
@param problem The Problem which has the definition.
*/
    virtual void repair(std::shared_ptr<Individual> individual,
                        std::shared_ptr<const Problem> problem) const;
/**
@brief Repair infeasible solution by given function.
@param individual The individual to be repaired.
@param dimension The value of individual be repaired on specific dimension.
@param problem The Problem which has the definition.
*/
    virtual void repair_function(std::shared_ptr<Individual> individual,
                                 std::size_t dimension,
                                 std::shared_ptr<const Problem> problem) const = 0;

protected:

/**
@brief Find the nearest boundary of specific value in decision space.
@param gene The specific value.
@param problem The Problem which has the definition.
@param dimension The value of individual be repaired on specific dimension.
*/
    double find_nearest_bound(double gene,
                         std::shared_ptr<const Problem> problem,
                         std::size_t dimension) const;

private:

    virtual std::shared_ptr<Prototype> clone_impl() const override = 0;
};

}

#endif // REPAIR_H

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
About Liberty.me
About Jeffrey Tucker
Tip with Paypal
Tip with Bitcoin
The Global Liberty Community
Beautiful Anarchy
Give a tip
Sign Up for the Good Stuff
Get our best articles + our exclusive guide
Reclaim Your Privacy
Donate $3.00
Buy me a meal
Donate $10.00
Pay my internet bill
Donate to Jeffrey Tucker, Beautiful Anarchy
Enter the bitcoin amount you would like to donate:
1JyyTNi3kZPM7CR8s6AdBa4bbqPHXFnxLR
Minarchism Found Dead at Ferguson
By Jeffrey Tucker from Beautiful Anarchy link Aug 22, 2014
[Monday, November 24, 2014: A St. Louis County grand jury have decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the cop who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The message of this decision is that if you work for the government, you can do what you want.]
As incredible as it seems, the bourgeoisie seem to be turning against the police. In the wake of Ferguson, polls say that about half of us don't trust them. Obviously, blacks remain way ahead of the curve on this, having been maltreated by the cops for many decades. But with whites catching up, we are starting to see a consensus developing.
I never thought I would see the day.
Why is this significant? It's not just about police budgets or the call to reform on the margin. It's not even about who is going to pay the political price. The status of the police is bound up with the perception of the value of the entire public sector. The police are the "thin blue line," long perceived as the most essential and irreplaceable function of the state. This perception is now under pressure from public opinion, and this joins a shift in intellectual opinion that has been developing for decades.
What's at stake is the very foundation of public order as we know it. If government can't do this right, if the police are accomplishing the very opposite of their claims, if they are undermining our security rather than providing for it, and this is widely understood, we have the making of not only an ideological revolution but an authentic turning point in the history of politics.
The police power has pushed and pushed for decades: more power, more personnel, more weapons. Even as public opinion has turned against many other "services" offered by government, there has been no push back regarding police. Politicians don't win public office by promising to curb police power; the demand to escalate has traditionally led to cheers. Where's the limit? No one has yet discovered it.
If that changes, the results could be epic.
Step back and ask the fundamental question: why is the state necessary? Why do we have to pay all these taxes? Why must we constantly defer to its power? Why must we adore its leaders and pay homage to those who die for it and raise our children to adore its history and works? What is the point of this gigantic contraption that lives in our midst and at our expense?
These questions are at the heart of the philosophy of politics, economics, and the social order. How they are answered determines what kind of world we live in.
Many people have ideas for what they want the state to do. It should protect the environment, provide for income in old age, go to war against bad guys, stop discrimination, help the consumer, regulate financial markets, improve the moral environment. The state does all these things and there is a constituency for all of them.
But you know what? We must distinguish between essential and luxury functions of the state. All of the above are luxuries, not essentials. The roots of the modern state dating to the era of the Enlightenment — the 18th century — postulate that the whole function of the state is to provide security for person and property. This is the basis of its legitimacy. The most famous summary of this view comes from Thomas Jefferson via Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: "To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
That's it. That's the foundation. It's supposed to be a "night watchman." Once it does that, it can and will do other things but this is the reason for its existence.
If you look at politics carefully, you can see political leaders drawing on this "minarchist" sensibility whenever they want to enhance their own power. They can always count on the fact that people believe that protecting us from harm is the reason why we put up with these people running our lives in the first place. The belief has been so entrenched in the Western mind that questions about the limits of such a security power are rarely asked.
This is why 9/11 was such a boon for the federal government. It seemed to demonstrate that we have a serious problem with being secure and that therefore the government is necessary and essential to our lives.
Floods of commentary after that event, in fact, directly attacked libertarianism for being so tough on government. The crimes of 9/11 were used to draw on the widespread belief that the police power of the state cannot be performed by any other means but via the coercive apparatus of the public sector.
It's a serious issue. Why can't security be provided in the same way as society provides shoes, software, and sodas? Why can't the market be the best and most efficient provider of even our security?
There are lots of fancy rationales but they all come down to the idea that we need public sector security provisions because the state can do things that the private sector cannot do. This is the reason we must sacrifice our liberty and property. It's a philosophical and technological necessity.
If you look back over the last 300 years before the middle of the 20th century, you can find only a handful of thinkers who believed that security services could be outsourced from public authority to market entrepreneurs. One of them was Gustave de Molinari, the 19th century French radical who made the core point: we trust the market for most all essential things in life, so why not trust it for the most essential thing of all? If the market has mechanisms that make it superior to the state in nearly every area, what is the mystical feature of security that makes it the great exception?
But even among the French laissez faire school he was alone. The rest of the classical liberal school was united: the state ought to be strictly limited but it absolutely must provide security services. Because the old liberals conceded this one exception, and despite their genuine conviction that society could work on its own without top-down impositions, they inadvertently gave the thugs and despots precisely what they were looking for, a wedge issue that separated the longing for freedom from the administration of public affairs.
Think about politics in your local community over the last twenty years. Anytime the local government needs to raise funds, what is the sure-fire excuse? To add to policing to stop crime. Education is a close second but only the subject of policing can consistently count on majority support. The average person may not believe that he or she is a prisoner of Locke and Jefferson, the great prophets of minarchism, but we are. People have been willing to pay insofar as security is the great excuse.
But something has changed. The federal government has shoveled billions in funding and weaponry to the local police. They have become completely militarized. Instead of helping us and securing our rights, they are threatening us and taking away our rights. Absolutely no one is happy about seeing the blue lights in the rear view mirror. The age of the civilian cop, an extension of who we are and what we desire of public service, is over.
Now we have smartphones and youtube. Anyone can spy on the cops and hold them accountable. We are gradually discovering the great truth. Whether the police abuse on this scale is new or whether we are only now discovering what has always been true is immaterial for discerning the turning point. Once the fog dissipates and we see reality for what it is, there is no going back.
Security is not the most essential function of the state; it is the most dangerous one, the very one that we should never concede lest we lose all our freedom. The night watchman is the biggest threat we face because it is he who holds the gun and he who pulls the trigger should we ever decide to escape.
Allowing the police force as the essential exception to a voluntary social order is like allowing a cancer cell as the single invader in a body. Once it invades, it cannot be contained. It has to be killed for the person to survive.
This is why skepticism of the police, even fundamental opposition, is so important. If doubt spreads, the ground shifts beneath our feet. If the conviction that the state cannot even perform its most "essential" functions at net benefit to us evaporates, the rest of the great services that the state provides comes into question too.
We live in times of radical disenchantment with the state. Its welfare state, its drug war, its educational institutions, its energy and transportation infrastructure, its monetary policy, its wars and regulations, its courts and jails — none of it lives up to its promise. The costs exceed the benefits for all of us. And now the police too are a net drain, even a threat? Yes.
If anyone thinks this is not a paradigm shifting moment, he or she is not paying attention. Once people realize that those who we trusted to protect us are actually the biggest threat we face, the theory and the age of minarchism comes to an end.
What is Murder? What is Police Work?
#WeCantBreathe, The Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street: All Part of the Same Revolt
How Grand Juries Really Work
The American War Zone
The Prison System is a Violation of Human Rights
Tiffany and the Problem of Security
How I Became an Anarchist
Join now! Liberty.me members get the guide written by an ex-cop for free: How To Deal with the Police
Join Liberty.me
A free society is built by you and me, beginning in our own lives. The digital age has given us better tools for doing this than we've ever had before. Become a citizen of the real free world and help us spread the message of liberty. Join Liberty.me today.
Give a tip:
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research. He is also a managing partner of Vellum Capital, CEO of the Atlanta Bitcoin Embassy, Senior Distinguished Fellow of the Austrian Economics Center in Vienna, Austria, Honorary Fellow of Mises Brazil, adviser to Acton Institute and Mackinac Institute, founder and Chief Liberty Officer of Liberty.me, an adviser to blockchain application companies, past editorial director of the Foundation for Economic Education and Laissez Faire Books, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, and author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and eight books in 5 languages. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.
The Economics of Life Itself : Beautiful Anarchy is the writing platform of Jeffrey Tucker, in which he covers economics, art, popular culture, and politics from a pro-liberty, anti-state point of view.
Caitlin Long August 22, 2014 , 2:14 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
"…prisoner of Locke and Jefferson, the great prophets of minarchism… " Brilliant, Jeffrey!
Michael Reith August 22, 2014 , 5:00 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
So often I find myself bogged down negatively in the serious state of the nation. You surely have a gift at placing the times into a proper perspective, that of a true movement towards liberty, not away from it
Amanda B. Johnson August 22, 2014 , 6:24 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
Forgive my candor, but this article is orgasmic.
Jeff Peterson II August 23, 2014 , 6:00 am Log in to Reply Vote0
Amanda lives!!! 🙂
RJ Miller August 23, 2014 , 10:07 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
Glad to see you here!
Ditto that, Amanda!!
A Rohan August 22, 2014 , 6:29 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
Friends who have been present at the protests in Ferguson have amazing reports as to what is happening in the area. There is a very strong libertarian theme running through many of the interviews and conversations. Although not specifically noted as being "libertarian," the ideas of human liberty, in my opinion, do not need a label. It is the fundamental and universal struggle. In the video below, my favorite comment has to be: "it's the government against the people."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obrADZbKnnY&feature=youtu.be
Chip Marce August 22, 2014 , 8:07 pm Log in to Reply
An interesting article but…naaah. People want to be able to call 911 and have a police officer take care of their problems. Rightly or wrongly.
That the police are unpopular with a portion of society isn't surprising given video cameras and the latest focus on police by the lame stream media. But a lack of popularity doesn't mean that the police will be disappearing anytime soon. Same goes for the IRS.
Tyrone Johnson August 24, 2014 , 9:52 pm Log in to Reply Vote1
Obviously wrongly. And who are these people, Chip? All the people you know, or only some of them? All the people in the world, or only the ones you hear about? You don't know everyone, so you aren't a judge of what is popular. Here's a fact you may have missed at the hearings in the late 1990s about the brutality and idiocy of the IRS. At that time over 60 million Americans the IRS thought should file were not filing. Today that number has doubled. Disappearing any time soon? For many Americans, disappeared a while ago.
Winter Trabex August 22, 2014 , 8:25 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
I didn't think I'd agree with you, but actually I do. I really like this article.
Ben Aycrigg August 22, 2014 , 9:02 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
An interesting article but the headline leaves me confused. If asked, I would define "minarchism" as an ideology approaching anarchy and entailing minimal statism or authority. This is also sometimes referred to as "anarcho-capitalism".
It would seem my definition is way off….
Patrick Hatten August 23, 2014 , 2:46 am Log in to Reply Vote1
Minarchism is a push for a minimalist state that provides "services" such as police and fire response and military protection. It is commonly referred to as a "night watchman" state.
Anarcho-capitalism is an ideology that the state is unjust and should be abolished entirely. Protection, like all other services, would be provided through market demand.
Minarchism is tyranny and gradualism means we never get any freedom. Minarchists, while pretending to want a limited government, admit that they want government. And they want a little here, a little there, and pretty soon there is government everywhere. A little now and a lot more soon and far too much later on. Which is why Hamilton's plan to have a gigantic state was so helped by Madison and even Jefferson, and why Patrick Henry never trusted it. Consider the result of all government: to create a bureau that chooses for the people instead of allowing persons to choose in a free market.
Bureaucracy has been written about by many people, and Ludwig von Mises wrote some of the very best. But consider a far more pithy statement from Hannah Arendt: "Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act: for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless we have a tyranny without a tyrant." Which is a sad state of affairs for a bunch who said they were all created equal and were taking the equal station of sovereignty to which they were entitled.
Earl Zarbin August 22, 2014 , 10:11 pm Log in to Reply Vote2
I think I am a paradigm,
A moment of shift,
Remains to be seen,
If that is the drift.
I think I am the police,
We are the threat?
A leap backward?
A trend is set?
Michael Reith August 22, 2014 , 11:39 pm Log in to Reply Vote1
Police exist for the safety of some,
masters they serve for their keep.
Rulers foresee a day that will come,
When the cattle are no longer sheep.
Joe K. August 23, 2014 , 12:48 am Log in to Reply Vote0
What is self-government? Is this a buzz word? No, it means just what it says. Self-government means we regulate our own behavior and we know best how to govern ourselves. In no way, does this mean that we should trust the state for any function. They will utterly fail every time because their only interest is to amass power by increasing its bureaucracy and red tape. Representatives of Congress have a 7% approval rating. This by definition is a tyranny we live in. I might be dreaming but I am hoping one day to wake up and see an end to rotten state and a complete and total rejection of the statist who profits from it.
Double Crossed Radio X X August 24, 2014 , 1:44 am Log in to Reply Vote0
Right in the middle of this awesome piece there is a clue as to how the police have transformed from protect and serve into enforce and detain.
"The federal government has shoveled billions in funding and weaponry to the local police. They have become completely militarized. Instead of helping us and securing our rights, they are threatening us and taking away our rights."
The police are no longer answerable to the taxpayer for their sustenance. Well maybe they are, but as an individual taxpayers our contribution to the policeman's welfare is relatively insignificant. The Federal Government on the other hand is responsible for the jobs a lot of those who are presently employed as police have. And, if they aren't aware of this, those that administer the budgets that pay for everything certainly are. So when the Feds say jump, the response has become, "How high?" . It is in this manner that control over what police say and do has shifted from the people who used to pay for everything the police had from payroll to equipment, to the Federal Government who now trains them and has militarized them and brainwashed them into believing that people wishing to be left alone are the greatest threat to the police.
Funny how that goes, that the immorality of stealing from one person to pay another leads to the immorality of using police to enforce doctrines that go against the very document the police are sworn to uphold and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Tyrone Johnson August 24, 2014 , 10:07 pm Log in to Reply Vote1
Your essay is really excellent, Jeffrey. The tone is exactly right. Minarchism is dead, and its rotting corpse was left in the Sun. Ferguson stinks to high heaven because the minarchists are everywhere, corrupt as sin, and persistently living in denial. With 70% of the city black and 68% of the families in Ferguson with school-age children qualifying for free lunches, the mayor of Ferguson is full of horse manure when he says there is no racial divide. Of course there is a racial divide, and the corrupt, Democrat-machine, St. Louis, often Catholic-dominated political system is what built that divide.
For those hoping that a Libertarian Party surprise victory is going to ever save the world, consider recent developments in the state on the other side of the Mississippi, where, it seems, the Illinois GOP has hired armed thugs to coerce petition signers and gatherers into signing new papers claiming their signatures or petitions were falsified. http://www.illinoisherald.com/articles/2014/q3/illinois-gop-sends-armed-thugs-libertarians-homes/ The people in power aren't even pretending that opposition has any chance to so much as get on the ballot.
You note that after 11 September 2001, billions more were spent on security. But I remember the 1990s, and I remember that billions were spent on the security state in each of those years, too, and for decades before various billions were spent. The 1978 law that Teddy Kennedy pushed brought about temporary competition amongst the airlines and forced metal detectors into every airport, along with "screeners" and invasive searches. And with all that spending on security, there were still four planes stolen on 11-Sep-01.
Whereas if Americans had continued to be free to keep and bear arms on airplanes, same as everywhere else, who could have stolen even one plane being armed with box cutters?
Terrorism and crime are decentralised threats. Centralised responses have failed, again, and again, and again. They always will. Jeffrey, you are right. Private security, including personal, individual security, works. The free market works. Government only works for those who benefit from it, who buy into the use of force and fraud for their own benefit.
Wayne Nash August 25, 2014 , 10:12 am Log in to Reply Vote0
Over the last couple of years I have seen white kids shot in back by police laying on the ground or beaten to death by police in the street and never once was there any outrage about this like we are seeing with Ferguson. I have to hand it to the community there to stand up for their own people, something the white folks are not doing very well. Or is it okay for cops to kill white kids if the cop is white and black kids if the cop is black? It seems to me the 'Main Scream Media' jumps on any opportunity it has to fan the flames of racial division in the US and other countries. It is the old 'divide and rule' theme at work. As the very intelligent fellow in the video clearly states, it is not a black and white thing. It is an 'us and them' thing and the 'them' is the Oligarchy that hides behind the left and right political spectrum and uses deception to wage its war on the people. If the Oligarchy can keep us fighting each other it keeps us from looking in their direction where the problem really lies.
It is really not okay for cops to kill anyone. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for their to be cops, let alone cops killing people. The death penalty makes the state a killer, isn't a deterrent to crime, and is much more costly than incarceration, and the death penalty is supposed to be meted out only after a trial by jury. Cops who kill suspects, bystanders, protesters, innocent parties, or actual perpetrators are murderers. That they have official sanction to commit murder makes it worse; that they kill without anyone having an opportunity to judge the merits of the person they are killing is very bad.
Yes, it is dangerous to shoot to wound, but there are police departments in the USA that train their police to do just that. In another recent case, a man was shot in the leg by a police officer because the man was loading a shotgun and refused to drop the weapon; clearly that is a more threatening situation that whatever intimidation may have been committed by Michael Brown at some point in his contact with the police officer the day he died, since Brown did not have a shotgun.
It isn't so much an oligarchy thing, as a bureaucracy thing, in my opinion. And the real problem with bureaucracy, the real travesty of the Rodney King verdict, is that so very often, nobody is held accountable. Writing 27 February 1969, Hannah Arendt said, "In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one could argue, to whom one could present grievances, on whom the pressures of power could be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless we have a tyranny without a tyrant."
Youliy Ninov September 12, 2014 , 8:49 pm Log in to Reply Vote0
The problem with the police is that it is not a market based one. This is the situation nowadays. However even in the Anarcho-capitalism it is not a REALLY market based one. The reason is that the police forces will act differently from the common companies. The typical companies are in competition for the same customer. If it is possible a single company would service ALL the people in the area under discussion (also known as a "market monopoly"). In Anarcho-capitalism the police can serve different customers. This means that the interests of the different police forces are not aligned. They can be fights between different police groups ( a well known problem). Moreover there can never exist a "market monopoly" (which is a totally acceptable form of monopoly), because a single police company can not serve two people with opposite interests.
Just the above fact shows that the police under Anarcho-capitalism is not a truly market based one.
The police would be a REALLY market based one if it got its money from the criminals. And this is possible. Just issue a law, saying that the police has the right to profit from the criminals and this solves the problem. All the police groups will be with aligned interests and in competition with each other.
Once the criminal is caught, he will pay for his own capture, for the court and for his stay in prison. If his property is not enough, he will work while in jail. In fact even in jail he will be a productive citizen.
In such a way one does not have to pay for police, courts and prisons, while at the same time enjoying the benefits of their existence and services. And all of these services will be market based. Their size and organization will be determined from the market. In such a way the society can avoid paying for the above services directly (the current situation and the one under Minarchism) or indirectly (privately under Anarcho-capitalism).
Thoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Don't dismiss Bitcoin just because of its wild price swings
There are valid reasons to criticize Bitcoin, but price volatility is not one of them. Why does the price of Bit… [Read more]
by David Veksler
Back on the Bike …
Taking it easy to start -- three miles each morning the last two mornings. I plan to take it up to five miles daily late… [Read more]
by Thomas L. Knapp
A Mass Transit Fail and a Specific Request for Would-Be Supporters
I am flying into Springfield, Missouri on July 28 and flying back home on July 30 (I'm going up there to visit my mother… [Read more]


Students agree: More than half of you eat breakfast at least several times a week, according to a recent Student Health 101 survey. "I can't go without breakfast! It helps my energy levels and sets the tone for my whole day," says Sabrina M., a second-year graduate student at the University of California, Los Angeles.


text:
« On the pavement | Main | Disaster in Matabeleland »
The right to deny
In the post on Holocaust denial in which I engaged with a line of thought expressed by Ophelia at Butterflies and Wheels, I misunderstood something. I took Ophelia, asking as she was whether Holocaust denial should count as protected free speech, to be raising as a possibility that David Irving-style falsehood ought to be a criminal offence, even though she'd said she didn't think Irving should be in prison. In two posts responding to mine, Ophelia has made it clear that this wasn't her point. Rather, she wanted to suggest a conceptual ground in between something's being a criminal offence and its being a right, such that it could be neither the one nor the other:
I'm not talking about criminalization so much as about right, and rights. I don't think Irving should be in prison, but do I therefore think he has a right to falsify history? No, I don't - at least not a moral right...
So do people have a 'right' to falsify the evidence - by mistranslating, dropping a few zeroes from numbers, that sort of thing - in history books? I don't think they do.
I'm happy to accept the misunderstanding here as having been my mistake; but, on the other hand, this suggestion by Ophelia of some 'ground in between' is her mistake.
If the law does not prohibit people from doing something, then legally - and assuming no restraints created by voluntary contracts etc - they have the right to do that thing. It is what is sometimes called a 'liberty right', as opposed to a 'claim right'. No corresponding duty on anyone else is entailed by it (as with, say, a right to free medical care). No one is obliged to assist with or cooperate in anyone's exercise of a liberty right. But this does not alter the fact that they themselves may exercise it, with or without help or backing from others. Liberty rights are not unimportant. Think of the right of assembly: you and others can gather and organize in pursuit of political, cultural, sporting, ends. That no one who doesn't want to help you need do so doesn't detract from the existence or the value of this as a right.
If (where) Holocaust denial is not a criminal offence, consequently, Irving and others have a liberty right to say, to write and to publish that the Holocaust did not happen or that it has been exaggerated. One might concede, of course, that this is (wherever it is) the legal state of affairs, and go on to argue that it's a morally bad one: the law should be changed. But as Ophelia herself has repeatedly said that she's not arguing for criminalization, that can't be her view. If she thinks Holocaust-denial shouldn't be a criminal offence, then it follows that, according to her, Holocaust deniers should have liberty rights to say, to write and to publish that the Holocaust did not happen or that it has been exaggerated.
None of the points Ophelia makes by way of trying to establish some conceptual ground in between something's being a criminal offence and its being a right succeed in doing so. In her first post, she writes:
I don't think Irving should be punished, but I do think he should be prevented, at least from publishing (by publishers rather than by cops). So in that sense, I don't think he does have a right to protected free speech. I don't think we're obliged to make any affirmative efforts to see that his falsifications get placed in the permanent record. I don't think he should be forcibly silenced, but I don't think he should be officiously handed a megaphone, either.
The example just muddies the water. No publisher has an obligation to publish Irving or anyone else; they have no duty to propagate Holocaust denial. So Irving has no claim rights against any publisher. All the same, where Holocaust denial is not illegal, he has a liberty right to put his work about if he has a publisher that will publish it. In the second post Ophelia writes:
[T]here's a whole mess of things, a whole choppy sea of them, that we disapprove of and think wrong and wouldn't dream of actively protecting, without therefore thinking they should be felonies.
But to disapprove of something, think it wrong, decline actively to protect it is perfectly compatible with still holding it to be a right. Bob and Helen have the right to get married, even if Gavin happens to think that their marriage will be a disaster; people may legitimately foregather to discuss ideas that you find hateful; denial of the Holocaust is, in this country now, a liberty right, and in my opinion it should remain one, even though it's a view and an activity that I abhor and will do all I legally can to oppose. And so forth.
Ophelia also says that, while free speech is 'one good' there are many others, among them 'truth, accuracy... reliable scholarship', and that rights to free speech are not 'unlimited or unconditional'. But few defenders of free speech deny either of these propositions, which are indeed dependent on free speech being - in its own right - both a good and a right.
In a subsequent post, Ophelia brings forward in support of her argument that we hold the press and broadcast media to certain standards that restrain them from hate speech, abusive and foul language, and deliberate lying. I don't think the example is to the point. That there are public standards of decency, morality and trust is undoubtedly the case, as is the fact that certain institutions are expected to meet certain standards - and often regulate themselves to do that - in light of what their purposes are. That is not material to the question of the rights people in general legally have over what they can say and publish about historical events, even falsely, and the rights one thinks they should have.
It's one thing or the other. If Holocaust denial should not be a crime, then the deniers will have a liberty right to deny the Holocaust. You won't be obliged to approve of them, much less to help them in disseminating their views. But they will have the protection of the law in doing that if others seek forcibly to prevent them. Or else Holocaust denial should be a crime.
[Amended at 3.45 PM.]
Posted by Norm at 02:35 PM | Permalink


Amid the chaos of family separations and zero-tolerance policies being implemented at our borders, Immigration and Customs Enforcement decided in early June to begin transferring immigrants to prisons operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Their appalling treatment in these prisons reveals, yet again, the depraved cruelty of this administration toward immigrants.
On Wednesday, with our co-counsel partners — the Prison Law Office and the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center — we sued the Trump administration, ICE, and the BOP for violating the constitutional rights of immigrants currently detained at one of those federal prisons in Victorville, California. We are asking the court to order ICE to immediately remedy the unlawful conditions and ultimately remove immigrants from the prison.
The Victorville prison is in a remote location in the California desert, two hours outside of Los Angeles, far from community support and legal services. It is an enormous complex of concrete buildings surrounded by fencing and barbed wire. The immigrant men who are detained there wear orange and brown prison jumpsuits, but most have not been convicted of, or even charged with, a crime. They are merely seeking relief under U.S. immigration laws — as is their legal right.
Their movement is highly restricted. They are detained two to a cell, confined indoors for most of the day with little opportunity for exercise or exposure to sunlight. Their "meals" are often inedible: spoiled milk and meat that is infested with worms and maggots. The food is nowhere near adequate to sustain them.
When they arrived at Victorville, the detained immigrants were not provided a change of uniform or underwear for several weeks. Some recount how they had to wash their underwear in the toilet in their cell with a small bar of soap that was also to be used for washing themselves.
Medical and mental health needs are ignored, an especially dangerous situation for those who have fled persecution or torture in their home countries. Poor hygiene and medical neglect are so extreme that there have been outbreaks of chickenpox and scabies. When the men try to seek medical help, they are often dismissed, mocked, and verbally abused by staff who threaten them with isolation and other punishment.
Communication with the outside world is severely limited. The men do not have access to legal materials, and the most basic information is provided solely in English, a language that the majority of the men do not speak. They were only allowed to consult with attorneys after the ACLU of Southern California won a court order granting access to the detainees.
As if these conditions were not appalling enough, prison officials have denied the men one of the few things that might bring them some comfort or peace of mind: the ability to practice their faith. Victorville officials have refused to provide religious services or other opportunities for group worship and prayer. By policy, the men are not allowed to worship outside of their cells. Prison officials also have not provided meals that fully comport with their religious beliefs, forcing them to eat food that violates their faith or go hungry.
Officials confiscated immigrants' religious items, including religious clothing and holy books. For example, Sikh immigrants had their turbans taken. They have not been able to regain access to them or obtain replacements, even though wearing a turban is one of Sikhism's most sacred religious practices. Another immigrant had his Bible seized and has likewise been unable to procure a replacement. These violations of religious rights persist, even though the BOP's and ICE's own regulations recognize the right to engage in these religious practices.
Let's be clear: No one — not even those convicted of crimes — should be subject to these shocking conditions of confinement. Many of the men report that they feel depressed and that they never expected that this could happen in America. The situation is so dire that some have engaged in self-harm, while others simply abandon their legal claims because the abuse is too much to endure.
Despite all that these people have gone through, an ICE agent told one of our clients "to think of Victorville like a hotel."
But the problem isn't limited to Victorville. At the Sheridan Federal Detention Center in Oregon, another BOP facility, immigrants likewise suffer from lack of access to counsel and other unconstitutional conditions, which are being challenged by the ACLU of Oregon and the Federal Public Defender. The ACLU and ACLU of Oregon filed a brief on Wednesday with the Oregon federal district court, supporting a request for an emergency order directing prison officials to allow the immigrants incarcerated at Sheridan to practice their religion while they are confined.
The men at the Victorville and Sheridan prisons are detained under an agreement between ICE and the BOP, allowing for the detention of 1,600 immigrants in BOP facilities in Washington state, Oregon, California, Arizona, and Texas. While ICE uses its own network of prisons and jails to detain immigrants, the move to transfer immigrants to BOP facilities at this level is unprecedented.
Before these transfers started, federal prisons like Victorville were used to incarcerate those who have been convicted of crimes — and the BOP did a poor job of that. Over the years, the Victorville prison has been plagued by a number of problems, including understaffing that has led to dangerous conditions for those incarcerated there.
BOP officials themselves have acknowledged that the situation in these facilities is untenable. Some BOP employees have reported that they were not provided adequate notice that hundreds of immigrants would be transferred to BOP facilities, which were unprepared to handle a sudden influx of people or the particular needs of this population. While reports initially indicated that the use of federal prisons for immigrant detention was a temporary, 120-day arrangement, the contracts between ICE and BOP will last a year.
The harm resulting from such imprisonment is profound. Many of the immigrants detained at Victorville and Sheridan may suffer medical and mental health effects years or even decades after they are released.
Like the Trump administration's family separation and zero-tolerance policies, these transfers were made in reckless haste, with no regard for the well-being and lives of the immigrants who are detained. President Trump and ICE might not care about them, but we do.
home where they came from they would have to be cannibals to survive.
This makes it okay? Really?
I understand that this is shocking and hard to hear but unfortunately, it is true. Makes you ashamed of our country. doesn't it.
You decree it to be false, but provide no counter-evidence to the article. Truly you are an enlightened philosopher, Danny.
Been Romanian immigrant in this country US for over 23 years i care for my African black Nigerian friend,my Dominican Hispanic friend from bronx,my jewish friend from Brooklyn,my puerto rican friend from Harlem,my Haitian african american friend from New Jersey ,when Mr Trump come to power i was thinking and struggle every day with idea to leave US and going back to Europe because i kind knew and Mr Trump will employ nazi and communism tactics probably more to revenge onhis adversary but also because Mr Trump want power more than he is interested on money i noticed that,i grew up in communism and my granddfather was in nazi concetration camp and told me how all this start,so when i see the beaviour pattern of the president i knew something danger come to US,now that i see how he grew up on popularity i decided to say FCK him and anger me even more not to not leave and never return back to Europe i will defend New York and immigrant ideals of US and defend US american dream even i will have to be be a part of blood shed of a Civil war to reshape new America it's the best place to die for what you believe and protect American dream and my friends ideals from all races and creeds,if i were to die i can always tell to my grandfather who suffer in Nazi conecetration camp that i was not a coward and stand up for what is right ,May God Bless new America and new generation who dream to reshape this beautyfull unique land.
My grandfather died in a Nazi concentration camp.
He fell out of a guard tower.
So your grandfather assisted in murdering millions of people?
You sound proud of that.


text:
Faroa is a genus of flowering plants in the gentian family (Gentianaceae), native to  tropical Africa. Faroa species are noted for their ability to grow in harsh conditions such as on bare rock, sand, mineralized soils, and mine tailings with high concentrations of copper.

Species
Species currently accepted by The Plant List are as follows:
Faroa acaulis R.E.Fr.
Faroa acuminata P.Taylor
Faroa affinis De Wild.
Faroa alata P.Taylor
Faroa amara Gilg ex Baker
Faroa axillaris Baker
Faroa chalcophila P.Taylor
Faroa corniculata P.Taylor
Faroa duvigneaudii Lambinon
Faroa fanshawei P.Taylor
Faroa graveolens Baker
Faroa hutchinsonii P.Taylor
Faroa involucrata (Klotzsch) Knobl.
Faroa malaissei Bamps
Faroa minutiflora P.Taylor
Faroa pusilla Baker
Faroa richardsiae P.Taylor
Faroa salutaris Welw.
Faroa schaijesiorum Bamps

References

Gentianaceae
Gentianaceae genera

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia