Agriculture continues to be a token flagship of the Mississippi economy. However, a specific kind of farming continues to grow within the state that has cause for attention. This area of farming is aquaculture, the process of producing farm-raised fish in a water environment.
Over the last couple of years, Mississippi’s aquaculture has grown greatly. According to the most recent data from 2017, the Mississippi aquaculture industry hosts 205 catfish farms, valued at $219.7 million. Mississippi has risen to one of the top producers of aquacultural farming products, so much so that the rest of the country consumes much of what Mississippi produces, bringing in $230.7 million in sales.
This growth is very timely as global demand for seafood and aquacultural products is expected to grow by 70% over the next thirty years thus increasing demand and providing business and jobs. Not only that, but an increase in productivity in aquaculture means an increase in general agricultural business as well. According to a study by the Food and Water Watch, this additional economic benefit comes from the broader agricultural sector producing the food and materials necessary to sustain aquaculture enterprises.
The aquaculture industry is clearly a vital element of the rising Mississippi economy and the state should look to competitive growth as other states expand aquaculture as well. For instance, the New England states have taken advantage of this opportunity and are now generating $150 million annually. The state of Washington also benefits from this, generating $270 million annually.
Expanding this opportunity and taking advantage of this growth would be an excellent area for legislative attention in Mississippi. This is especially true considering that American aquaculture farms have barely scratched the surface of what total demand is necessary to exhaust the industry (America only meets 5 to 7 percent of the current demand for seafood).
Furthermore, when farmers see that one can succeed in aquaculture, new technologies like computer-controlled oxygen monitoring systems have emerged. This enables farmers to monitor and control the oxygen levels in farming ponds. People find something they want to pursue. They find solutions to making that pursuit easier through innovation. That innovation in turn, inspires others to participate. The cycle goes on and on.
This is another perfect opportunity for legislators to make positive changes in Mississippi communities. Fewer regulations and more motivations to participate in markets like these provide opportunities for innovation and growth in the economy. It is a faulty assumption to presume that government needs to compel or even incentivize individuals for growth to occur. The reality is that neither of those things are needed. For growth to occur, as it has in aquaculture, individuals should be able to pursue their interests without fear of undue government interference. If interference is apparent, growth may actually take a downturn. State leaders would do well to further recognize the growth of the aquaculture industry and encourage its free market expansion.
As the world continues to grow in innovation and technology, it continues to shrink in scale. What would be accomplished in weeks or even months a couple of decades ago can sometimes be achieved in a matter of hours. Trade is no exception to this.
Due to innovation in the transportation industry, it is becoming easier and easier for states to benefit from producing and consuming goods from across the globe. Mississippi would do well to continue this trend as it engages in issues of international relevance.
Mississippi has historically benefitted significantly from international trade and investments. For example, in 2013, Mississippi exported $13.2 billion in goods and $2.2 billion in services across 193 countries. As a direct result of this growth, the Mississippi trade sector saw a 154 percent increase in jobs (from 8.6 percent to 21.8 percent). One of the essential elements for this growth came from the existence of free trade agreements which promoted an increase in growth in trade by 469 percent in just ten years (from 2003 to 2013).
Today, while trade is still part of the economy, Mississippi’s export value has slightly dropped. While explaining the reasons behind this decrease are beyond the scope of this article, Mississippi can certainly do more in promoting its engagement in international trade. Today, it ranks 30th in the United States in exports and 28th in the United States in imports.
The Mississippi legislature should keep in mind several key exports that play a role in Mississippi’s international trade scheme: oil & mineral fuels, precision instruments, motor vehicles & parts, industrial machinery, and electrical machinery. These five goods total approximately $8 billion in exported capital and creates and sustains vital parts of the economy.
One way this can be achieved is by promoting Mississippi’s goods across the globe by educating businesses on how to engage in international trade. This can be a daunting task, especially in a small to medium business context. However, the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce has found success in this area as it has brought $16.7 billion into the state economy by providing support for exporters engaging in international trade. Agriculture is one of the state’s top industries, but imagine if that same engagement occurred on every other major export in the state. Economic growth would certainly be in the future.
Another area that can promote international trade growth is simply decreasing regulation and trade barriers. As mentioned previously, the existence of free trade agreements, minimizing or eliminating the existence of such barriers, played a substantial role in promoting significant growth.
International trade agreements are a little more complicated than a simple “no regulation” principle (it should often operate on a standard of mutual advantage as well). Yet, the idea still stands that governments should encourage companies to engage in trade without penalizing them at same time through high tariffs and regulatory duties.
The greatest element of these free trade agreements is that they encourage competition and innovation -the very things that have placed America in such a strong international trade position to begin with. Mississippi should proactively seek to engage in more international trade and replicate the success the state has seen in the past.
Tesla is now worth over $1 trillion. Not only is Tesla the first car company in the world valued at over $1 trillion, but Tesla is now worth more than twice the combined total of Toyota and Volkswagen.
Not bad for a car company that was only founded in 2003.
Tesla joins a string of companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet, worth over a $ trillion (Facebook is not far behind, valued at a mere $914bn.).
What is so striking about these firms isn’t just their astronomical value. It’s the fact that they are all relatively new companies. Microsoft and Apple were founded in the mid 1970s. Amazon and Alphabet in the 1990s.
What also stands out is that they are all American.
The largest companies in Europe today – Volkswagen, BP, Shell – were big companies a generation ago. Many of the largest firms in America hardly existed a few decades ago. New, too, is the underlying technology and economic activity on which they are built.
Perhaps any European reflecting on this should ask themselves where their Teslas and Apples are? Or perhaps, more important, ponder what their versions of Bill Gates or Elon Musk are up to? Working in local government, no doubt.
It seems extraordinary that any American politician should want to make their country more European.
What about Japan? I cannot think of a single significant consumer innovation to have come out of Japan since the Sony Walkman. Japan, which in the 1970s and 80s seemed so promising as a center of innovation and technological advance, has stagnated. Perhaps having an economy dominated by zombie companies, weighed down by debt but sustained by cheap credit, isn’t a recipe for success after all.
America has been the epicenter of innovation precisely because Microsoft, then Apple, were able to compete with IBM. Tesla with General Motors. Dozens of start-ups against AT&T. In Japan and Europe, the equivalents of IBM, GMs and AT&T were able to keep out the competition.
For America the lesson is clear; avoid becoming more European or more Japanese. Keep taxes and regulation low. Make sure that however economically important they might be, no big business is able to rig the market through the rule book.
Retirement is one of the critical financial elements in the lives of thousands of Mississippi. With many Mississippians being employed by the state and local governments, the status of the state’s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) is extremely important.
According to numbers provided by PER, approximately 13 percent of the total workforce members in the state are active members of the PERS system. This equates to approximately 150,000 Mississippians. Additionally, the system has approximately 112,000 retirees. According to the United States Census Bureau, 488,000 Mississippians are over 65 years of age, and about 11 percent of them are PERS retirees. In all, about 1 in 10 Mississippians are either active members or retirees under PERS. Despite the importance that PERS carries for so many Mississippians, it has not done very well.
The structure of the Public Employee Retirement System is based on a system of Defined Benefit Plans. Under this structure, government employees have a defined percentage of their income directed to the PER system (currently 9 percent). The government entity the employee works for also contributes to the fund via a match that is calculated as a percentage of the employee’s income (currently 17.4). In return, PERS invests the funds and guarantees that the employee will receive defined retirement pension benefits, even if the funds do not provide a good return on investment.
From a limited viewpoint, it may appear that PERS is doing relatively well with its investment returns. The fund saw a 32 percent increase in investment value from June 2020 to June 2021. However, it is important to note that the stock market was in a rebound from the historic effects of 2020 Covid. Thus while the fund saw large increases in 2021, annual investment returns in 2020 were only 3 percent. Furthermore, these increases are not enough to fully address the systemic issues that have caused a gap between the fund’s obligations and actual investment returns.
According to PERS 2020 fiscal year report, the fund had assets with a market value of $28.4 billion and total liabilities of $47.4 billion. This means that the investments were only supporting 61 percent of the total retirement liabilities. According to a recent report issued by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the state retirement system is the 15th most underfunded in the nation on a per capita basis. The state also has the highest amount in the country for unfunded liabilities as a percentage of GDP.
Although the policy issues surrounding the system are extremely complex, some fundamental reforms could be made to help address the level of underfunded liabilities. In addition, the state should also consider reforms that will provide government employees with greater retirement flexibility.
In the first place, it is important to consider the issues surrounding the assumed rate of return utilized by PER. In states across the country, an increasing amount of retirees and major market fluctuations such as the 2008 Crisis and the Covid impact in 2020 have shown many of the assumed rates of return to be higher than the actual annual averages. In light of this, some have called for PER administrators to lower the assumed rate of return to better account for the element of investment risk.
This alternative model that directly factors in risk is known as “risk-adjusted discounting.” Indeed, most of the retirement systems in states across the country have been all but forced to lower their assumed rates of return due to volatile market conditions. However, best practices have these changes implemented in the assumed rate of return without being forced to do so by the market.
Furthermore, rather than centralizing all pension investments into one centralized state agency, Mississippi should consider implementing reforms that would allow government employees more freedom with their retirement contributions.
Some states, such as Utah and Michigan, allow their government employees to opt to allocate funds to a 401(k) style Defined Contribution Plan. This gives state employees flexibility on what they would like to invest in for retirement if they choose to opt out of the standard Defined Benefit Plan. While 401(k) type plans do not have the same guaranteed return, employees have the benefits of greater growth potential, more portability, and the ability to have more personal responsibility over their retirement future.
Fiscal responsibility, good government, and sound public policy are important in ensuring that the public retirement system can best serve government employees. By implementing balanced reforms, the state could see a healthier retirement system that can serve its employees for years into the future.
In 2019, the Mississippi legislature passed the Broadband Enabling Act. This legislation gave Electric Power Associations (EPAs) the legal permission to use their existing infrastructure to bring broadband service to their ratepayers. While this has seen some success in expanding broadband access in the state, some key accountability reforms could cause better outcomes.
To grasp how broadband services are being brought to citizens via the EPAs, it is important to understand how they are structured. Most of the EPAs in Mississippi were founded in the 1930s and 1940s to bring electricity to rural areas. These entities are non-profit organizations operating under the direction of elected board members. They are also known as “electric cooperatives” or “electric co-ops.” They have a monopoly over their service areas, and the costs of operation determine the electricity rates that members pay.
This provides the context for the broadband rollouts authorized by the Broadband Enabling Act. Before the Act, EPAs were not permitted by law to operate as broadband service providers for their members. In the wake of the law’s passage, several of the state’s EPAs began conducting feasibility studies to determine the cost of broadband integration and the effects of such integration on electricity rates.
Upon review of the cost, some of the EPAs opted not to integrate broadband operations directly within their organizations, many due to cost concerns. Instead, some EPAs opted to enter into collaborative agreements with private sector internet service providers that permitted the use of electrical infrastructure for broadband deployment.
However, some EPAs did decide to become internet service providers for those in their services areas. The funding for these operations has been provided through a combination of federal, state, and local grants, along with the revenues generated from the electricity rates themselves.
Because individuals within an EPA’s service territory are subject to potential rate increases because of broadband network operation costs, accountability is important. Unlike a typical free-market context in which there is the element of consumer choice, electricity is different. In Mississippi, the government permits consumers to acquire electricity only from the entity that has been granted that particular service territory.
Thus, in the case of EPAs operating as electricity providers and internet service providers, mismanagement of the EPA’s broadband program can lead to increased costs for electrical consumers if a broadband program cannot sufficiently pay for itself.
This establishes the necessity that EPAs are accountable in the way they finance these broadband operations. While EPAs are required to regularly report to the state’s Public Service Commission regarding the legal compliance and financial records of electrical operations, the law is less clear on the extent of oversight for broadband services. Broadband service is not quite the same.
The Broadband Enabling Act does require an annual compliance audit for broadband-offering EPAs. However, financial and performance audits are not currently required by law. This presents potential issues for the citizens in the service territories of these electrical cooperatives. An EPA might be technically in compliance with the law, but that does not fully account for the finances of the broadband program that could ultimately lead to higher rates for those in the service territory.
In order to see a more financially sustainable future for the citizens who live in service territories under EPAs providing broadband, the state should consider enacting broadband financial auditing policies that will ensure more accountability. Such reforms would help ensure that mismanagement does not lead to electrical consumers paying for unreasonable utility bill increases because of EPA broadband buildouts. Broadband growth has immense potential for Mississippians, and the state should ensure that this growth through EPAs does not lead to unreasonable increases when it’s time to pay the electric bill.
Despite being a fairly conservative state, Mississippi still spends a large amount of its state budget on welfare and entitlement programs. Many of the programs themselves have structural problems on a policy level. Yet, many have also managed to cheat the programs themselves and exacerbate the problems that systemically arise from welfare and entitlement systems.
In order to grasp the importance of accountability and verification with the use of state welfare dollars, it is vital to grasp the scale of welfare and entitlement spending in the state. The state budget allocates much of its budget to welfare and/or entitlement programs such as Medicaid, TANF, Division of Community Services, and others. There are really two main types of fraudulent activity that contribute to the waste of taxpayer dollars in this system.
The first is the more blatant type of fraud in which an individual utilizes the money in these programs without having ever qualified for them in the first place. This is the case with many of the recent high-profile scandals in the state in which millions of dollars were directly stolen from these programs. This is also the case when individuals submit fraudulent documents that allow them to “qualify” for state resources that they would not qualify for legitimately.
The second type of fraud is if an individual initially qualifies for a program and then attempts to hide a change in circumstances, such as an income increase. For most programs, state law requires individuals to notify the government if a change in circumstances has made them ineligible for the program. Such fraud goes against the allegedly temporary basis that these programs are designed for.
Both types of fraud have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars over the years. The systems themselves already have to deal with the challenges of managing the funds, and fraud adds an additional layer of complexity. In order to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being consumed by fraud, the state should take proactive measures that require more verification and accountability protocols for the use of these funds.
The state already has access to several levels of verification, including driver’s licenses, state income tax returns, unemployment records, and others. Rather than having vague rules that vary from agency to agency and have numerous administrative loopholes, the state should consider inter-agency identity and income verification procedures that fill in the gaps. In some cases, even a basic cross-reference of welfare applications with state income tax returns could provide documented proof.
Instead of having policies that allow fraud to slip through frequently, state leaders should consider leveraging every available tool to verify that state welfare dollars are not lining the pockets of fraudsters. This is a critical step to help cut down on the waste of funds that digs right into taxpayers' pocketbooks.
The conversation of race and social justice often becomes inextricably linked with the conversation of diversity. Despite this questionable emphasis on immutable characteristics such as race, the consistency of such an emphasis on diversity could be measured against other metrics that emphasize merit and actual viewpoint diversity.
The irony is that despite the emphasis on diversity and the desire to promote an atmosphere of acceptance, companies and agencies are quite selective in the metrics and categories of diversity that are evaluated and prioritized. They are required by law to practice equal employment practices. However, this simply means that they cannot refuse to hire an individual based on characteristics protected by law (including race, gender, and religion).
Beyond that, employers can prefer some diversity characteristics over others. This is why race and gender are always evaluated in corporate responsibility reports and almost never political affiliations or religions. In other words, America is pursuing diversity, the question still remains however, what kind of diversity?
The evidence is clear that diversity in the workforce is beneficial in providing innovative solutions. However, despite the present emphasis on immutable characteristics such as race, the data suggests that diversity benefits primarily come from diversity of thought rather than the amount of pigment in one’s skin.
People who think differently approach problems differently. Therefore, people proposing the same exact solutions to a problem will be less likely if the group consists of people from different backgrounds, experiences, and points of view. Companies and agencies that incorporate a diversity strategy are 1.7 times more likely to find innovative solutions to their respective problems. Companies that diversify their workforce see 1.4 times more revenue. Decision-making is two times faster in diverse teams. The obvious reason for these types of statistics is that diversity of thought provides an atmosphere in which group-think is minimized.
This is why viewpoint diversity, such as political or religious diversity, are important in assessing government and corporate pursuits of diversity as a whole. Without these metrics, government and corporate elites have the opportunity to dictate not only how diverse their teams should be, but also what groups they desire to leave out or minimize based on religious or political viewpoints. Not only does this not promote true diversity but it strays dangerously close to promoting social group-think of one particular ideology.
People often advertise that diversity as a concept means that when someone comes into work, they should bring their whole selves. Pat Gelsinger, CEO of Intel, said something quite interesting in that part of one’s whole self should be one’s religion, and that needs to be on the diversity radar: “If I can’t express my Christian faith in the workplace, [it’s] not a diverse workplace.” Promoting these ideals are required to ultimately promote true diversity. The problem is that the dominant view of diversity is defined by simply increasing minority representation. This is only one part of the puzzle of diversity and is short-sighted in scope to promote some alternative agenda. It is critical to cultivate an environment both inside government operations and in the corporate world to approach diversity in a way that dissuades the use of mechanical quotas: treating diversity as a quantity rather than a quality. Government policies that mandate such an approach to diversity discourage true diversity by viewing individuals in categories, rather than viewing them as individuals.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Jackson, MS): One of America’s largest conservative think tanks is partnering with the Mississippi Center for Public Policy to debate Critical Race Theory.
On Tuesday, November 9, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy will host Mike Gonzalez, a Senior Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and America’s leading expert on Critical Race Theory, at an event in Jackson.
“As the leading conservative advocacy organization in the state, we are delighted to be partnering with the leading conservative think tank in the United States,” said Douglas Carswell, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
“Critical Race Theory is deeply divisive and risks reversing many of the advances made in America since the Civil Rights era,” Carswell added.
“Our recent report on Critical Race Theory revealed that this ideology is being advanced in our education system, perhaps most aggressively in public universities. While the education establishment often seeks to deny that they are pushing this radical, progressive agenda, we uncovered incontrovertible evidence that they are.”
Author of The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free and, most recently, BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution, Mr. Gonzalez has crisscrossed the country, advising lawmakers and citizens alike on what we need to do to safeguard America from this Left-Wing dogma.
At the seminar, Mr. Gonzalez will present the audience a number of resources and evidence on Critical Race Theory to:
- Explain what it is and define the teachings and values behind it
- How it can and is destroying our society
- How to correctly identify it in academic curricula
- How to defeat it
For more information or to request an interview with Mississippi Center For Public Policy President & CEO Douglas Carswell, please reach out to Stone Clanton, [email protected].
Why is Bitcoin worth as much as it is? For the same reason that anything is worth what it is.
The price of Bitcoin reflects the extent to which people want it relative to the amount of it out there. With the total supply of Bitcoin fixed, the massive rise in the price of the world’s first cryptocurrency – from a few cents to over $50,000 in a few years - is a reflection of soaring demand.
The fact that one Bitcoin is worth tens of thousands of dollars, however, seems to offend some folk. Why is it, they want to know, that a piece of software code should be worth so much?
There are no shortage of those that have compared the Bitcoin boom today with the 17th century Tulip bubble in Holland. Tulip mania saw vast sums invested in tulip bulbs, which ultimately proved to be more or less worthless.
Bitcoin, the skeptics often point out, has little utility. It’s just a piece of code – you can’t use it for anything. So why are so many people pouring so much money into it? Its not even a very effective method of payment, given that the value of Bitcoin is so volatile.
But surely many of the same things could also be said about gold?
Gold, too, has limited utility. Beside jewelry and a little electronics, you can’t really do a lot with it.
Nor is gold, even in coin form, a very good way to pay for things.
Not so long ago, the economist John Maynard Keynes dismissed gold as a ‘barbarous relic’. It was, according to this Cambridge-educated technocrat, absurdly old fashioned that a base metal should serve as a reserve currency.
Twenty years ago, British finance minister Gordon Brown, thought something similar when he ordered the Bank of England to sell off its gold reserves.
But, of course, what Keynes called a relic retained its value long after he had passed on. When Brown began to sell off Britain’s gold reserves, he did so for $275 per ounce. Gold today is worth over $1,700 per ounce.
Gold, like Bitcoin, is not valuable because it does something. It is valuable because lots of people want it, and there isn't much of it about. That is all.
With neo-Keynesians running many of the world’s central banks, I suspect that demand for an alternative to their paper fiat currencies will only increase.