1. Weekend Reading: As they used to say on Monty Python, "...and now for something completely different. A couple of years ago I wrote a paper with this title, "Writing Papers in Economics Using Fake Latex." The article is real. Here is the link onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…
2. The back story for the paper will provide some insights into how faddish and tribal academics can be. Most people outside academics will be surprised how influential the physical appearance of a paper can be to other academics.
3. The "cool kids" in economics and lots of other STEM fields write papers in something called LaTeX. It was originally designed for desktop publishing, and I will be the first to admit that papers produced using this platform have a pleasing aesthetic appearance.
4. LaTeX was developed by a famous computer scientist at Stanford named Donald Knuth. The graphic below is an example of what a paper in LaTeX looks like.
5. In my own department, PHD students are encouraged to use LaTeX for their dissertation papers. Being a confirmed Microsoft Word user, this presented a major problem. To write in LaTeX you have to basically program as you write. Seems like a giant waste of time to me.
6. Plus you cannot go back and forth between LaTeX and Word easily at all. It is a practical impossibility. You can see the problems this could lead to. I became so frustrated a few years ago that I said there had to be a way around this problem.
7. I discovered an underground community out there that figured out how to "fake" LaTeX using Microsoft Word. Since these ideas were scattered here and there in obscure blogs I decided to write a document pulling it all together. I wanted to see if I could pull off a fake.
8. After showing my fake to a number of colleagues, they urged me to write my formatting "recipe" up into a paper and try to publish it somewhere. You can imagine that something with "Fake LaTeX" in the title was not easy to get published!
9. The Journal of Economic Surveys kindly and finally agreed to publish my paper on how to fake it. The reviews were 100% tribal as you might guess. LaTeX users regarded my faking as an abomination. I was quietly cheered by Word users.
10. Here is a pic of what a fake LaTeX formatted paper in Word looks like. The average person cannot tell the difference between this fake and the real thing.
11. I actually have no problem with anyone who wants to use LaTeX for writing papers. There are some good technical reasons where it shines. However, I object when it is presented as a standard or as a signal for entry into the cool kids club in academics. Mic drop.
1. Further confirmation that the leaked RVO numbers last week were real. This is quite a statement even considering how ferocious past battles in the #RFSwars have been.
2. Assuming the leaked numbers were right (at least at the time), I am still trying to figure out the political calculus of Biden Admin in going so anti-ag on the RVOs. Whatever your personal views on the RFS, the leaked proposal is indeed the worst ever from perspective of ag
3. Think about that. By all appearances, the Biden Admin is attacking the RFS more aggressively than even the Trump Admin. Who had that on their bingo card? I certainly did not.
2. I have talked a lot about the "intentionally late gambit" for crushing the RVOs, particularly for the conventional ethanol mandate. Biden EPA could clearly use this for cutting 2020 RVO by arguing compliance is late. Probably do so for 2021. But 2022?
3. Since the leaked RVOs included substantial cuts to the conventional mandate for all three years for 2021-2022, I no longer think this is the justification being used to crush the RVOs for all three years. Instead, they went were even the Trump EPA dared not tread.
1. Article contained a quote about corn prices going under $4 next year. Some clarification will be helpful. I don't think that will happen until summer 2022 at the earliest. Obviously weather dependent as well.
2. My thinking is that there is going to be a major global acreage response to the current high grain prices, even considering the ongoing run up in input costs. Land prices and rents going up is the norm as grain prices go up. Other inputs too.
3. Market analysts, myself included, were surprised by the muted acreage response to the higher grain prices in 2021. Maybe I will be wrong again, but history suggests a strong US acreage response in 2022. Maybe 183 million acres + combined US corn/soy planted acreage.
1. Put together this handy cheat sheet for the leaked RFS RVO numbers in the @OPISBiofuels article this morning. Also included the current "final" RVOs for 2020 and the "timecopped" adjusted RVO for 2020 (h/t to Rinny for always have the pithiest description!)
@OPISBiofuels 2. The only bone thrown out to ag is the increase in the advanced to 6.7 billion gallons in 2022. One way to benchmark these numbers is to compare the total RVO to the 20.09 total RVO currently on the books for 2020: -2.96BG in 2020, -1.462BG in 2021, & +0.675BG in 2022.
@OPISBiofuels 3. Using the current 2020 total RVO as the benchmark, the leaked RVOs for 2020-2020 result in a total RVO cut of 3.747 billion gallons. Would have to go back to check for sure, but think it would make the Biden Admin a bigger chopper of the RFS than even the Trump Admin.
@OPISBiofuels 2. According to OPIS "The volume totals were 12.5 billion gal of conventional fuel in 2020
-- well below the previously finalized 15.0 billion gal -- 13.453 billion gal in 2021 and 14.096 billion gal in 2022."
@OPISBiofuels 3. Assuming these are accurate, a whole host of issues raised. First, how can you ex post justify cutting a previously finalized RVO by 2.5 billion gallons? Did they go whole hog on the "compliance is not finalized/intentionally late legal gambit"?
1. With #pft21 in full swing this week, thought it would be a good time to share something I have been digging into on corn yields: wildfires. You read that right: wildfires. Lots of smoke and haze around this summer and we know photosynthesis needs energy from the sun.
2. I want to begin with a foundational fact about corn yields that I learned from the great Ken Cassman, now retired from Agronomy Dept. at Univ of NE. He was kind enough to exchange emails with me awhile back and instruct me on some corn yield basics.
3. This is from a 2010 book chapter that Ken co-authored. The right panel shows the strong relationship between the total solar radiation absorbed by the corn plant post-silking and yield. Note high R2