Category: Economy & Business

Chri$tma$ Tree$

Oh, Christmas tree: The economics of the US holiday tree industry

Published: December 6, 2023 2:41pm EST

Authors

  1. Jay L. ZagorskyClinical Associate Professor of Markets, Public Policy and Law, Boston University
  2. Patrick AbouchalacheLecturer in Strategy and Innovation, Boston Univ

Christmas today is a big business, and one part of that is the multibillion-dollar business of selling Christmas trees. The U.S. Christmas tree industry is so large, it even has two dueling trade groups: one that supports natural trees and the other, artificial.

We are two business school professors whose students asked us to explain the economic impact of the winter holidays. In the holiday spirit of sharing, we’re giving you some facts to discuss while trimming your tree.

Where to buy a natural Christmas tree – or chop one down yourself

There are three different ways to get a natural Christmas tree.

First, you can go into a national forest and chop down your own. Relatively few Americans do this, even though a permit costs $10 or less, because government rules require that the tree you chop must be more than 200 feet from any road, campground or recreation area. Since dragging a tree destroys its branches and needles, the 200-foot rule means that large, heavy trees have to be carried a fair distance through often snowy woods.

Your second option is to buy or chop down a tree at a local Christmas tree farm. Christmas tree farms got a big promotional boost when Taylor Swift revealed she grew up on one, but she’s hardly alone: There are nearly 3,000 Christmas tree farms across the U.S., according to the Department of Agriculture’s most recent figures. These farms sell around 12 million trees a year.

While being a Christmas tree farmer sounds idyllic, it isn’t very profitable, since Christmas trees take over a decade to grow large enough to sell. Long lead times combined with changing and unpredictable weather have pushed many of these farms out of business. Almost 500 U.S. Christmas tree farms shuttered between 2014 and 2019, the USDA found.

The third way to buy a tree is from a local retailer that imports trees. In 2022, the U.S. imported almost 3 million natural Christmas trees, primarily from Canada. Imports have been growing steadily: In 2014, the U.S. imported only half as many trees.

Together, this means that in 2022, roughly 15 million locally grown or imported natural trees were sold in the country.

Some people like to buy their trees from a nonprofit, like the Boy Scouts. These fundraisers are also supplied from local Christmas tree farms or imports.

An artificial tree’s journey from China to your living room

Artificial trees are popular with people who don’t like the mess and fuss of natural trees. Replica trees primarily come from China, and most are made in the Chinese city of Yiwu. The U.S. imported over 20 million artificial trees in 2022 alone.

And they’re becoming increasingly common. In 2014, the U.S. imported 11 million artificial trees and sold almost 22 million natural trees. This means that back in 2014, almost two real trees were purchased for every artificial one. A decade later, natural tree sales had fallen to around 15 million, but over 20 million artificial trees were imported.

One result of the shift to replica trees is a reduction in house fires. Natural trees that aren’t watered dry out and sometimes catch on fire. In 1980, the U.S. saw about 850 Christmas tree fires that caused 80 people to be injured. Four decades later, the number of annual fires fell to 180, with only eight injuries.

In a store, a sign in the shape of a Christmas tree ornament reads 'All trees on sale.'
Welcome news for shoppers. Patrick Abouchalache

Why Christmas trees are so expensive

Some people get sticker shock when they see how much Christmas trees cost. Those shocking prices don’t come from the wholesale level. Last year, wholesalers importing entire shipping containers paid $22 for each artificial tree, on average, according to U.S. government statistics. Importers of natural trees paid roughly the same price. Together, artificial and natural importers paid over a half billion dollars for trees to sell in 2022.

Unfortunately, there are no official statistics on how much Americans pay for Christmas trees at the retail level. There’s a general consensus that artificial trees cost more than natural trees, but the extra money may be worth it because they last more than one season.

Consumer surveys by the two competing trade groups suggest that people paid in the range of $80 to $100 for their trees in 2022. This means the markup on Christmas trees is around 400% to 500%. That’s about the same as a pair of designer jeans or a drink from a hotel minibar.

Multiplying the $80 to $100 price by the 15 million natural trees and 20 million artificial trees sold in 2022 means Christmas trees are roughly a $3 billion business annually — without including any extra money spent on the decorations.

So, with so many options, how do you settle on which sort of tree to buy? Price, environmental factors, convenience and even allergies are all important factors to consider. There’s no easy answer. One of us can’t decide and has multiple trees, ranging from a 12-inch artificial tree handed down from his grandmother to a 7-foot-tall natural Fraser fir purchased at his local Christmas tree farm.

Whatever you decide – natural, artificial, both or no tree at all – just remember to add a dash of cheer to your winter celebration. After all, the best things about the season are free.

How I try to stay informed…

Terryorisms Menu >

Since the news business has changed from reporting to profits, keeping eyeballs is what it is all about. 

Fox found this out after they accurately reported that Trump was projected to lose Arizona. Tucker Carlson then ranted about how their viewership was going down, along with the stock price with which he was richly compensated. He understood that their viewers were  there to hear what they need to believe. And if they didn’t get it, they would move to Newsmax, Onan and other alternative news sources that would feed the beast.

Rush Limbaugh always understood that and bragged that he was an Entertainer. Are you entertained?

For any democracy to it operate efficiently, it needs an informed electorate. So how do you sort out the news from the fire hose of information flow these days?

1)Realize that your. 00001 experience of the world contributes to 80% of your worldview. Approach your understanding with a scientist skepticism that he’s always willing to accept that he could be wrong.

 2)Intentionally expose yourself to opposing views. We don’t like to do this because it makes us uncomfortable. Over the years I have developed a diversity of writers that I follow on the hellscape that is Twitter. Most of us don’t have a luxury of time to do that. It’s not easy being free, when you don’t have an emperor to make all the decisions for you.

3) Turn off the Crisis News networks . If there isn’t good video footage, or if the victim isn’t attractive, you won’t hear about it . Just like the print media, television is all about eyeballs. Now there are live news events that television coverage excels at. Television Studios nowadays don’t need to wait for their cameras to warm up to go live. Walter Cronkite had to wait to give the world the shocking news about Kennedy being shot in Dallas.

CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite reports that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Credit CBS via Landov

4) Read some news sources from outside the United States bubble. Here are some free websites that also have free apps for your handhelds. 

A good one to see the southeast Asian perspective on the world is the Asia Times  https://asiatimes.com/

Also, try the Arab news source https://www.aljazeera.com/

France 24 for another perspective https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/

The Guardian is one of the few British rags that isn’t just a tabloid http://thrguardian.com/

If you can afford subscription the Financial Times, The Week, The Economist, Wall Street Journal and NY Times will cover a lot of area.

A great little tool that I use is an aggregator that ranks stories by their number of hits in real time. Bookmark this handy page

https://www.memeorandum.com

5) Last, but not least, Social Media is just that and not a source of verifiable information. Outrage and anger build engagement. Realize that you are being baited with these emotions to click on their stories.

Why You Should Care Who Wins the AI Race.

Will the Server Farms of today turn into Server Cities to supply the Fifth Industrial Age’s insatiable drive for more computing power?

Or will it be like the Main Frame Computer being overtaken by the PC?

ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Glen Beck (background) and Betty Snyder (foreground) program the ENIAC in building 328 at the Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL).

But nowadays the PC in your hand, i.e. your cellphone, offloads it’s computing load to more powerful computers at a server farm. A server farm is actually a large number of PCs hooked up parallelly. All that data has been harnessed in Large Language Models (LLM) to train Artificial Intelligence (AI).

By winning the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Britain was able to produce the ships and tanks that powered their Empire. Whoever wins the AI race (the Fifth Industrial Revolution) will dominate this century and maybe beyond. This thoughtful interview will brief you on the implications of our ongoing competition with China and why we should win, except for one caveat –

this idea of “temporal claustrophobia,” where the Kaiser, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany all convinced themselves they were at a high watermark.

Jeffrey Ding

ChinaTalk

GPTs and the Rise and Fall of Great Powers

“Economic power is the most fungible and transferable currency.”

JORDAN SCHNEIDER

 AND 

RYAN HAUSER

JUL 10, 2023

Jeffrey Ding is a professor at George Washington University and the creator of the ChinAI Substack. He argues in a recent paper that great powers must harness general-purpose technologies if they want to achieve global dominance.

In this show, we discuss the historical underpinnings of that argument and apply it to AI today — drawing out policymaking lessons spanning centuries of technologically driven great power transitions. We also get into:

  • Why long-term productivity growth is driven by the diffusion of general-purpose technology, and what makes this so crucial for great power competition;
  • Historical lessons from the UK, Soviet Union, US, and Germany illustrating the cultural and policy roadblocks to tech diffusion;
  • The importance of decentralized systems, and how this helped America win the Cold War
  • Why China’s diffusion capacity lags behind its innovation capacity, and how America should avoid getting locked into any one technological trajectory.

Co-hosting is Teddy Collins, formerly of DeepMind and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jeff-ding-on-us-vs-china-ai-and-lessons-from-past/id1289062927?i=1000612569365

Midjourney: “Technological Diffusion in the Style of Traditional Chinese Art, City, Society, Schools, Different forms of Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Scrolls, the Printing Press, Computers, Smart Phones”

Click on the 2 page to read the whole interview. It is worth your time to learn about what will undeniably will be the defining driver of our age.

Pages: Page 1, Page 2

The Pentagon is no longer the world’s largest building.

This picture is the Pentagon under construction in 1942. Since then it had held the record for the world’s largest building.

A $338 million building in India, for their diamond trade,now holds the distinction. Click the link below to be taken to a video about this…

https://www.cnn.com/videos/architecture/2023/07/05/india-largest-building-surat-diamond-borse-orig.cnn

How The West Industrialized Russia

Russia is often portrayed as the invincible military power. And
yet, this reputation is based on two wars – Napoleonic and
WWII. In both cases Russia won only thanks to the alliance
allied with the leading economic powerhouse of that era.

ThreadReader_0_kamilkazani_1505247886908424195Download

What Happened To Us?

It didn’t used to be this way

As a result we spend an inordinate amount of money on Health Care.

Yet our life expectancy is going down.

Even though we are smoking less.

But we picked up worse vices along the way.

I think a more sedentary life is one factor, but diet is my main culprit.

And we “Consume Vast Quantities”

Along with cheap processed carbohydrates, I mostly blame Sugar.

Do you agree?

Chinese Urban Renewal

Watch these buildings being blown up. Overbuilding and corruption brought them down during the orgy of construction before COVID hit. These buildings were destroyed because they were deemed unsafe for habitation, due to corners that were cut during construction. China is littered now with ghost cities. Instead of “build it and they will come”, this looks more like “build it to keep people employed” for “social harmony”. Now the real estate boom is turned into a bust, with the government having to take over failed construction companies.

Developmental USA Industrial Policy

The Economist’s argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of US history. The American economic tradition is rooted in the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower, who recognized the need for a developmental state and the dangers of rent-seeking.

Neoliberalism’s Final Stronghold

Apr 27, 2023 J. Bradford DeLong

A recent essay celebrating America’s “astonishing economic record” is a case in point. After urging despondent Americans to be happy about their country’s “stunning success story,” the authors double down on condescension: “The more that Americans think their economy is a problem in need of fixing, the more likely their politicians are to mess up the next 30 years.” While acknowledging that “America’s openness” brought prosperity to firms and consumers, the authors also note that former President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden “have turned to protectionism.” Subsidies, they warn, could boost investment in the short term but “entrench wasteful and distorting lobbying.” In order to address challenges like the rise of China and climate change, the US must “remember what has powered its long and successful run.”

As usual, the Economist delivers its reverence for neoliberal dogma with all the sanctimony and certitude of a true believer. Americans must sit down, shut up, and recite the catechism: “The market giveth, the market taketh away: blessed be the name of the market.” To doubt that the US economy’s current problems are caused by anything other than an interventionist, overbearing government is apostasy. But, as an economic historian, what took my breath away was the essay’s conclusion, which attributes America’s postwar prosperity to its worship of the Mammon of Unrighteousness (more commonly known as laissez-faire capitalism).

The essay cites three “fresh challenges” facing the US: the security threat posed by China, the need to rejigger the global division of labor due to China’s growing economic clout, and the fight against climate change. The climate challenge, of course, is hardly “fresh,” given that the world is at least three generations late in addressing it. Moreover, our failure to act promptly means that the economic impact of global warming will likely consume most, if not all, of the world’s anticipated technological dividends over the next two generations.

Recognizing the scale and urgency of global challenges such as climate change and then denying, as the Economist does, that only governments can effectively address them amounts to something resembling intellectual malpractice. Adam Smith himself supported the Navigation Acts – which regulated trade and shipping between England, its colonies, and other countries – despite the fact that they mandated that goods be transported on British ships even if other options were cheaper. “Defense,” he wrote in The Wealth of Nations, “is of much more importance than opulence.” Denouncing desirable security policies as “protectionist” was beside the point then and now.

The Economist’s argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of US history. The American economic tradition is rooted in the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower, who recognized the need for a developmental state and the dangers of rent-seeking.

To be sure, it has been 70 years since Eisenhower’s presidency, and much of America’s state capacity has been hollowed out during the long neoliberal era that began with the election of Ronald Reagan. But the laissez-faire policies that were woefully inadequate for the mass-production economy of the 1950s are an even worse fit for the biotech and IT-based economy of the future. Rather than reject Biden’s industrial policies, Americans should embrace them. To quote Margaret Thatcher, there is no alternative.

Read Full Article