PowerPoint Doesn’t Bore an Audience, Scripted Speakers Bore an Audience

This is the second of a three-part series on delivering memorable presentations. The first part on the power of presence is available here.

Public speaking can be an energizing experience for both you and your audience. Indeed, you do not have to be satisfied with merely enduring your presentation.

I’ve read much poor advice about public speaking. Scripting is a recipe for making presentations that are uncomfortable for you and unmemorable for your audience. Preparing—but not scripting—is the secret. And using PowerPoint slides can help you deliver an effective, unscripted presentation.

PowerPoint has gotten a bad rap. I would paraphrase the famous saying, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” as follows: PowerPoint doesn’t bore an audience to death, scripted speakers bore an audience to death.

Some speakers, in an attempt to reduce their fears, rehearse their talk over and over again until they know every word by heart. They leave no room for spontaneity or authenticity. Their scripted talk is almost certainly going to bore themselves and their audiences.

I prefer an approach that helps you join with your audience. Yes, preparation is essential. Preparation encompasses such things as cultivating expertise on your material and outlining your talk using PowerPoint slides—but it does not encompass knowing the specific things that you are going to say.

Cultivating expertise means studying the material that you are presenting until you have a passion for it. If you have no passion, go back, and study some more. If you have a passion for a subject, you will naturally study it on an ongoing basis.

If your presentation is to be outstanding, you need to be responsive to your audience. By responsive, I don’t mean merely answering their questions. I mean that your presentation itself is guided and influenced by the concerns and needs of those in the room. These concerns and needs are frequently unspoken.

Years ago, I was invited to give Congressional testimony on nuclear power. The norm at Congress is that you submit prepared remarks and read those remarks verbatim. I couldn’t help myself—the needs of the moment inspired me to go beyond what I had already written. I was on the final panel of experts at the end of a long day; and I assure you, the only time the bored Congressmen lifted their slumped heads was for my unscripted testimony.

Each of my PowerPoint slides makes one key point; but on the slide, I make liberal use of quotations from other authors that illustrate that point. I expect to cover no more than ten—and usually end up covering far less than ten—slides in an hour.

On each slide there is less than a minute of information to read, and yet I may talk for up to a half hour on the contents of a single slide. How? I use the key points and quotations to trigger my own responsiveness to the moment.

Frequently as I speak, I am hearing myself say something for the first time. I am excited by what I am hearing and that excitement is contagious. That may sound strange to those who deliver a scripted speech.

Being prepared but not scripted means that you trust that there is a voice inside of you that is wiser than any script and that this voice will be there for you and will be responsive to the moment. This voice will not be there for you if you don’t trust it, or if you don’t trust your audience. This voice will not be there for you if you are not prepared or if you are overly concerned about yourself.

An effective presentation means you are joining with an audience in a conversation about important ideas. If an idea is important enough, there are no final answers. When you have the humility to understand there are no final answers, you will give up scripting and allow the audience to join with you on a journey toward greater understanding.

Ron Paul Asks Ben Bernanke: Where is the Moral Justification?

Last week, before the House Committee on Financial Services, Ron Paul pointedly asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: “What moral justification do we have to deliberately devalue the currency and the dollars that people save?”

At this hearing, Paul explained why the beneficiaries of the Fed’s cut in interest rates are financial institutions and Wall Street. The victims, Paul added, are the poor, the middle class, and the future of the U.S. economy.

Dr. Paul has been a student of economics for many years and, in particular, has studied the theories of Ludwig von Mises and Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek. Both economists have repeatedly explained how Fed credit expansion creates distorted saving and investment signals. These distorted signals lead to malinvestment. The consequences of malinvestment are recession or depression.

When the Fed chooses to mask the consequences of their past folly through more credit expansion, even more malinvestment is created. The end result of this is an even larger economic decline. Paul seems to be the lone political voice in Washington who understands this.

Paul’s question to Bernanke may be watched below.

Wisdom from Lou Piniella: “There Are No Concerns, About Anything”

The last time the Chicago Cubs made the World Series was 1945. The last time they won a World Series was 1908. As the baseball season dwindles down and the Cubs compete for a playoff spot, their fiery manager Lou Piniella said, “There are no concerns, about anything.”

Piniella is known for his combative eruptions, but he added, “I’ve been through these things before. You got to let these things play out. Pennant races have a life of their own, like a hurricane. They keep going and going until they hit landfall. Landfall will be sometime next weekend.”

No, Piniella is not in some nihilistic funk, and he has not given up. He is as competitive as ever; indeed, he has promised Cubs fans that their “frustration” will end under his managerial reign.

I have no idea if Lou Piniella has suddenly become a Zen master, but there is wisdom in his advice about allowing things to “play out.” He seems to understand that his worry or bluster will change nothing about the outcome of the pennant race. Let his players play with heart and the outcome will be what it will be.

How often I have forgotten to do exactly that.

Currently there is a photograph on my refrigerator of my son and my wife. It was taken when my son was a year old. He is riding in a baby carrier on my wife’s back.

I have looked at this photo many times, but I never saw it like I saw it today. Today I felt an incredible poignancy while looking at the photo. As I looked, all I felt was the pure Love and the vibrancy of the moment on that day over 11 years ago.

I felt poignancy because I experience many moments where I don’t feel Love. Indeed, even at the moment that I took the photograph, I’m not sure I felt the Love. Although I have no particular memories, I am sure I had my “concerns” and events were occurring around me which, at the time, may have seemed like a “pennant race.” These “concerns” clouded what was there and prevented my full enjoyment of the moment. But the gifts of that moment were never lost and were being saved for me.

The clouds were mind-created and were never really there in the first place. This is true about each and every moment. Some days, the cloud cover we create is denser; but Love is always there giving its gifts. We can open our gifts in that moment or in a future moment.

I don’t know if Lou Piniella would agree with me, but the gifts of the moment for the Cubs are the joy of playing as a team with all the gusto that they can muster. That is the one choice over which they do have control; over winning or losing, they do not.

Don Mclean wrote in his 1970 song “And I Love You So”:

The book of life is brief
And once a page is read,
All but love is dead.
That is my belief.

Best wishes to the Cubs; best wishes to all teams. There will be only one World Series winner, but every team will face the same choice when they look back over the season: Will they choose to feel the Love or will they remember the clouds?

Happy Days Are Not Here Again: Legendary Investor Jim Rogers’s Straight Talk about the Fed

For several decades, Jim Rogers, currently chairman of Beeland Interests, has been one of Wall Street’s most astute investors. When he has something to say, I certainly pay attention. Tuesday, just before the Fed’s rate cut, Rogers gave an extraordinary 20 minute interview on Bloomberg News in which he was contemptuous of Fed policy. Although I would not necessarily follow his investment advice, the interview is a must view.

Rogers argues that the Fed policy of both rapidly increasing the money supply and lowering interest rates will have disastrous consequences for the future of the dollar. Why, Rogers asks, should the Fed come to the aid of hedge funds and Wall Street bankers? He calls the Fed’s bailout policy outrageous and warns that the U.S. economy will pay the price for this folly.

Rogers points out that for years the hedge fund managers and Wall Street bankers were making astronomical salaries and proclaiming themselves geniuses. Why, Rogers asks, should they not now bear the consequences of their investment folly?

Rogers pulls no punches; and if you are concerned about America’s future, you will want to budget 20 minutes of your time to watch this interview by clicking here.

Delivering a Memorable Presentation: First, Forget About Yourself

For many, making a presentation is something they endure rather than enjoy. Yet I have learned that public speaking, if approached with the right mindset, can be very enjoyable. Even more, it can provide enormous personal benefits. I have found that public speaking can leave me feeling the same as vigorous exercise. At the end of both, I have an energized and clear mind; and frequently, I obtain insights about my work and my purpose.

Many “experts” give terribly bad advice about public speaking. This is because they approach public speaking from a mindset that it is something to endure, not enjoy. Advice such as “picture your audience naked” is silly and harmful.

This post is the first of a three-part series. I will deal with the “picture your audience naked” advice in the third post. That post will explain why you need to join with—rather than separate yourself from—your audience. In the second post, I will explain the difference between good preparation and scripting your talk. Scripting is deadly to a memorable presentation.

In this post we deal with the issue of presence and why a memorable presentation depends upon forgetting yourself. To be more precise, it depends upon forgetting about your ego. Once you do, your true Self, which arises from the love and intelligence of Wholeness, will rise to the surface.

When you hear the word presence, you may think to yourself, “Of course I am present. Where else could I be?” But your mind can take you to many places; it can take your attention away from this moment. As you stand to speak, you may think, “Gosh, this could be a tough audience. I never do well with this type of audience. I’m not getting paid enough for this job. It’s too hot in this room. This audience is so inattentive.” Clearly there are an infinite variety of distracting thoughts.

When you are thinking those distracting thoughts, your ego is present but your true Self is not. Your true Self is the source of an effective presentation. Ask yourself this simple question: What do I value more? Do I value my ego thoughts, or do I value being present for my audience? Taking a moment to inquiring into your values will allow you to choose again.

But what if the distracting thoughts are coming fast and furious? There is indeed no way out—until you remind yourself that these thoughts are not coming from the situation. Thoughts come to your mind and then the cause of the thoughts is projected by your mind onto the situation. For example, you feel tense and then you blame the fact that you are tense onto the “hot” room that you are in. Once you understand this principle of projection, you have the ability to choose again.

Once you regain the power of choice, then when a thought comes that takes your presence away, you can choose to drop it. The error many people make is that when a distracting thought comes, they engage the thought. We engage our thoughts when we resist them and when we process them. When you resist or process thoughts, you will find that one thought leads to another and another and another. Pretty soon, your presentation is ruined. Instead, choose to observe the thought and then drop the thought.

Many years ago when I was a relative rookie at lecturing, I would very easily make the error of being distracted. I frequently taught in a building whose classrooms were less than ideal. My classroom was situated right over the entrance to a major expressway. Classes began at 5:30 p.m. and the traffic always roared. In addition, the classroom had old heating and cooling units; they frequently made a lot of noise.

Some days when I was teaching, I felt that, even if I spoke in my very loudest voice, I was hardly audible over the racket. As I lectured, my mind drifted, mentally complaining about the expressway and the heating units.

Curiously enough, on other days—with the same level of racket—I would not even hear the noise. I could talk in a normal lecturing voice and feel as though I was speaking in an intimate setting.

Although this was many years ago, even then, I was beginning to understand what was going on. The issue wasn’t the expressway or the heating units; the issue was my presence—or lack of it.

If I was mentally complaining, the room would seem very big and noisy and I would feel very small; I was not present. If I was present, I placed my audience first and I experienced a quiet classroom.

Before your next presentation, there are a few steps that you can take to increase the chances that your distracting thoughts will fade away and leave you to be present for your audience.

Plan your schedule so that for some time before your presentation, you have a chance to be very quiet inside. Center yourself by reading something inspirational. Remind yourself of your purpose in giving the presentation: You are there to share your gifts. Remember that you value your audience above the distracting thoughts of your ego. Remember the distractions are not in the external circumstances; the distractions are in your mind.

If you take these steps to be present and turn away from your ego, there is an excellent chance that you will use your skills to the utmost and enjoy your presentation.

Renée Fleming on the Inner Voice

This weekend I was reading The Inner Voice, the autobiography of opera singer Renée Fleming. In the book, she explains her view that ambition should not be about rising to the top. Ambition, to Fleming, is an “inner motivator.”

It’s less about seeing how high up I can vault than about seeing how deeply I can explore my potential. How can I find a truer interpretation of a role? How much more depth and light and emotion can I find in my own voice? How much can I feel when I’m singing a piece, and how much can I in turn make the audience feel? Ambition for me is about the willingness to work, the ability to mine my own soul fearlessly. At the end of my career, I want to know in my heart that I did everything I was capable of doing, that I succeeded in singing in a way that not even I had imagined was possible.

As I read Fleming’s words, I couldn’t help but recall my last blog post on Bill Belichick. Belichick’s ambition, in Fleming’s terms, is not driven by the need to develop one’s gifts; his ambition is driven by a need “to step on other people to make sure you’re the first one to get through the door.”

A few years ago, in a radio interview, Fleming told the host of her long hours of practice and her belief that she didn’t have exceptional ability. She explained:

The most important talent that exists in all of us is our instrument; whatever sound there is that makes us all unique is the crucial thing that separates the men from the boys. But it is the part of which we have no control over, so it’s not what I think about everyday. I’m not aware of how my voice sounds so much as I’m steeped in the process of making the notes on the page come to life.

Fleming’s views on both ambition and ability reflect her deep understanding that her accomplishments arise out of a process of personal surrender to forces greater than her self. It is her “inner motivator” that allows these forces to live in her. Wisely, she pays less attention to the outcome and more attention to her practice. She observed philosophically in her interview that her gifts were ephemeral: “On any given night, what we do is a gift, and it can all go away due to unforeseen possibilities.”

Fleming is not unique. We have all been given a gift of genius; our business is to discover it, practice it, and share it. We can only share that for which we have respect. And we can only respect our gifts if we understand, as Fleming does, that our gifts truly are gifts—we did not create them.

The energy that animates Fleming’s gifts, and our gifts, has been called by many names. I prefer Wholeness, since that word conveys that each of us is a part of something greater than our self. It is this energy of Wholeness that animates Renée Fleming’s “instrument,” and it is this energy that animates our own. We receive this gift as long as our intentionality—our inner motivation—is authentic.

When we behave with ruthless ambition, like a Belichick, our gift is sure to flee. There are other ways our gifts flee too. Our gifts flee when we forget to be grateful for them. We forget to be grateful when we think we must run our life off our own personal willpower. I know that this delusional belief—this belief that I am separate from Wholeness that animates my gifts—has caused me grief.

We also block our gifts by our thinking. The ways we do this are endless. We may believe we need a new material possession. We may ruminate that our house is too small. We rehearse an imaginary conversation that may or not be necessary. We may hold on to a past grievance. We may think that our circumstances have to change before we can use our gifts.

All of these are just thoughts. Our problem starts when we think that because we had a thought, we have to take the thought seriously. We think we have to act on the thought or resist the thought. What if we just let go of the thought?

It is our gratitude and respect for our gifts that help us want to live our career with the kind of ambition that Fleming describes. As Fleming explains, practicing our gifts is a journey of lifetime; and that journey is endlessly fulfilling.

Why Bill Belichick’s Punishment Doesn’t Fit the Crime

During last Sunday’s opener of the National Football League (NFL) season, the New England Patriots were caught videotaping signals of their opponent, the New York Jets.

Thursday night, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell fined Patriot’s coach Bill Belichick $500,000. In addition, the team will forfeit a draft pick; and the Patriot organization will pay an additional fine of $250,000.

The punishment is far too light.

Over my thirty year career as a professor, I have had to deal with my share of clear-cut cases of cheating by students. Adjudicating these cases is never pleasant or easy. However, I’ve had two principles to help guide me in these cases—I do not move to the penalty phase until there has been adequate opportunity for the cheater to sincerely accept responsibility for his or her behavior. In my experience, without an acceptance of responsibility the student does not cooperate and has no possibility for redemption. Secondly, the very minimum penalty is that the student gets no credit for any questionable work.

Given this, let’s return to the insignificant penalty imposed on the New England Patriots and Bill Belichick. Keep in mind that this is a team that has won three Super Bowl championships in recent years, and they have been suspected of cheating for many years.

There are many accounts of Belichick’s abusive, unsportsmanlike, and cheating behavior. His crimes have been rewarded by the organizational culture in which he works. Many have charged that the Patriots operate by the principle, “if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying.” Apparently winning is all that matters to the Patriots.

NFL policy prohibits videotaping opposing coaches giving signals. Last year, the NFL’s Ray Anderson sent a memo to teams reminding them of their obligation to abide by that rule. The New York Times reports that “the memo is believed to have been generated in part by suspicions that the Patriots had videotaped coaches at several games last season.”

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote to the Patriots: “This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field.”

This is part of Belichick’s response:

As the commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week’s game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress.

Part of my job as head coach is to ensure that our football operations are conducted in compliance of the league rules and all accepted interpretations of them. My interpretation of a rule in the constitution and bylaws was incorrect.

Belichick claims his infraction was a matter of interpretation. Does that sound like a man who is accepting responsibility?

And what of Belichick’s claim that his cheating did not affect the outcome? Goodell did indeed claim that because the tape was seized early in the game, the outcome was not affected.

Of course this is an absurd rationalization. A game is emergent; any sequence of plays can affect the whole in unpredictable ways. In any case, that Belichick was caught early in the game is of no relevance. It is like a burglar, caught by the police as he is breaking into a home, arguing that his crime was inconsequential.

In almost every single plagiarism case that I have encountered, acceptance of responsibility is neither immediately nor easily obtained. Yet a professor has obligations not only to uphold professional standards for the school, but also to facilitate a non-trivial punishment for the cheater—one that allows for redemption and growth. Goodell, as a public leader, has even more of an obligation to do the same.

Here is what I would recommend. In addition to the penalty imposed, the Patriots should forfeit last week’s game—there should be no credit for questionable work. The Commissioner should hire an impartial investigator with subpoena power to question officials and players in the Patriot’s organization. Should evidence be found of cheating during other games, those games should be forfeited too.

Belichick should be suspended and required to spend time being coached by a living master of principle-centered coaching. Such a person is former UCLA coach, John Wooden. Wooden is a man whose coaching record will likely never be equaled and he accomplished that by putting principles first.

There are many who believe that cheating is a necessary aspect of sports and that critics should lighten up. Such beliefs are a sad refection of society-at-large. Those beliefs are a lie. They denigrate the accomplishments of every champion and coach who puts principled behavior first. A win is transitory, but what we value lives forever.

John Wooden, Hank Aaron, Roger Bannister, Bobby Jones, and legions of other principle-centered champions, known and unknown, have understood that wins which inspires others can be only be achieved through integrity. These champions didn’t compromise their values, for they knew that a life lived with integrity is far more important than winning.

The FAA Threatens To Ground Your Flight

Suppose you have a leadership position in your organization. Further suppose that the division you lead is using antiquated technology from the 1960s. And finally, suppose that you have been leading this division for 5 years and have repeatedly failed to upgrade the technology. Your failures are contributing to major problems that affect millions. And now is the time for you to leave your post.

While you or I might leave quietly and then engage in some serious reflection, others might try the opposite exit strategy—depart making a lot of noise in an absurd attempt to convince others that the effects of their failed leadership is the cause of the problems that affect millions.

This week, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Marion Blakey said that skies are overcrowded and that airlines need to shrink their schedules. If they don’t voluntarily shrink their schedules, she threatened government action to force them to do so. All of this was said on the eve of her leaving her post that she has held since 2002.

There is much that Blakey’s speech didn’t bother to say. Most importantly, she failed to mention that the root cause of the overcrowding was the air traffic control system that the FAA operates. This system is radar-based, goes back to the 1960s, and was not designed to handle today’s traffic flow in our skies. To ensure safety, the system requires air traffic controllers to either read blips on radar screens or visually follow aircraft. It is a system that is subject to both human-error and the limits of the antiquated technology.

The FAA has plans to replace radar-based traffic control with a satellite-based global positioning system. This new system will allow more airplanes to fly and greatly reduce delays. Incredibly, the first part of the system is already seven years behind schedule.

FAA’s Blakey is taking advantage of the public’s widespread ignorance of her agency’s failures. It is easy for the public to get incensed at their airline when flights are delayed. Flight delays are just the effect—the cause is the irresponsible and dangerous failure of the FAA to use modern technology to insure airline safety and to handle growing demand for airspace.

Many of you are familiar with the fast-growing grocery store chain, Trader Joe’s. The chain is very popular; many drive long distances to shop there. When the first Trader Joe’s opened up in my area, it was persistently crowded. Trader Joe’s responded like most businesses do to increased popularity; they expanded. Last year Trader Joe’s opened up a second store in my area and they are now building a third.

Suppose the CEO of Trader Joe’s, instead of opening new stores, blamed customers for shopping too often at his stores. He might then threaten to reduce store hours if customers didn’t voluntarily cut back their shopping at his stores. Of course this is an absurd scenario. This is not the way a normal business responds.

The normal laws of business and customer service do not apply if you are a government agency or if you have a monopoly on the service that you provide. After all, if you have captive customers who must select your service no matter how poor it is, you too might engage in blame filled excuses for your poor performance.

The Untold Story Behind Rising Medical Costs

Many solutions are offered for rising medical costs. Almost all of them involve more government intervention and less consumer choice. No one seems to talk about the root cause of rising costs—the extraordinary power of the American Medical Association (AMA) to control the supply of doctors.

Last week I had an appointment with my dermatologist. He has had a distinguished career. Last year he gave up his practice to devote full time to training dermatology residents at a major teaching hospital. He sees former patients one day a week.

He told me that although he is willing to essentially give away his former practice, in over a year, he has not found an interested physician. This was puzzling and disturbing to him. He had a very large practice in a fast-growing suburb that he had built over many years. I didn’t ask him what his annual income was from that practice, but I imagine it was substantial.

But apparently it is not substantial enough to attract a physician willing to take it over. He explained to me that in his current crop of dermatology residents, not one was interested in beginning a general dermatology practice. They were more interested in more lucrative forms of practice, such as cosmetic surgery.

As an economist, the facts that there are no takers at all for his practice and apparently little interest in general dermatology among new physicians tell me one of two things. Either there is no longer a demand from patients for general dermatology or there is a shortage of doctors. Since the former is not true, the latter must be. There are simply too few dermatologists to fill the comparably lowly financial slots of general dermatology.

An economic principle is that when there is a shortage, prices go up. Ordinarily—in a free-market—when there is more demand than supply, new entry by suppliers occurs. However, the supply of physicians is strictly controlled.

How did this shortage of doctors come about? In 1910 the AMA, with the backing of the Carnegie Foundation, commissioned Abraham Flexner, himself not a physician, scientist, or medical educator, to inspect medical schools. Although some inspections took only an afternoon, the Flexner report convinced state legislatures that only graduates of AMA approved medical schools should be licensed to practice medicine. By exercising its power to certify schools, the AMA reduced the number of medical schools in this country from 160 to 76.

Suppose there was an American Grocers Association that was granted power to regulate how many supermarkets opened up in each town and city. What do you think would happen? That Association would argue that in order to ensure high quality, the number of supermarkets should be reduced. They would mount a vigorous campaign to convince the public that the reduction in the number of stores was to protect the public.

But we know what would happen! If the supply of supermarkets was reduced and entry to open a new supermarket was made difficult, prices would go up, and quality would go down. Consumers would have to drive farther to get to a supermarket, there would be fewer 24/7 supermarkets open, product selection would be reduced, and innovation would occur at a much slower rate.

And so it is with medical care. No political party wants to tackle the unbridled power of the AMA—they are just too powerful a lobby. Until this power of the AMA is tackled, there will be no solution to rising medical costs. And as a consequence, the movement towards further socialization of medicine, which will hurt the consumer even more, will accelerate.

When Bad Milk Drives Out Good Milk

This week the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it had entered into a consent agreement with Aurora Dairy, one the nation’s largest producer of organic milk. Their milk is sold under house brands by Wal-Mart, Costco, Target, Safeway, and other supermarkets.

Aurora was cited for fraudulently selling milk that really wasn’t organic. Aurora’s widespread violation of the organic standards included raising their cows on feedlots instead of providing grazing space. According to the Cornucopia Institute these “were willful and premeditated violations of the law.”

Alright, so what’s the story here? A dairy company broke the rules and was caught. Well, there is more to it than that. The fact that Aurora (along with other big dairies) was breaking the rules for a long-time was well known and documented by the Cornucopia Institute. Given the crime, the punishment imposed—basically probation—was extraordinarily mild.

The Aurora Dairy incident is one example of a general phenomenon—namely, regulators tend to be captured by the corporate interests that they are regulating.

In economics, Gresham’s Law explains why bad money drives out good money. This law is frequently misunderstood. Detractors of free-markets frequently seek to apply Gresham’s Law to products other than money. Their antipathy to free-markets leads them to claim that the market rewards the lowest common dominator.

Yet, a moment’s reflection shows this to be untrue. Nordstrom peacefully coexists with Wal-Mart; and Hyundai with BMW. Good products and “inferior” products coexist. Consumers decide which products best fits their needs given their preferences and income. Thus, some households choose organic products while many others still choose the less expensive, non-organic alternative.

Gresham’s Law only works when the bad money and the good money are both legal tender. For instance, when both silver quarters and non-silver quarters were circulated side-by-side, the public quickly took the more valuable silver quarters out of circulation. Bad money (non-silver quarters) drove out good money (silver quarters), but that was only because shopkeepers were obligated to treat both silver and non-silver quarters as having the same value.

Back to milk. The USDA organic label acts as a sort of legal tender. If you go to the supermarket and there are two brands of milk both labeled as USDA organic, there would be no apparent reason to pay four dollars a half gallon for one brand when the second brand is only three dollars a half gallon. In your mind, the organic seal would give the impression that both the higher priced milk and the lower priced milk were equivalent products.

Thus, when the USDA awards the organic symbol to dairy companies that are not following the rules, they create the circumstances for bad milk to drive out good milk. The producer who is not cheating finds it very difficult to compete. Good milk producers cannot differentiate themselves by claiming to be “super-organic” since government regulations prohibit such non-sanctioned claims.

I have been a consumer of organic food for almost thirty years. Before there were USDA organic standards, there were private certifying bodies establishing reliable standards for organic food. As a consumer, I know I trusted those private certifying bodies far more than the government’s standard.

Unlike the USDA, these private certifying bodies had simply no incentive to be captured by corporate interests. Why? Simple. Their own credibility was on the line. One scandal like Aurora Dairy and the certifying body would be out of business.

In contrast, no matter how badly the USDA screws up, we can be sure of one thing: The USDA budget will be bigger next year and the taxpayer will pay more.