Labeling Regulations and Segregation of First- and, Second-Generation Genetically Modified Products: Innovation Incentives and Welfare Effects, April 2005

We review some of the most significant issues and results on the economic effects of genetically modified (GM) product innovation, with emphasis on the question of GM labeling and the need for costly segregation and identity preservation activities. The analysis is organized around an explicit model that can accommodate the features of both first-generation and second-generation GM products. The model accounts for the proprietary nature of GM innovations and for the critical role of consumer preferences vis-à-vis GM products, as well as for the impacts of segregation and identity preservation and the effects of a mandatory GM labeling regulation. We also investigate briefly a novel question in this setting, the choice of “research direction”when both cost-reducing and quality-enhancing GM innovations are feasible.

Generation of Simulated Daily Precipitation and Air and Soil Temperatures, January 2000

This paper describes a maximum likelihood method using historical weather data to estimate a parametric model of daily precipitation and maximum and minimum air temperatures. Parameter estimates are reported for Brookings, SD, and Boone, IA, to illustrate the procedure. The use of this parametric model to generate stochastic time series of daily weather is then summarized. A soil temperature model is described that determines daily average, maximum, and minimum soil temperatures based on air temperatures and precipitation, following a lagged process due to soil heat storage and other factors.

Abandoned Towns, Villages and Post Offices of Iowa, by David C. Mott, Annals of Iowa, 1930-1932.

A compilation of the six sections of David C. Mott's "Abandoned Towns, Villages and Post Offices of Iowa", that was published in the Annals of Iowa: V.17, #6 ,10/1930, pp. 435-465; V.17, #7 ,1/1931, pp. 513-543; V.17, #8 ,4/1931, pp. 578-599; V.18, #1 ,7/1931, pp. 42-69; V.18, #2 ,10/1931, pp. 117-148; V.18, #3 ,1/1932, pp. 189-220. (NOTE: this is a large file and may take a while to download.)

Correctional Industries preparing inmates for re-entry: Recidivism & post-release employment, September 30, 2005

Using a matched sample of 1091 inmates released between April 1,1999 and June 30, 2001, Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) participants re-enter society more successfully than Traditional Industries (TI) or other than work (OTW) releasees in terms of employment. The primary findings of this research are that Iowa state prison inmates who worked in open-market jobs in PIECP were found to be significantly more successful in post-release employment. That is to say, they became tax-paying citizens quicker and remain in that status longer than TI and OTW releasees. Additionally, PIECP releasees were incarcerated post release at a slower rate than OTW releasees.

Your Iowa ... and nation : class room guide post,1963.

Contains information to be used by teachers in classrooms including history of the the United States flag, the government of Iowa, the Constitution of Iowa, the birth of Americanism, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Pensioners' Post, Winter 2004

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Summer 2002

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Summer 2009

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Winter 1999

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Summer 2000

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Spring 2001

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Fall 2001

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Summer 2002

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Winter 2002

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.

Pensioners' Post, Summer 2003

IPERS is prefunded, which means that while members are working they contribute to IPERS for their own future retirements. Contributions from employees and their employers, plus investment income, must be enough to cover the costs of future benefits that IPERS promises to pay.