-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
zogger Thu, 08 May 2008 16:56:32 PDT Jobs
-
A worsening economy combined with rising prices are impacting more Americans than ever. It is estimated that by next year, 10% of US residents will be receiving food assistance.
-
.."While food inflation is causing tensions and riots around the world, even the affluent United States is being touched. Stories such as Stanley's are becoming more common as Americans increasingly turn to food stamps and other programs to make ends meet."
ed.z.: Suburbia, the last great untapped free (of food crops) farmland out there. I tell you, just driving around, I see just *tons* of potential very good quality acreage devoted to nothing but lawns. If they just cut it in half, half food garden and half lawns, no telling how much food could be produced out there, it could be a million "extra" hidden/stealth acres, who knows.... The problem is partially over-urbanization, those folks who could really use some garden space to help with the food bills and supplies have zero access to any, trapped in a concrete and renters (non owners) existence in town. One of the other problems is just plain jobs, something like 3 to 4 million blue collar jobs exported'lost during the current administration (some huge number, various pundits give it a close second to Hoover's administration during the "great" depression). Say each one of those jobs went to support around 4 people including kids, now those numbers look even worse. Anyway, we certainly chewed up a big slice of our lawn, put in a lot of fruit trees (actually have some baby apples and some other stuff showing this year, ya!) and "harvest" the grass with a cheap bagger mower to feed the chickens, moreso in the winter (very first home hatched chicks today in fact, two little peepers running around). Some poor single parent household family in the fifth floor downtown someplace-what are they supposed to do? Even if working full time, that minimum rage payscale just can't cut it anymore....nutz...one in ten on food stamps....damn dismal.
-
-
-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
Uncle Entity Thu, 08 May 2008 22:12:05 PDT
-
I think this one is a test(that I failed) to see who reads the article before posting...
Oh, and the replies seem to be showing in a random order instead of by time.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
rubycodez Thu, 08 May 2008 18:05:55 PDT
-
suburbs and subdivisions need to rethink some of the rules, laws, convenants and restrictions. Right now too many working class neighborhoods forbid gardens in lawns, forbid clothes lines, basic car maintenance like oil change and lube in driveway....with harder times coming for most everyone it's past time to give that wear-the-nails pansy shit the heave-ho!
-
-
-
-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
Uncle Entity Thu, 08 May 2008 20:13:33 PDT
-
Single payer food system, huh?
The problem isn't a food shortage but that wages aren't keeping up with monetary inflation. Simple as that.
Well, high oil prices don't help but a large part of that is due to inflation.
Oh well, just the beginning of the transition from the warfare state to the Obama welfare state...
-
-
-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
President4242 Fri, 09 May 2008 09:58:53 PDT
-
Actually, it's not that far out there. Food hasn't been a free market in the United States since the early 1900s. Over 100 years now food in the US has been partially subsidized.
HOWEVER, like most things, I favor a "local is better than foreign, basic quality should be free but luxuries should be expensive" aim to it. Let the United States Government buy up all the low-quality comodity agribusiness out there, and distribute THAT food free. Any farmer with less than 100 acres, let him turn to one of the new localized business models: Organic, Agritainment, Farmer's Market, or Subscription. That way, those with the extra dough to handle the more expensive food can still get it by one of those four methods- and the farmers can still make money with ever-shrinking patches of land in between the suburbs. Maybe even enough money to permanently stall development on their land like Knot's Berry Farm did (one of the most successfull Agritainment businesses ever), even as LA surrounded and encompassed the original farm.
-
-
-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
Uncle Entity Fri, 09 May 2008 14:57:53 PDT
-
The problem with that is the government would need to get into the distribution and storefront business.
The current system is that people get their script and can go to any store to purchase their food but with your system there would need to be separate distribution system for the 'basic quality' foodstuffs.
Aside from the fact that government monopolies are super-inefficient and would waste more money than they would save the people who are suffering from a 'food crisis'.
-
-
-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
President4242 Fri, 09 May 2008 15:33:50 PDT
-
The problem with that is the government would need to get into the distribution and storefront business.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. If you've been in Oregon, we've got plenty of experience in this, from Agiculture Extension offices to the DMV Express storefronts in malls.
The current system is that people get their script and can go to any store to purchase their food but with your system there would need to be separate distribution system for the 'basic quality' foodstuffs.
True- but with the US Post Office we've already GOT a nationwide door-to-door delivery system. And thanks to processing, we're talking canned food heavily preserved stuff anyway. Not fresh food.
Aside from the fact that government monopolies are super-inefficient and would waste more money than they would save the people who are suffering from a 'food crisis'.
Actually, I find private monopolies and oligarchies to be far more inefficient. Government monopolies don't have to pay 4000x minimum wage for CEOs.
-
-
-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
Uncle Entity Fri, 09 May 2008 17:58:44 PDT
-
...from Agiculture Extension offices to the DMV Express storefronts in malls.
Yeah, well, that's not what you're talking about here.
You are proposing that the government provide 100% of the basic foodstuffs to 100% of the people 100% of the time. Along with nationalizing farms, grain silos and food production facilities.
Sure, if you want soviet style bread lines, you can take the DMV model of customer service and scale it up.
And thanks to processing, we're talking canned food heavily preserved stuff anyway.
Oh, that's different...don't the same ingredients go into fresh food?
Actually, I find private monopolies and oligarchies to be far more inefficient.? Government monopolies don't have to pay 4000x minimum wage for CEOs.
That comes from government privilege restricting competition introducing inefficiencies.
This includes the running of corporations with the various laws enacted to make it almost impossible to perform a corporate takeover that doesn't reward the people who ran it into the ground through mismanagement.
Doesn't explain how we've never had a famine in the US while they are quite common under the 'efficient' system.
-
-
-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
President4242 Fri, 09 May 2008 21:47:31 PDT
-
You are proposing that the government provide 100% of the basic foodstuffs to 100% of the people 100% of the time. Along with nationalizing farms, grain silos and food production facilities.
Actually- only about 1/3rd of that.
I grew up in a farming community, in the farming business. I know that there are ALREADY 3 completely separate streams in the food industry. The processing facilities and methods of growing the food are completely different between those three.
Oh, that's different...don't the same ingredients go into fresh food?
Not at all. The heavily processed stuff has a ton of preservatives, and is basically good for anywhere from 3 years to forever, depending upon packaging, with no additional energy input past initial processing. Next level is the refridgerated foods- those that with energy input, can take 1 to 6 weeks from farm to consumer, and still arrive on your table relatively fresh. The last level, also known as Organic foods, has the least amount of processing- and it's shelf life shows it, if you take more than a week to get to the consumer it'll go bad and the best stuff goes from farm to table in under 12 hours.
Three separate paths. Three separate price ranges in your grocery store as well. There's a bit more to it than that (Organic growing techniques are high resource, low output, while the heavily processed factory stuff comes from farms that work like laboratories to maximize production), but basically, the United States today really does have three completely separate streams of ingredients.
That comes from government privilege restricting competition introducing inefficiencies.
Oh, poor CEOs forced by government privilege to pay themselves more than everybody else.
This includes the running of corporations with the various laws enacted to make it almost impossible to perform a corporate takeover that doesn't reward the people who ran it into the ground through mismanagement.
Partially, yes. However, I propose that it's a LACK of regulation that does this- good regulation would prevent it.
Doesn't explain how we've never had a famine in the US while they are quite common under the 'efficient' system.
It would help if you'd notice that I'm more for inefficency than efficiency. Efficiency is only good for low quality, low resource goods. High quality goods require more input of resources, and thus are automatically less efficient.
I see no reason why my tax money should be going to Agribusiness CEOs- if they can't make money without subsidies, then they should just let the government take over their factory farms, because efficiency is all they care about anyway, and the government is MORE efficient than private business.
But if we're talking quality- that's where competition in the free market reigns unmatched. The key though is to keep things small through regulation- not allow corporate takeovers AT ALL, and don't allow mergers either. Keep farms below 100 acres. Family farms serving families. The Subscription business model makes a LOT of sense to me, as does the Agritainment model. Organic is neat for those granola heads who like it; and the Farmer's market is great for the lower middle class families who can't afford the subscription farms, or those who would like greater variety than a once-a-year order yeilding a weekly delivery.
And oddly enough- that's what we used to have in the US before 1960- family farms serving families. THAT is what gave us famine free lifestyle- not international trade.
-
-
-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
Uncle Entity Fri, 09 May 2008 23:23:28 PDT
-
Your complete lack of understanding of even basic economic principals never fails to entertain.
It would help if you'd notice that I'm more for inefficency than efficiency.
Obviously...protectionism, nationalism, socialism, these are all inherently inefficient models.
High quality goods require more input of resources, and thus are automatically less efficient.
Automatically, huh?
I would be amazed if you could rationalize that.
'...government is MORE efficient than private business.' Oh hell, that's too funny. How exactly do they measure efficiency without a market pricing system?
And oddly enough- that's what we used to have in the US before 1960- family farms serving families. THAT is what gave us famine free lifestyle- not international trade.
Hmm...has nothing at all to do with people having the freedom to own land and control their own destiny instead of being a surf tied to someone else's land?
Then when the agricultural sector was cartelized a hundred years ago to feed the waring European nations this all changed and evolved into the system where a farm can't make money without government subsidies.
Now it's just a corporate welfare system.
-
-
-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
President4242 Mon, 12 May 2008 07:31:55 PDT
-
'...government is MORE efficient than private business.' Oh hell, that's too funny. How exactly do they measure efficiency without a market pricing system?
How about by directly comparing OUTPUT for INPUT? Oh yeah, that's too hard for you Austrian Model economists.
Hmm...has nothing at all to do with people having the freedom to own land and control their own destiny instead of being a surf tied to someone else's land?
Considering that form of feudalism was over in Europe about 200 years before Columbus, I rather doubt it.
Oh, and how about all of the tribal peoples that NEVER had that form of feudalism?
-
-
-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
Uncle Entity Mon, 12 May 2008 08:19:59 PDT
-
How about by directly comparing OUTPUT for INPUT? Oh yeah, that's too hard for you Austrian Model economists.
Yeah, the Austrians do that and almost universally find, when a direct comparison can be made, that the opposite is true.
Moral hazard and all that.
Considering that form of feudalism was over in Europe about 200 years before Columbus, I rather doubt it
Surf, subject, whatever—doesn't really matter what you call the property of the monarchy.
The one thing that is common through history is the freer the people the more prosperous they are.
Let them eat cake...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- thought experiment?
-
Thomas Lord Thu, 08 May 2008 20:18:32 PDT
-
Do the experienced knowledgeable growers / livestock raisers want to kibbitz in theory?
We've got (by which I mean only that our rental unit is attached to land that has) at least 1000 sq ft, probably really 1500 square feet, and if we blast some concrete a good 2000 square feet here. Decent sun. Plenty of wind. In the current climate, water mostly from the tap. There's allegedly a culvert about 3ft off the property line and the (sigh) birch tree planted near the line seems to agree.
Soil? What soil? 3 inches down and you're into clay, big time. Proposals for starting serious composting and tilling were rejected a few years back so, in this thought experiment, we be starting from a shallow layer of sod over a boatload of clay -- but a potential 2,000 sq. ft. and, let's assume that modest quantities of water are an option.
What would be the plan?
-t
-
-
-
-
-
- thought experiment?
-
Michael Wagner Thu, 08 May 2008 22:42:31 PDT
-
As for bad soil, upgrade it lot by lot using the compost you mentioned above. Construcion sites often have to pay to get rid of some of the removed top soil, maybe ask them.
Otherwise a nice way is to get started is to use elevated beds. We did that a few decades ago, works very good. Use concrete slabs but put them in vertically, secure them by setting em halfway into th thethe earth, maybe a bit of concrete or mortar to stick them to each other..
Fill top half with good soil & compost, maybe mixed with some of the clay. That could be a nice starting point.
Big cheap plastic mortar buckets work well too. Dig out the top centimeters of good earth, put it into the tubs and lower them onto the clay layer. Fill up the rest with compost or other top soil.
-
-
-
-
-
- thought experiment?
-
Thomas Lord Thu, 08 May 2008 23:01:18 PDT
-
Ok!
That's sweet and let me mention some more specifics here. (Again, this is thought experiment. I don't at the moment possess legal right to act on this.)
In fact the landscaping is alternating concrete and earth in such a way that, if we scrape off some clay, perhaps bootstrap with imported soil plus what composting there's still time for, we essentially have nothing but raised beds. I'm just guessing but I think the clay around the green parts, if we turn them into beds, might help a little with water retention.
Here's a sattelite view.
If you look at that... scroll a bit east and check out that freakin' beautiful lot. Alas, that's slated (last I heard) to be developed into three new buildings which I think is a crying shame but I find no basis in the civic order to fight it and no neighborly reason to resist the nice family's financial foo. Still, if I could (in the fantasy universe) just buy that and keep it roughly as is I darn sure would. There's another sweet one just north-west of the link. Those are dinky by the standards of people in rural areas or most of the "flyover" states but, around here, that's a vast amount of undeveloped land.
-t
-
-
-
-
-
- thought experiment?
-
President4242 Fri, 09 May 2008 10:17:00 PDT
-
Here's My Place. The zigzagy house with the wierd roof. As you can see, I most definately live in the Silicon FOREST. My place is about .25 acres, but I don't get much sun for all the trees, thus my garden has to be stuff that grows well in shade for the most part.
The lot just across the street just got sold to Tualatin Valley Parks & Recreation. They're renting out the house on it, but plan on liberating it's orchard for any kid who wants to pick it, plus put in more playground equipment once they tear down the fence to Schiffler park next door.
I'm personally going to suggest they take the wet area of that park (which can't be used for anything other than as a wetland) and plant some camas bulbs there for an emergency food supply for the neighborhood.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Lawn - farm not practical on a large scale
-
Martin Blank Thu, 08 May 2008 17:12:51 PDT
-
If they just cut it in half, half food garden and half lawns, no telling how much food could be produced out there, it could be a million "extra" hidden/stealth acres
The efficiency of this would be extremely low. In most cases, you're talking about a few hundred square feet (and that's for older homes with larger lawns. Families generally will not take the time to farm this, will not trust others to rent it out, and even if they did so in large numbers the plots would have none of the efficiency gains of modern mechanized farming. I doubt that even the higher prices of some current crops would cover the additional costs from the lost efficiency; even if a given neighborhood were planted with only a single crop, that neighborhood isn't going to want to eat just that all the time, and in the case of crops like wheat, it has to be processed before it can be used anyway.
It might work for a hobby, but that's about it.
-
-
-
-
-
- Lawn - farm not practical on a large scale
-
Richard Gay Thu, 08 May 2008 18:40:24 PDT
-
You talk like someone who's never had a successful garden.
-
-
-
-
-
- Lawn - farm not practical on a large scale
-
Martin Blank Thu, 08 May 2008 19:00:13 PDT
-
Me, no. I've never lived as an adult anywhere that had sufficient space to have a garden of any sort. My mother had a very successful garden at one point, covering probably 200 square feet. But it also took a significant amount of her free time to manage -- time which she no longer wishes to spend tending to the plants. In any case, it never produced more than a few meals worth of any fruits or vegetables.
Lawns are shrinking anyway. The tract house in which I grew up probably had around 2000 square feet of front and back yard space, not including the driveway. That's considered an incredible luxury in new homes these days, at least in SoCal. The back yards of some of these places are no bigger than the pens where we used to keep the dogs while doing yard work, and wouldn't work for much of a hobby garden, let alone serious food growth.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Lawn - farm not practical on a large scale
-
President4242 Fri, 09 May 2008 10:06:49 PDT
-
A hobby is all you need to feed a family of 4 all the veggies they can eat for a year, if you plant it right and have good topsoil.
If you don't, composting the grass you tear out will also work.
Lastly, it's more a matter of landscaping choices than anything else- I'm slowly moving my land by just this simple rule: As plants die and get replaced, we replace with stuff we can eat rather than just stuff that looks good. As with most things, this isn't an either-or proposition- An apple tree is just as pretty as a hawthorne in the early spring, but in late summer will give you something to eat (if the bees are still there). Comfrey makes a nice tea when you are sick and grows in the shade just as profusely as a fern. Speaking of ferns, there's alway licorice fern. And wood sorel. And dandilions. Camas lilies.
One can have quite a variety on a quarter acre without having to take care of any of it once it gets well established.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- US -- One in Ten Expected to Use Food Stamps
-
Larry Baker Fri, 09 May 2008 08:18:36 PDT
-
For my first garden I set up a 10x20 ft plot and everything died. The next year I did a raised bed about 4x5 ft with topsoil and compost purchased. It did so well, I added another. Those did so well that this year I'm adding two more (got behind due to the birth of our new baby). I've made many mistakes and had to learn things that other generations would surely shake their heads at and assume was common knowledge. The land may be untapped, but you have to get by the poor soil condition, the bug and weed killers sprayed liberally on most lawns (not mine), and the general ignorance of people (myself included) on how to work a garden (or that food comes from a garden and not a store shelf in the first place). The kids love the garden and getting to plant things. They are learning with me. While my tiny garden isn't going to feed the family, it is low maintenance, lets me learn, and provides us with very delicious and healthy food.
To the comment about covenants and restrictions, when my wife and I were shopping for a home, we intentionally looked for a place that wasn't loaded down with them. We ended up in an older neighborhood, but have more land for the money (not huge, about 110 x 60 ft), and I can put up a garden, clothesline, and outside antenna for my shortwave receiver without getting in trouble with the neighbors. We just had to make it a priority up front.
-
-
-
-
-
