Depression

[WTA]

That's true and mostly what the problem is with this country these days. People are too gullible. I'm starting to believe everyone is like the people Jay Lenno finds when he does his jaywalking skits.

I have a neighbor that didn't know where oil comes from too. She thought the government magically makes it and Bush is getting rich off us. That's what she believes no matter how much I try to tell her it comes out of the ground in the middle east because we have tree huggers that don't want to disturb polar bears here.

I talked to a lady a few weeks ago that is dead set on believing we never landed on the moon too. It's all a government conspiracy to fund a new missile program.

You know how it is.

 

[N80]

The latest Progressive Farm arrived this week.

Large farms, operations over 1,000 acres, are growing at 17%.

Small farms, operations 50 acres or less, are growing at 14%.

The farms in between are shrinking.

Most farm land, 66% is held by the 1,000+ acre operations.

That's interesting data but I think their parameters are too narrow to draw in major conclusions. I know folks in these parts that have 1000-2000 acre farms that they consider to be small to medium sized farms and I'm sure there are folks in Texas or Nebraska who would call them tiny farms.

I would like to see the data with the terms 'small' and 'large' removed and with more parameters. I'd like to see a breakdown of 5000+, 1,000-5,000 500-1000, 100-500, 50-100 and less than 50.

I think it is great that small local farms selling to local markets are on the rise. I personally think small farms and regional agrarian culture are the backbone of this country. There is certainly a place for solid Yankee industrialism......but we've lost both.

 

[dmccarty]

Here is a link to the 2002 Ag Census.

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/us2appxc.pdf

Looks like there is a 2007 census going on now. I'm guessig the Progressive Farmer numbers are using the 2007 vs 2002 and I just can't find 2007.

Anywho the census breaks down the farm from 50-1000 acres. And these ain't McMansions on 50 acres trying to be a farm.

Later,
Dan

 

[MossRoad]

And some people cannot drive any less than they are now, and many, if not most people can't afford an expensive hybrid. We have to get to work. We have to get our kids to school, etc etc.
...

I disagree. People CAN move closer to their work, schools and shopping. It is called "living in the city". But people do not WANT to move closer to their work, schools and shopping because they enjoy living in the suburbs or out in the country.

People often mistake matters of want VS need. When people are really hurting for money, eating turnip tops and potatoes and turning their lawns into gardens, those'll be the signs we are in a depression. Right now, it is just a wake up call for lots of people that they have been living AT or BEYOND their means for too long and have been trying to not only keep up with the Jones', but attain more stuff than the Jones' for far too long.

 

[MossRoad]

N80, there is no excuse for taken the most widely used farm crop in the country, corn, and turning it into fuel. If people eat the crop or wear it then it needs to be off limits for anything other than human or animal consumption. This is where I think the government needs to put their foot down. All of the garbage about bio fuels and ethanol is causing people to starve all over the world. That is not right, not fair and it needs to stop. ...

You gonna give your corn to the starving folks or are you gonna sell it to them?

People are starving because they cannot get the food that is available from other parts of the world because:

They cannot afford it.
There is no distribution system for it.
Their governments keep it for their soldiers.

Not because there is not enough of it.

 

[alchemysa]

Are we headed for a depression? RonL

Sorry guys, its probably worse than that. Perhaps it's the Fall of the American Empire. The USA is not calling the shots anymore. That'll be tough for some of you to accept but its undeniable. I've read all these posts and i don't think anyone has mentioned China and India. Over a billion people in each. A total of around 2.6 billion people. Thats TEN TIMES the population of the US. These two giants are just waking up and are going through an industrial revolution that will last longer than our lifetimes. This can't be compared to a growth spurt in some piddly little island nation. These are countries of almost unimaginable size. They are developing an economic momentum that will not be stopped until its run its course. That could take many decades. They want oil, steel, Gas (LPG), coal and every other raw material you can name. The want it now and and collectively they are prepared to pay more for it than we can.

Australia (my country) has to face up this too, although we are used to being a small fish most of time.

Japan is stuffed as far as I can see. Lots of people, no natural resources, and theyre rapidly losing all their manufacturing strength to other Asian and sub-continent countries.

But its not all doom and gloom. China and India need food too - and plenty of it. We just need to work out how to sell it at a profit. As individuals we can maintain our standard of living if we learn how to stop pouring our hard earned dollars into the coffers of insatiably greedy companies that supply junk. (Aint it about time we learned that lesson!) And pouring countless billions of dollars into armaments is probably a luxury we can't afford either.

 

[Egon]

Some countries have had to replace food crops with salable commodity crops such as cotton so that debts can be repayed??

 

[bigshovel]

WWII was started by Japans need for oil to fuel their expansion of the empire. Invaded Indochina first and off they went. This is a problem we are facing, we best be prepared, otherwise we'll be surprised.

Brad

 

[N80]

I disagree. People CAN move closer to their work, schools and shopping. It is called "living in the city". But people do not WANT to move closer to their work, schools and shopping because they enjoy living in the suburbs or out in the country.

That is a pretty naive view on why people live where they do. Surely you know it is more complex than that. There are real and serious factors that influence where people live that have nothing to do with 'wants'. The price of housing, the quality of schools, the crime rates, air quality are just to name a few. There are obviously others. Employers also change locations. Do you move every time your physical place of employment changes. Just the closing and legal costs make that a ridiculous idea. And who on earth thinks that your job and your kids school are necessarily going to be close together?

So sure, people like to live where they like to live. But to say that the whole population lives where they live out of some desire to be fashionable is a bit unrealistic.

People often mistake matters of want VS need. When people are really hurting for money, eating turnip tops and potatoes and turning their lawns into gardens, those'll be the signs we are in a depression. Right now, it is just a wake up call for lots of people that they have been living AT or BEYOND their means for too long and have been trying to not only keep up with the Jones', but attain more stuff than the Jones' for far too long.

I don't disagree with you there. We are spoiled. But even in the great depression not everyone was eating dirt and rats. And yet it was still a depression and it was still hard.

 

[hazmat]

...There are real and serious factors that influence where people live that have nothing to do with 'wants'. The price of housing, the quality of schools, the crime rates, air quality are just to name a few. There are obviously others. Employers also change locations. Do you move every time your physical place of employment changes. Just the closing and legal costs make that a ridiculous idea. And who on earth thinks that your job and your kids school are necessarily going to be close together?....

Just read an interesting book Who is your city (Florida). It's kind of counter to The World is Flat (Friedman). Basically Florida argues that place matters and that wealth is created by ideas , not by converting raw materials into products, ie a "creative" economy (think Microsoft, Google vs GM). He also argues that there are "creative" economies of scale and thus industries cluster (computers in CA, Finance in NYC, entertainment in LA for example). This is what is driving up the cost of living in these mega regions.

Anyway - Florida has done lots of research via surveys etc. on "place" - one thing that was interesting was that safety, education, health care & infrastructure were a given - ie if a place didn't have them, then no-one would be interested in living there, thus property values would decline. What differentiates the "great" places from the acceptable places are beauty and culture - ie parks, art, theater, restaurants etc. Not that you'll necessarily partake on a routine basis, but that feeling of knowing you can if you want to, makes the place more desirable.

As a side note on the economy - Florida shows data that the income gap is widening between his so called "creative class" and those in the "old economy" especially as "mundane" manufacturing is moved offshore to Asia. A Corallary to this is that regions will diverge as well - Detroit will continue to decline unless it can attract more "creative" industry while LA will continue to prosper as the Entertainment capitol of the world. One thing I've noticed is that just about every city/state I can think of is trying to attract "green" industry (alt energy etc.) - which is seen as the next big thing in terms of the creative economy.