Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

Good income is relative to cost of living, isn't it. People don't need an
"influx of capital" to start growing profitably in a rural setting, and I
can say that because I've done exactly that - like so many others. For my
part I was proposing they be self employed growers and pay themselves, hmm?
And that many more just grow their own and cut their food costs
drastically. 

Those figures don't apply for microfarming. The human body is about the
most fuel-efficient mechanism around in terms of calories or BTUs. Draft
animals aren't unrealistic either (and they grow their own replacements!).
I'm not saying ban all gasoline - no matter how high it goes. I still use
gas to haul manure and go to market. As it is, gas powered equipment for
the various jobs in the kind of permanent bed growing that I do just
doesn't exist. Nor is it needed. With the morning stiffness of 64 I still
managed to get over the first year hump when most of the initial labor was
done, the hauling and digging, the bed setup, fencing, and greenhouse.
Millions more can do it, obviously, and it helps if they're younger too ;-)
Point being, with intensive beds the labor required is not unrealistic even
in the first  year when most of the work is done. 

We're stuck in the industrial mindset where capital must be invested to pay
hired labor to produce us a profit. I'm saying that between debt for
machinery and lots of land, and high input costs and wholesale prices
farmers will go broke - which is precisely what's been happening to farm
families for decades. That is what has to change. Back to what Ken says,
the problem is in the head. 

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 12/27/2007 at 8:27 AM Ryan Albinger wrote:

>First question, where will the money come from to create the millions of
>good paying occupations and rural prosperity?  In order to create an
influx
>of capital into an economy, local or otherwise, you must generate an
>outgoing trade of goods at a value less than they can acquire it
elsewhere.
>
>If use of modern machinery replacing hand labor is one of the worst things
>to happen to modern society, how do you prospose to pay these people
fairly
>for their labor.  1 gallon of fuel replaces about 1,000 man hours.  Who
>will work for $0.003 per hour?  You don't have to use all mechanized
>equipment, but you also don't need to be absent of mechanization.
>
>The end goal is finding the happy medium to everything.
>
>Ryan
>
>
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Liz <liz@allslash.org>
>>
>> >create millions of good
>> >paying occupations and restore rural prosperity,
>>
>> This is what I keep coming back to when I talk to people about buying 
>> locally, and about the false economy of "efficiency" (as it's usually 
>> defined). The use of machinery to do jobs previously performed by 
>> people is touted as one of modern society's great benefits. I say 
>> it's one of the worst things that has happened to modern society. 
>> Yes, machinery has made some occupations much safer than they used to 
>> be, and good for that. But in the hands of people whose only 
>> definition of efficiency is a greater profit margin, mechanized 
>> labor, particularly agriculture, has eliminated millions of jobs. 
>> They weren't high paying jobs. But they put food on the table, 
>> dignity and a sense of accomplishment in people's souls, and 
>> sustained a stable local economy for thousands of small towns and 
>> villages across the country. That's the true American dream.
>>
>> Liz in SW VA
>> http://life-as-a-spectator-sport.com 
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland