# Rebuttal of an Article...



## DM1791 (Oct 6, 2014)

A couple of weeks ago an article appeared on the Federalist Online in which the author attempted to convince people that there was not only no point to having supplies like food and gold on hand in order to be prepared, but that such prepping measures represented both bad stewardship of resources and poor investment of capital. Now, I had what will probably be a common reaction to others reading this... shock, disbelief, and eventual disgust.

:brickwall:


I wrote an email to the editorial staff outlining a few of my concerns about the article (posted below) and received, much to my surprise, an invitation to write a rebuttal. So, I figured I would check with the community here and see what your thoughts are. Let me know what you think of the original piece and what you think needs to be brought up to confront it.

I'll post my response to the article here on the forums so you guys can see it, and i'll throw a tag in to direct people here for some good, solid, experienced advise on these matters as well.

Thanks for the help, and thanks for reading...


----------



## DM1791 (Oct 6, 2014)

*Original Article....*

http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/07/hoarding-food-gold-will-not-help-emergency/

Advertising on talk radio and cable news is full of alarmist inducements to stockpile gold and food, rife with implications and predictions that the next economic crisis will feature food riots and complete societal breakdown.
As both Christian and an economist, I am bothered by this kind of irresponsible alarmism. I wonder how many paranoid, credulous listeners are buying into the doom and gloom, and foolishly over-preparing for extremely unlikely catastrophes while mismanaging the resources they've been entrusted.

My critique of food storage, gold hoarding, and the entire "prepper" phenomenon is grounded in both economics and scripture. On the economic side, history indicates that markets don't just disappear during or after catastrophes-even severe ones-but persevere and adapt toward providing those things that are most in demand, such as food. On the scriptural side, we have God's sure and certain promises to provide our "daily bread" for our body's needs, and his provision of the "bread of God [i.e., Jesus Christ] who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world" (John 6:33).
Therefore, with eyes fixed upon actual historical experience and hearts inclined to trust in God's promises to sustain what he created until the _actual_ end (Genesis 8:21-22), let's see if the rationales for stocking up on food or gold hold up to realistic expectations of what a natural, economic, or political catastrophe might bring.
*Will Hoarding Help During a Natural Disaster?*

Recent tragic experiences in the United States-whether hurricanes Katrina and Sandy or this year's Louisiana floods-have clearly shown two major negative outcomes are possible if a natural disaster strikes.
In one, you are caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and become a casualty. In the second, you leave or are rescued and, after a perhaps-extended period of turmoil, resume your life, possibly having relocated. In neither case is long-term food storage or a gold stockpile going to be of much, if any, assistance.
Food stockpiles are likely to become either inaccessible or damaged beyond usefulness in a tornado or flood, and relief efforts will have plenty of emergency supplies available for struggling survivors. Bulk food storage, moreover, will do little good for those who need to evacuate or relocate due to the disaster.

While gold is more portable, a significant stockpile responsibly stored in a heavy safe will merely add to the burden of escaping or relocating, and prove far less convenient than cash-whether in the form of currency or bank accounts-which will not be subject to a _sudden_ loss of purchasing power. In a worst-case scenario that necessitates long-term evacuation or destruction of your home, gold hoards may be lost and food stockpiles, if not ruined by flooding or pests, will merely sit in an abandoned or destroyed home and feed no one.
*What About During Economic Disaster?*

Historical experience indicates that economic downturns typically bring falling food prices. In the Great Depression, the value of the dollar rose and food prices crashed. In the United States, the price index for "food at home" fell from a pre-Depression peak of 48.3 in 1929 to a Depression-era low of 30.6 in 1933-a 36 percent drop. Even though mild price inflation resumed in 1934 with FDR's abandonment of the (domestic) gold standard, food prices remained depressed below their 1920s level for the entire Depression decade.
Those who held cash were therefore well-positioned to continue feeding their families even if they faced unemployment, as 25 percent of American workers did by 1933. While overall production-especially of durable and capital goods-did drop markedly during these years, the economy did by no means grind to a halt. Enough grocers, butchers, and restaurants survived to ensure ongoing, orderly food markets.
A simple cash hoard thus would have sufficed for sustaining a family through episodes of hardship, with the added advantage of portability and negligible risk of sudden or massive losses in value due to inflation.
*Hoards Aren't Helpful During Political Disaster, Either*

It is true that basic foods and supplies can be hard to come by in the world's most repressive, dictatorial regimes. Take Venezuela as a case in point, where the Chavez-Maduro version of socialism has literally resulted in bare shelves and riots. Basic food and supplies can still be had in Venezuela, however, albeit in underground markets at steeply inflated prices.
Preppers might argue that forward-thinking Venezuelans would have been quite wise to have stockpiled food and gold in preparation for the _present_ crisis. Perhaps so, but a cash stash-especially in the form of a stable currency such as the U.S. dollar-would not only have sufficed to meet the emergency, but would have outperformed food storage and even gold in terms of convenience, portability, and financial returns.

A Venezuelan could have acquired $1,000 US at a cost of about 4,300 Bolivars in 2011. That $1,000 would now, in late 2016, acquire more than 1 million Bolivars in the unofficial foreign exchange market. That's a 25,000 percent nominal return on Bolivars-plenty sufficient to compensate for the harrowing 300 percent (and rising) food inflation rate Venezuela has recently experienced.
So the prospect of a disaster large enough to imperil food supplies is so remote as to not be worthy of your worry, not to mention your time and effort in contingency planning. If you think a disaster, or perhaps a combination of catastrophes, will eliminate your ability to buy food in some form of market system, you might as well prepare for a cataclysmic meteor strike or the implosion of the sun.
If you insist on worrying and must plan for the worst of all possible worlds, you're better off holding a diversified portfolio of cash: dollars, Euros, Swiss Francs, even _some_ gold. But note well the cost of such hoarding, which is the opportunity to invest one's wealth in assets like stocks, bonds, or real estate that yield actual incomes and grow in value to provide a better future standard of living for the saver-investor.
*Don't Stuff Your Money Under the Mattress*

Jesus Christ articulated this principle clearly in the well-known parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). A wealthy man had left significant sums of money to three servants to invest on his behalf while he was away. The first and second servants were praised for achieving 100 percent net returns, and thus entrusted with larger roles in their master's business.
The third servant, however, merely hoarded (buried) the money, fearing potential failure and the loss of principal. The wealthy man rebukes this "wicked and slothful" servant for refusing to invest the money, and this "worthless" servant is condemned to "outer darkness," where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

A healthy and balanced economic worldview should be able to recognize the hazard of saving too much-by literally _setting aside_ wealth, as did the slothful servant-just as much as it recognizes the threat of saving too little by living extravagantly.
Solomon warned of "a grievous evil that I have seen under the sun: riches were kept by their owner to his hurt, and those riches were lost in a bad venture&#8230; As he came from his mother's womb he shall go again, naked as he came, and shall take nothing for his toil that he may carry away in his hand" (Ecclesiastes 5:13-16). You certainly can't take it with you, but there is a wise and a foolish way to save and prepare for the future. You don't want to be the grasshopper of Aesop's fable, but neither do you want to be Scrooge McDuck, who fetishized his cash and stored it in a huge silo.
At times we all may be like that slothful third servant, afraid to take risks and try to grow, through investment and enterprise, whatever wealth God has entrusted to us. But, thanks be to God, Jesus Christ did not come to be a financial guru, but our savior-to die and rise again and so forgive our sins of mismanagement and failure to trust in God's provision, along with all other sins. So, forgiven and relieved of our guilt and fear of failure, we can apply God's gift of reason through economic and financial learning to seek wise management and growth of whatever resources he has given us.

Tyler Watts is an assistant professor of economics at East Texas Baptist University. Before that, he was an assistant professor of economics at Ball State University and a visiting assistant professor of economics at Grand Valley State University. Watts earned his PhD in economics at George Mason University in 2010.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Wow, there are so many points to bring up I don't have the time to do it now. I'll think on it and get back when I can write a bit longer.


----------



## Starcreek (Feb 4, 2015)

He seems to put a lot of faith in the continued integrity of U.S. currency, over gold, over food storage, or any other preparations. What if the dollar fails?


As far as scripture is concerned, there is the example of Joseph preparing Egypt for 7 years of famine (probably induced by drought). He stockpiled in a major way, believing God was directing in that way. Proverbs is full of admonitions to "go to the ant, thou sluggard, who prepares her food in the summer".
When he says the system doesn't just completely break down after a catastrophe, he's wrong, because I remember listening to the radio about 4-5 years ago, when Greece was going through turmoil, and they had a man in tears saying, "I can't get milk for my children!" Just look at Venezuela, and its massive lines at the grocery stores.
With regard to gold, I remember the broadcasters on a major network show that covers the stock market/economy talking about gold one day, and together they quoted an old saw among international reporters: "Always have enough gold to bribe the border guards." So, apparently, gold is good to have in a crisis, if only to convince someone else to give you what you need.
Food is ALWAYS usable. It's not hoarding. You cycle through your food stores, once you have a few months' or a years' supply -- whatever you're comfortable with. You eat the old and replenish with new, and it's never wasted. Cash, on the other hand... How many Venezuelans would want to put back a bunch of greenbacks when their kids are hungry, or they need to pay the light bill? Food is always usable, no matter the crisis. Cash...not so much.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Ok. The guy is making several assumptions. I'm not going to touch on the religious stuff as that isn't my thing or on the gold as I am not a fan of precious metals.

Assumption 1. 
The world is the same place as when we had our last big depression. Back then most people lived on farms not in cities and we're much closer to a self sufficient lifestyle with the skills and knowledge that requires than we are today. Food production was done by small scale farmers not giant mega corporations.

Assumption2.
Prepper plan on bugging in with no thought to alternate safe locations and travel transportation considerations. 
That's wrong.

Assumption 3.
There will be a world economy to fall back on if the dollar fails.
The financial world is much more interconnected now. Think dominoes. 

Assumption 4.
The government has the logistics and resources to provide relief on a large scale for a length of time.
If you believe that I have a bridge for sale at a great price. They couldn't even handle 1 city in crisis well.

Assumption 4.
It will be possible to relocate and live normally elsewhere. 
Not in a lot of the scenarios I prep for.

Assumption 5.
Preppers only stash wealth and completely remove themselves from normal wealth creation.
The vast majority of preppers prepare for nothing happening as much as the prepare for disaster. Call it a diversified portfolio. Call it a portion of your income being dedicated to insurance against disaster. 

Why would I invest in the exact system I believe will fail? Invest in gov Bonds? If I looked at a company and saw it as in debt as our federal government and I had someone telling me it was a good investment I'd laugh in their face. 

The main point the guy misses is striving for self sufficiency is a good thing. Even if it's a small disaster, one self sufficient person allows for the resources of those helping to go elsewhere and the prepared individual is an asset that can help others and not a drain.

In my opinion, a major disaster or collapse today will be far worse than those in the past. I think there will be far less resources to help, a much more complicated infrastructure to keep intact while helping, and far more social unrest. The only this I'll say on the religious front is God helps those that helps themselves. I have a responsibility to protect and care for my loved ones in any and all situations. Being as self sufficient as possible brings me piece of mind. I spend more of my resources on building a life for me and mine where all goes along swimmingly than I do preparing for disaster. That doesn't mean I neglect my responsibilities to my loved ones by preparing for any eventuality. 

I could add to this for days and probably will. I could also have written this much better and more clearly but I'm short on time and really have to get to work now. Can't wait to see this discussion continue though.


----------



## DM1791 (Oct 6, 2014)

So far, you guys are hitting on a lot of the same things I picked up.

I agree that one of the main faults in the reasoning of the original author is that they are assuming that the gov't will always be able to respond to every disaster and immediately provide for the needs of every single individual involved. 

Even very recent history puts the lie to that assumption. Just ask the people who sheltered in the Super Dome in New Orleans how well the gov't can meet the needs of even a relatively small portion of a major metropolitan population. The answer, of course, is that they can't. Gov't machinery and bureaucracy takes time to set in motion and that time delay can translate into lives lost.

Another assumption is that the knowledge for how to grow or scavenge food is widespread and commonplace. I grew up on a farm, unlike most fellow millennials (I hate that label, by the way, but it fits). The farm I grew up on we processed our own pork, raised chickens for a while, and grew 90% of the produce we used over the course of a year. Just about the only things we bought at the grocery store were beef, dry goods, and after the last of the chickens were gone we bought chickens and eggs there too.... and milk. 

But I am the exception among my age group, not the rule by any means. Most people I know my age and even a little bit younger than me (born in 81) have no clue about farming or even how to garden. It's shocking to me, really, how little people know about food production and self sustenance considering only a couple of generations ago we had the great depression and people were forced to live hand to mouth for the better part of a decade. 

To me, the unmitigated faith and borderline adulation of the federal government in the original piece is one of the biggest problems. Yes, the feds can play a role in helping after a disaster, but I, for one, would be far more comfortable relying on myself when I can rather than waiting on some red-tape bureaucrat a thousand miles away.


----------



## bacpacker (Jul 15, 2011)

Like Starcreek mentioned, Joseph in Egypt comes to mine right away.

There are many reasons to store food. The writers example of the depression and having cash on hand being able to buy food. So many folks were out of work and had no money. Farmers during this time and before, after, and to this day stores crops to feed themselves and their animals for at least a year. They lived crop to crop.

What about short term, say you just got laid off work, or was injured in a car wreck and lost your income for 3 to 6 months.

Plenty of other examples out there.


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

Store cash? Not a bad idea but really stupid when it is your only plan. The Venezuelan with lots of cash has seen their money inflated into a valueless currency. He should have had U.S. Dollars. Kiss my rosy red, when the dollar goes into a tailspin, and it is in serious inflation now, which currency do I need under my mattress. His suggestion that the answer to a failing currency is another currency, in a world rife with economic disasters looming, is so ludicrous I can't express my distain fully in words that would be allowed here. 

His 20-20 hindsight answer is excellent, in hindsight. What if this guy had put Greek currency under his mattress? History is replete with examples of failed currency, like Germany (Weimar), Greece, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and many others. 

Cash is a great thing to have but not to the exclusion of everything else. When the Dollar fails how many other currencies will go with it. There is an argument that the only reason the Dollar is so high is that other currencies are doing worse. So, our boat is sinking but the rest of the fleet is sinking faster!? How comforting.

Put all you money in a bank to keep it safe. Like say, Katrina where all the banks were under water, literally. People couldn't get their cash for months, or longer.

Don't buy food because you might have a flood or a fire. Then don't buy a house for the same reason. Yes, things go wrong. That is why you have a Plan B, and Plan C. People in Venezuela with cash, AND food, AND gold, AND toilet paper, AND... are way better off than people with cash and stocks.

Cash under the mattress? Fine. Cash in the bank? Excellent, but not just one bank. Stocks? If you can afford it. Stop there? Not a chance.


----------



## DM1791 (Oct 6, 2014)

I'm also very troubled by the way the original author seems to be implying that the Great Depression (GD) could have been a GOOD thing for consumers had they simply had the foresight and understanding to stockpile cash in the years leading up to it. 

I'm also disturbed the blatant misrepresentation of the market conditions during the GD given by an economics professor, specifically the market conditions revolving around food and farm produced goods. 

The author is making the assertion that the deflated food market prices during the GD should have been good for consumers while completely ignoring the causes of those deflated prices and the effect of a globally deflated market. It doesn't matter how low the prices are for food if no one has any money to purchase it.


----------



## JayJay (Nov 23, 2010)

[[[Store cash? Not a bad idea but really stupid when it is your only plan]]]

As this is the attitude of many I know--not actually coming out and saying this, but they don't think in terms like us.
Drought, gas shortage, labor strikes, floods, earthquakes, ...the list is long.

Money in the bank or grannies' flannels is worthless if the shelves are bare.
And WHY ON EARTH would someone with money NOT store food at sale prices??

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The third servant, however, merely hoarded (buried) the money, fearing potential failure and the loss of principal. "

Which is why prepping and using the money for sale items is prudent.


----------



## readytogo (Apr 6, 2013)

*History is the best Proof.*

During the many past wars those who where able to store food and supplies survived better off ,during the great depression the same ,as a child in a communist country and under total food rationing conditions we survived by cultivating and butchering our hidden animals in our farm land even had enough to barter with and trade with the corrupt politicians ,we spend time buying and storing for the hard times ,during weather events in the past my family and I only suffer lack of power because food ,water and fuel was store for those times ,in the past America was more rural than city our crops where right next door now it takes days for food to travel many days to reach our super air-condition stores a small event can cause chaos in the cities ,I have witness that. A broken water main in my city can cause panic and a run for water at the super market ,so anybody who claims that storing extra supplies and food is a fool ,is a fool himself and I will put up the paper in my outhouse, where it belongs.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

Way to go DM1791! I love it when people call out flawed thinking that could cost lives down the road! somebody owes you man!:2thumb:


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

The writer of the article is ignorant about Venezuela as well. There's no food to buy in the stores. That's the problem. Maduro is a true believer. Anyone engaged in mass agricultural production was deemed a capitalist and therefore an enemy of the state. So people starve for ideological purity.

The writer also uses the word "hoarding" which implies that simply having adequate food and other supplies in your house is somehow morally wrong. I stocked up on my food at a time when grocery store shelves were full. Nobody went without food so I could buy my food. Hoarding is when people go to stores during an emergency and buy all that's available so nobody else can buy food.


----------



## terri9630 (Jun 2, 2016)

I only read through the first part, had to stop, but this person obviously forgot that after Super storm Sandy that "normally well off" people were digging through dumpsters looking for food and asking the "normally homeless" people for help because the government he was touting wasn't coming through with needed food and supplies. Or maybe he wasn't old enough to remember the state of New Orleans after Katrina. Or the state Florida was in after Andrew. No power therefore no stores. No water. No relocating when the roads are that impassable. 

People like this will not learn until they live through it. When they haven't had food for a week and are sleeping outside in the elements and no one comes to take them to a hotel with a buffet they will learn.


----------



## Starcreek (Feb 4, 2015)

bacpacker said:


> There are many reasons to store food. The writers example of the depression and having cash on hand being able to buy food. So many folks were out of work and had no money. Farmers during this time and before, after, and to this day stores crops to feed themselves and their animals for at least a year. They lived crop to crop.


My mom lived through the Great Depression, and until the day she died, she always kept a freezer full of food and cabinets full of food. Some of it, she never used, but it was instinctive for someone who grew up never having a full stomach.


----------



## bacpacker (Jul 15, 2011)

Starcreek said:


> My mom lived through the Great Depression, and until the day she died, she always kept a freezer full of food and cabinets full of food. Some of it, she never used, but it was instinctive for someone who grew up never having a full stomach.


My grand parents on both sides were the same way. Butchered a cow and pig every year, huge garden. When they all passed away there was at least 2 years worth of food for 2 to 3 folks put back.

I strive to get to that point for us.


----------



## biobacon (Aug 20, 2012)

Well yesterday a local Walmart was shut down due to a bomb threat. I'm sorry for any one who needed to get their money out of Wallmarts bank, buy food, or get their medicine. With all the civil unrest going on how long till a lot of places aren't open for business?


----------



## crabapple (Jan 1, 2012)

My grand father was a preacher & farmer with 5 kids in the Great depression.
He bought a farm in the GD, because he spent very little money on things, so he could pay the bank for the farm.
He trade his skill & labor for anything his family needed.

I have money in a 401 K retirement plan, just in case it does not hit the fan in the next 10 years.
Everything else is if it does hit the fan.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

The author of the article was totally incorrect about both the gold and the food. Most of us were born after 1950 and so let's just look at our lifetime to date. 
In 1950 gold was $40 per once and now about $1300. Food prices are more difficult to quote but a couple of examples are Ground beef at $.30 per lb. or a loaf of bread at $.12 or Kraft Mayonnaise – quart jar: $.62. 
Obviously there was incredible inflation over the last 70 years. That means the value of the 'hoarded' dollars went way down. Every minute that you held on to a dollar during that time period you lost some purchasing power. If you hoarded gold your purchasing power would not have went down, the gold then and now would have bought about exactly the same amount of hamburger or you could sell the gold and have more fiat dollars to buy food. Or just hoard food which obviously went way up in value all that time.
So hoarding food or gold would not have caused you to lose value.
But also during that time the value of the stock market went way up. In theory you could have invested your dollars and made an incredible profit. Except you would have had to just pick the winners and not pick the losers. There was still a big risk. And whenever you did pick a winner you would have to pay taxes on the earnings which historically were much much higher during that time frame.
As an economist he would know all those facts.


----------



## DM1791 (Oct 6, 2014)

*Rough Draft*

I've posted a rough draft of my rebuttal article below. Let me know what you guys think. I tried to be specific yet brief in my responses to the original article. I think hit the specific, not so sure about the brief....

Anyway, let me know what you think.

I recently read an article here on the Federalist that didn't sit well with me. The article, written by Tyler Watts, attempted to make the case that having a supply of food or "gold" on hand would not offer any benefits in the event of an emergency, be it a natural disaster, economic collapse, or general social and political unrest. Throughout the article, Mr. Watts used both implicit and explicit digs at the "prepper" community to try and cast anyone who sets aside supplies in case of an emergency as irrational, uneducated, or simply ignorant and irresponsible. 

With the portrayal of the prepping community found in popular television shows such as "Doomsday Preppers" and "Doomsday bunkers, it is easy to paint this community with a broad brush, as Mr. Watts has done. However, it is important to realize that these shows often portray the most extreme iteration of these practices and are far from the normal, everyday precautions that make up the bulk of the prepping community's activities. Preparing for disasters, which is what the term "prepping" really means, is something that we all do to one extent or another and it can absolutely mean the difference between surviving a disaster or catastrophe or not. Even the federal government, an entity I very rarely agree with, encourages people to make basic preparations and plans for the event of an emergency or catastrophe situation.

Mr. Watts incorrectly portrays natural disasters as either killing or displacing everyone affected by them, attempts to paint the effects of the Great Depression as a positive turn for domestic food markets, and even misapplies a parable from the New Testament in an attempt to discredit the philosophy behind prepping. Taken together, Mr. Watts' article represents bad advice and misinformation masquerading as informed opinion. 

Boiled down, Mr. Watts' advice is simple: Stockpile cash and depend on the federal government for everything else. After witnessing the travesty that was the Super Dome "sanctuary" during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it is difficult to think up worse advice.

*Natural Disasters DO NOT Result in Only Two Outcomes*

In his article, Mr. Watts states that natural disasters in the US typically result in only two outcomes-you are either killed or displaced. If you are killed then you have nothing to worry about and prepping wouldn't have helped you anyway, and if you are displaced it's unlikely you will be able to take the stockpile with you, so it won't help. In the latter situation, Mr. Watts believes that "relief efforts will have plenty of emergency supplies for struggling survivors."

We'll get to the "plenty of emergency supplies" in a bit, but first I want to address the first and most glaring error in the above reasoning, namely that natural disasters affect hundreds of thousands of people per year who do not fall into either of the above mentioned categories. Most of the people affected by natural disaster in the United States are not, in fact, either killed or displaced. Rather the impact of these disasters, hurricanes especially, is typically spread over a vast geographic region with varying degrees of damage and impact throughout the area. 

I work in the property insurance industry for the second largest property restoration company in the United States. In my day-to-day job I deal with people all the time who are suffering from the direct impact of natural disasters who do not fall into either of Mr. Watts' two categories of victims. Most of the people my company assists have had their power interrupted, their homes damaged, cars or vehicles damaged, and their lives severely disrupted. In the case of the recent Hurricane Matthews, insurance companies were pulling contractors in from out of state to help handle the massive work load in South Carolina where hundreds of thousands of people (more than 800,000 by some estimates) were left with damaged property and/or no power.

For these people who are not displaced and who do not become a "casualty" a ready stockpile of food that can be prepared with minimal energy could be a literal life saver. Many families I deal with personally have two main concerns when their homes area damaged by storms: first, they want to know where they will sleep, and second they want to know how they will be getting their next meal. Having a supply of canned or freeze-dried food can relieve part of those concerns without increasing the need for spendable cash, which many people just don't have in the budget.

 Mr. Watt's argument that a cash stockpile can serve in the place of a food stockpile doesn't take into account that in a situation where there is widespread and persistent power loss (for some areas of Florence, SC it was more than 10 days before power was restored after Matthew) even the places people usually go for convenient food are unavailable. Without electricity, fast food restaurants and grocery stores are in the same poor position as the general public and will be useless as a means of providing food and water. 

Also, Mr. Watts' opinion about the availability of emergency supplies delivered by the government is not held up by facts or by recent experience. It's interesting that Mr. Watts' cites Hurricane Katrina in his article since this is possibly the best example of a bad response that the federal government ever produced. Multiple accounts of the atrocious conditions persisting in the Super Dome in New Orleans following the impact of Hurricane Katrina show clearly that even if one is displaced and goes to the official "sanctuary" offered by the government, there is no guarantee of safety and certainly no guarantee of supplies. More than 30,000 residents of New Orleans heeded the call of the federal government to gather at the Super Dome as a refuge of last resort with the promise that supplies would be provided and that they would be evacuated from there by the government. That was the evening of Sunday, August 28th 2005.

It took the federal government six full days to make good on their promise.

Let me say that again&#8230;.it took the federal government SIX DAYS to evacuate the Super Dome, which was stocked with approximately 36 hours of food and water rations for the evacuees. There are multiple accounts online about the deplorable, dangerous, even deadly conditions that the Super Dome quickly devolved into as the disaster continued. People became desperate very quickly, and desperate people do desperate things. A stockpile of cash and faith in the government would have done nothing to help those people when they needed it.

For the people left in the city itself, the ones who did not evacuate and did not come to the Super Dome to shelter in the government's official refuge, the situation was not much better. City streets were flooded with a toxic mix of rain, lake water, sea water, sewage, chemicals, and everything else that washes out of the bowels of a city when the water rises. Even limited exposure to that witch's brew of toxicity could have serious health implications, especially if the person had any kind of open cut or wound. 

Still, many citizens braved the flood waters in order to loot stores in their desperation. These people typically were not carrying away the common fodder for looters (televisions, game systems, dvd's, etc) but were rather carrying things like cases of bottled water, cans of soup, and medicine. They were literally scavenging to survive. Accounts of violence in the city spiked as people tried to defend what little bit of sustenance they'd been able to cobble together. 

If those same people had even a modest stockpile of available food and water at their home they could have handled the situation very differently. In 1996 I was a freshman in high school and in September of that year Hurricane Fran hit the North Carolina coast. When it made its way inland, the eye of the storm passed within a few miles of my childhood home. In the aftermath of that storm my family was without power for more than ten days. If you're familiar with September in the south, then you know just what kind of stinky, sweaty, sweltering hell that really is.

Throughout the entire time we were without power we did not get a single visit from a single governmental authority&#8230;not one. The stores in the area were cleaned out within hours of the hurricane, and with roads blocked by power lines and downed trees and no power to a wide swath of the south east, the five to twelve deliveries PER DAY that the average grocery store needs to stay stocked just weren't coming. We were left totally on our own for more than a week without power and without municipal water without ever hearing a thing from any government official or agency in the way of relief or even concern. Thankfully I grew up in a small farming community and our family was well-prepared to handle the situation with a combination of canned and preserved food, frozen food, and a generator with enough wattage and gasoline to keep us powered throughout the crisis. Other families, however, were not so fortunate or so well-prepared.

It's not necessary to keep a year or two's worth of canned sugar beets and corn in your basement or to spend tens of thousands of dollars on cases and cases of military Meals Ready to Eat (MRE's) in order to safeguard your family. I have a week's worth of commercially available freeze-dried food and two weeks' worth of water. Those supplies, coupled with our loaded pantry full of canned vegetables, soups, dried beans and rice, and other normal kitchen supplies would be able to keep my family of four fed for at least a month, if rationed properly. 

Contrary to Mr. Watts' opinion, natural disasters do not only result in either death or displacement. The impact these types of storms, floods, etc. have on the population varies by degree across the affected area. Some people will likely have no recourse other than to rely on the emergency services of the government, but far more would be able to help themselves and reduce the load on already strained emergency supplies and services if they took practical steps to prepare for these events ahead of time. 

*The Great Depression was not "great" for food markets*

In his article, Mr. Watts correctly points out that the Great Depression resulted in lower food costs. The implication that this was somehow a windfall for the people living during that time is horribly misguided and flies in the face of actual historical evidence. It also ignores the main reason for the falling food prices in the first place.

Throughout the three decades leading up to the Great Depression, farm production output in the US rose steeply. Much of this was driven by new technological advances such as the invention of the tractor, which ushered in the era of mechanized farming, but much of it was also due to false price limits set by the federal government in the period leading up to and during World War I. During this time, farmers were encouraged to plant and harvest as much as they could because the federal government was offering prices far above the normal market value for crops like cotton, peanuts, wheat, and corn. Farmers went heavily into debt to purchase new equipment and new land to take advantage of these benefits. 

Shortly after the end of World War I, though, the market value for farm produce crashed as European nations and Russia began producing their own food once more. As prices fell, the indebted farmers produced more and more in an effort to climb their way out of debt. This had the direct opposite effect from intention, though, as the flooded markets responded in the way supply and demand economics dictates when market supply far outpaces market demand. The food prices crashed and farmers went further into debt.

Some economic historians point to the farming crises of the nineteen teens and twenties as a direct precursor and major contributing cause to the overall economic collapse that began in 1929 with the fall of the stock market. But, as my depression era raised grandfather said years ago, "By the time the stock market fell, the poor in the country were so poor we didn't even notice." What the fall of the markets in 1929 did affect, however, was the ability of the average consumer to purchase farm produce, the ability of companies to stock their shelves, the ability of transportation companies to move goods from the farms to the towns, etc. In essence, every link in the supply chain was eroded, corroded, compromised, or outright broken by the Great Depression.

Food in cities became scarcer rather than more plentiful, as was the money to purchase it. The result of these combinations of conditions led to widespread famine and malnourishment and bread lines that stretched at times for miles. At the height of the Great Depression, more than half of the US population was living below subsistence levels, meaning they couldn't make enough money on their own to keep themselves and their families fed. One of the major impacts of this global downturn of the economy was that stores were collapsing, companies going out of business, and banks began barring their doors and refusing to allow any money in or out of their coffers. 

In that kind of environment, all the cash in the world does nothing to help as there is nothing to buy with it. The people who weathered the Great Depression the best were those who relied only on themselves for survival. The people who lived in rural areas where they could grow their own food, make their own clothes, and drink their own well water were the ones who were the best off throughout this extended period. People in towns and cities suffered the most because they were (and still are) the farthest removed from the source of their sustenance. It is clear that in these kinds of situations a stockpile of cash is insufficient, but so is a stockpile of food. Such a stockpile could carry you through the beginning stages of such a massive economic collapse, but eventually survival will depend on being able to produce your own food rather than preserve it.

It's also worth noting that by arguing for a stockpile of money during the Great Depression, Mr. Watt's is actually arguing in favor of a precious metals stockpile as coined currency at the time, which is what most people used, was made from either silver or gold. (#HistoryMatters)

*No Fiat Currency is Truly Stable*

Mr. Watts' encouragement for people in nations where political and social unrest present a problem to simply invest in a "stable" currency is also shaky at best. The truth about fiat currency, or currency that is not tied to a commodity or standard, is that it is all inherently UN-stable as a rule. While the US dollar may be the most stable of the currencies currently available, it is by no means a "stable" alternative to precious metals for the protection of wealth or the stability of trade in a true political and social disaster.

Our money system today is a horse of a different color compared to practically every other period of human social evolution. For the first time our currencies globally depend on each other for their value rather than on some hard commodity like gold, silver, cotton, etc. While that may be a temporarily beneficial system in that it allows for economies of much greater scale to develop, it also opens the door for wild swings in value and in the inflation of currencies in specific countries. 
Currencies are also very vulnerable to market effects and to the purposeful manipulation of those effects by speculators. The most recent and glaring example of the dangers of fiat currency can be found in the crash the British Pound Sterling in 1992. This crash orchestrated and carried out in large part by currency speculators like George Soros who made billions on short-selling the pound amid an already shaky economic atmosphere in the UK. Other examples of the dangers of fiat currency can be found in the hyper-inflation of Zimbabwe or Venezuela.

The danger of stockpiling cash in the form of fiat currency is that the currency itself has no value, only the social contract it represents has value and that social contract is subject to change. Gold and silver are the two oldest forms of real currency on the planet, and for good reason. The scarcity of both metals and the difficulty in acquiring and purifying them are what give them real value beyond dollars and cents. In a true political or social collapse large enough to impact the validity and sanctity of the dollar, there will be little in the way of useful currency to be found.
It's also important to note that in such an event the usefulness of any stockpile of fiat currency or cash depends solely on the willingness of people involved in the trading market to accept that currency. For instance, a Swiss Franc may be worth a lot of money right now given the current exchange rates, but it does me no good of the local supplier of groceries and food doesn't accept Swiss Francs. At that point, it's nothing more than a piece of paper.

Gold and silver currency in the form of minted coins are literally the only form of currency that have always held value regardless of the political, social, or economic conditions surrounding their use. 

*God is a Fan of Prepping*

In his article, Mr. Watts references a parable told by Jesus concerning three slaves and what they do with the money their master entrusts them with. Mr. Watts incorrectly draws a direct analogy between the slave who is given money and buries it with those who live a "prepping" life style. This analogy is a false one because these people are not taking supplies, food, weapons, precious metals, water, etc. that they are given by their master and burying them in the sand. Rather they are doing as the first slave does, and using their talents and hard work to increase their own holdings. It's just that their increase does not come in the form of padded bank accounts, large stock portfolios, or other trappings that modern society considers "wise" investments.

But, despite Mr. Watts' incorrect use of a parable, the God of the Christian Bible is very much a fan of prepping. There are many instances in the scriptures where people are encouraged to set aside a store for themselves and for their neighbors. The idea being that when hard times hit, not only will you be able to provide for your own comfort and survival, but you also could serve as a life raft for someone less prepared than yourself. And nothing in this world or the next speaks to the true character of Christianity more than caring for one's neighbor.

Mr. Watts also ignores probably the clearest endorsement of prepping in the scripture which is the episode between Joseph and the Pharaoh of Egypt. Joseph interprets a dream the Pharaoh has been plagued with involving lean cows and fat cows as well as lean sheaves of grain and fat ones. The interpretation, boiled down, is that there will be seven years of plenty and seven years of famine. God's advice for the people, however, is not to simply stockpile cash and trust that the power on high has it under control. Rather the people are instructed to harvest, to conserve, to save, and to preserve everything they can during the years of plenty. Massive granaries are built and filled with the overflowing abundance that God provides during those seven years. And when the seven lean years come, not only are the people in Egypt able to provide for themselves, but they are also able to help out Joseph's extended family and estranged brothers who come with hat in hand.

Contrary to Mr. Watts' assertion, far from running afoul of the scriptures, smart and careful preparations for all possible future calamities falls well within the purview of the faithful. Prepping need not be carried to extremes in order to be effective either. For most natural, social, and economic disasters having enough food, water, and medical supplies to last a week or two is sufficient and can be accomplished for a relatively low price tag. The level of prepping is up to the individual, but having some supplies on hand is heavily encouraged even by the federal government. 

Encouraging people to face impending natural and man-made disasters with only a wad of cash and faith in the benevolence of the federal government is naïve and shortsighted to the point of being dangerous.


----------



## bacpacker (Jul 15, 2011)

Well written rebuttal. I think you hit all the points. No it isn't short, but seems very effective in making your case.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

Nicely done.


----------



## DM1791 (Oct 6, 2014)

Thanks for the kudos, guys. I sent the article in to the editors at the Federalist today. I'll let you all know when it hits.


----------

