Home

Steamboat Springs — When I'm working at the ranch, Grandma is sure to feed me a meal or two. Upon entering her house, I'm usually greeted by the smell of baking bread and of the sound of the television tuned in to CNN. Not only is it my opportunity to fill my belly with some of the best food ever made, it is my opportunity to fill my head with the day's events and the latest political fodder. At home, Sarah typically has the TV turned to HGTV, the Home and Garden Television Network. One wouldn't think these two channels had much in common, but lately there's been talk on both about the same thing: the housing market, and the new "mortgage crisis." Hearing so much talk about this subject has me thinking.

All of the talk I've heard about the latest housing-hiccup has pointed to a number of culprits that anyone should have seen as having the potential to cause such a shake-up: Money has been lent to those with poor credit, too many have signed up for adjustable rate mortgages, home values have increased at an unprecedented rate, and more. The whole economy suffers when we aren't building new homes, we're told, because construction is one of the largest sectors of our economy. But one thing I haven't heard anyone ask is, "Do we have enough homes built to house our people, or are we just building because that is what we've always done?"

Human beings have a few basic needs: food, clothing and shelter. I would argue economies based on supplying the first two needs are more sustainable than those focusing on the third. Right now, we have an economy based more on providing shelter (homes), and the larger and more grand the shelter, the more resources one uses in building that shelter, the better it is for our economy. But is an economy based on this rampant consumption of land, natural resources, etc. a sustainable one? There is ultimately a point, whether 50, 500 or 5,000 years down the road, where an economy based on this consumption will collapse because it is based on finite resources, and the assumption that the Earth will support an infinite number of people.

So where does that leave food and clothing? If you have ever visited Mount Vernon, George Washington's home, or Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home, you know that these two founding fathers envisioned a country whose economy was based on agriculture because it was sustainable. The production of food and fiber for ourselves and the world would make us invaluable to the world, and make us a powerhouse. Maybe if today's politicians realized the importance of agriculture, like those who started this great nation, we wouldn't find ourselves with an economy balanced so precariously that changes in one sector could find our whole economy in a recession.

Todd Hagenbuch is the vice president of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union