Herbs and spices are remarkably inexpensive on a per serving basis.
Starches are generally the cheapest foods. You can pick up 50 lbs. of rice for about $12 and 50 lbs. of beans for $20 at the local Costco. Interestingly, in 1957 the average retail price of navy beans was .16/lb, or $8 for 50 lbs., although presumably this does not include a discount for volume like the Costco price does. Still, it doesn't show a huge increase in the cost of this basic food, even without inflation being taken into account. .16 in 1956 money equates to $1.16 today, which is more than beans usually cost for a single pound today.
While not the most variable or perhaps enjoyable diet, that will provide the basis of a reasonably balanced diet for one person for about two months, at a cost of about 50 cents/day. An investment of another $10 at the local Dollar Store will get you enough spices to last at least this long, raising your cost to about 65 cents/day.
Admittedly this requires access to minimal cooking facillities, and some supplementation with vegatables is recommended to prevent deficiency diseases, but it is still possible to survive for remarkably little money.
The cost of basic foodstuffs has come down to a remarkable degree over the last 50 years, when inflation is considered. However, very few of us cook using basic foods, as a trip through the grocery store will show. Hardly any shelf space is given to flour, beans, rice, cornmeal and other basic foods. Everything is frozen or pre-prepared. Of course it costs more.
Believe me, I know. The state revenue "service" wrote me a letter claiming that there was no way I could subsist on an income as low as reported on my tax filing, and they demanded an explanation. Note that I mentioned red beans and rice in my post.
The disadvantage is, however, that starches break down quickly, and fats are more efficient for staving off hunger pangs. Plus, high-starch diets lead to insulin resistance.
Look, you know that and I know that but apparently there are others who are missing this very obvious truth. I think if the study wasn’t biased and produced detailed conclusions we would all see these people are receiving assistance and as I said before, “squandering the assistance on junk”, not because junk is cheaper, but because that’s what they want. Anyone who thinks buying junk food is cheaper than nutritious food simply hasn’t been in a grocery store in a while. You can buy a Twinkie or a pound a beans, your choice. If people were getting fat because they could not afford nutritious food you would expect to see lots of skinny suburbanites and that’s just not the case. In America, Leftists can’t just “help” they have to indoctrinate and keep piling on the “help” to keep their voting class. Food Stamps were stupid at the start and to then allow them to be used to get soda, snack foods, candies, etc. was beyond stupid. None of this had anything to do with the poor. It was about securing a dependency and a sure vote come election time by throwing money at a problem and hoping it went away. I have seen hungry children and it hurts and also I have seen what this article is speaking about and they are not the same. I have seen both among my own people, they left the “old ways” and now obesity and diabetes are rampant in every tribe. I held to what I was taught and I can’t even remember my last potato chip or snack cake. I do have an affinity now for an occasional A&W Rootbeer or those new cherry cordial Hershey’s kisses (ever tried them they’re addictive, lol?), but very rarely. The first problem is ignorance, laziness or passivity, the other is food stamps which should be eliminated for a cheaper, healthier alternative. I have many ideas, but I have prattled enough. :)
Q. Why do you not see poor people at Costco?
A. Poor people never have the extra $50.00 that it takes to join the first time you shop there. That is how they filter out the riff-raff.