..... What does concern me is the return you are experiencing. ..... The primary reason we did not recognize a higher return was because of mistakes. As I said in my earlier post I spoke with some chefs early in the year hoping to get ideas of what to grow and how much. They where not very helpful in that regard so I took a stab at it. A good example of one of our mistakes was lettuce mix. We get $4.00 a bag at the restaurants (about a pound in a bag), however we way over planted and ended up taking extra to local produce auctions, one day we took about 40 lbs and ended up with $.25 (yeah thats 25 cents) for the bunch. Needless to say after that I feed the excess to my compost pile. So, because we had way to much in the spring I backed off on the amount I planted, only to discover that in the heat of summer you simply don't get as much per cutting or as many cuttings till the stuff bolts. As a result we did not have enough to keep all the restaurants supplied and of course we wasted valuable growing space on the excesses in the spring. ....... Seeing that the book was published 23 years ago, shouldn't the average price of produce per square foot be much higher than the $5.40 (or even $5.75) that Mel calculates on page 81 of Ca$h From Square Foot Gardening? ....... Is there a reason why you haven't updated your expected return to match modern organic prices? Can you tell me a little more about where you are located and what the local market is like? ....... As far as updating the prices and getting more per square foot depends on alot of factors. I am located in southeast PA, just outside of Lancaster County the produce capital of the northeast I believe. We have a large produce wholesaler (Four Seasons Produce) that buys from local farmers in season and resells to stores and restaurants as well as three produce auctions within about a 20 minute drive so it is a competitive market and alot of the produce available from the restaurant suppliers is local when in season. This fact forced me to keep my prices to the lower side of the normal range in order to help open the doors. Now that we have relationships established and happy chefs I believe I will be able to raise my prices somewhat and still have the business. As to the $25.00 per square foot, maybe in TX with the longer growing season, but I doubt that would be possible in PA especially in my area. Some examples of prices I charged and the going range in my area Romaine lettuce $.75.....Price range $.75 - $1.25 Lettuce Mix $4.00 LB....Price range $3.00 - $4.00 LB Tomatoes $2.00 - $4.00 LB....Price range $.25 - $4.00 Bell Peppers $.25 ea or $8.00 1/2 bu....Price range $.25 - $.50 ea or $8.00 - $16.00 full bushell Scallions $1.00 bunch...Price range $.75 - $1.25 bunch

There is no trust fund. There are a lot of IOUs sitting around that will be very difficult to redeem without new taxes. Not making the last round of tax cuts permanent would go a long way toward solving the problem. It is the same old "Let's look like the good guys and let the next guy take the fall" routine. As I understand the plan currently being considered, people would not have a choice about paying into a stock account and would only have the ability to choose among 3 - 4 different stock plans which they would NOT manage. They would be managed by firms appointed by the government. How much corruption do you think that plan is good for? Quite frankly what do you think the combined effect will be of lowering the capital gains tax, lowering the tax on dividends, and artifically inflating the stock market because everyone is forced into it. Call me a pessimist, but I think this will be the biggest money grab by the rich that this country has ever seen, which is saying something. With the stock market artificially inflated, rich stockholders can get out and leve the rest of us holding the bag when reality sets in. One political pundit asked a very interesting question: If investing social security money in the stock market is such a good idea, why doesn't the government do it? The obvious reason is that they don't want to give us a defined benefit. We are to shoulder all of the risk even though we will have minimal control. I really hate that the package is being sold to younger workers as a way to get out from under supporting their elders. It sounds great! Why should they have to spend their income supporting fogies? Maybe because we supported our grandparents and then our parents. Maybe that's why. Setting up generational conflict is a nasty campaign trick. That sort of thing is done all the time. We are made to argue amongst ourselves who is worthy of welfare, forgetting that what we should be doing is figuring why in this wealthy nation of ours there isn't enough money to go around.

Hi again donaldsg, I was able to use Dave's post to convince my husband to shop around some more and I'd like some advice on alternatives. Good... but ugghh!! These are the best offers & advice he's secured??? Option 1) Home equity loan from our credit union with a fixed rate of 6.24% for a 10 year term, and costs are mortgage tax only, or Even Bernanke has come out & explicitly stated that the Fed is going to keep short-term interest rates low "well into the foreseeable future." Currently, HELOC money is available around Prime (plus or minus maybe 1/4 to 1/2%) That means you can get the money you need (and only draw it *as* needed) at around a net rate of 3%-ish. That's under *HALF* the costs of the fixed loan, without the more dangerous burden of a forced 10 year repayment amortization*!!! If you anticipate the ability to save up enough money over the future 10 years to pay for this kitchen addition... then you are likely far better off using a HELOC to do the job (which is also exponentially cheaper in closing costs... from jest a few hundred bucks,) and then using your "savings power" to apply your budget to retiring the HELOC balance. (* The reason amortization is a responsible person's nightmare is because it removes budgetary control from YOU. Now, this may actually be a good thing for those who know they are "money-management challenged" and if this is true for you I understand... many people are. HOWEVER, if you are indeed a strong income and budgetary manager, then you are far better off keeping 100% control of which direction you send 100% of your money each month (which you can only do when you are NOT constrained by amortization.) The *BEST* way to eliminate your mortgage (for responsible people,) is to accumulate a side "Mortgage Freedom Account" which grows to the point that you can then stroke out a single large check to extinguish the entire balance at once. EVERYONE ought to eliminate ALL of their home leverage (HOWEVER, never a day nor a dollar earlier than it is SAFE to do so!) Option 2) refinance with our current mortgage carrier for a 20 year term at 4.75%, paying closing costs of $5500 and $1920 for points. Again, going the wrong direction on amortization (I am assuming from your self-description you are indeed a tight and responsible budget manager.) Further, 4.75% is way too pricey on today's market for a 20 year loan. EVEN FURTHER, if you are planning on staying in this home longer than 5-8 years, and you accept a higher interest rate offer in order to have a lower closing cost (which will entirely be financed by the loan anyway,) then you will be tilting the cost/savings trade-off into the present, and casting your permanent costs into your permanent monthly payments which will NOT get reduced back down after the 5 year breakeven period. Put it this way.... For approximately every $1 you spend in higher closing costs which results in a lower interst rate.... You save an annual total of about $0.20 in interest costs, permanently, per year. After 5 years has passed, you CONTINUE to save that $0.20 per year, EVERY year. SPEND $5,000 in discount points, save $1,000 per year on interest charges. After 5 years, KEEP saving $1,000 per year. ALTERNATIVELY; For approximately every $1 you REDUCE in closing costs which results in a HIGHER interst rate.... You SPEND an annual total of an additional $0.20 in interest costs, permanently, per year. After 5 years has passed, you CONTINUE to SPEND that $0.20 per year, EVERY year. AVOID $5,000 in discount points, SPEND $1,000 per year in higher interest charges. After 5 years, KEEP SPENDING $1,000 per year, permanently. Make more sense? This is one of the reasons why it pays to use a properly educated planner to structure your finances, if you aren't familiar with all the variables and how they can really affect you over time. Cheers, Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner

i agree with you conceptually about only investing in thing you believe in, or rather in things you can stomach as most investments and industries have a downside if you look hard enough. eventually you get to exploited workers and poisoned rivers and solid waste. i personally struggled with the payday investment i made. the return was high, but i did not want to be associated with it. i said no for about 6 months. over that six months i learned how they (where my money is now) did business. after i understood it i had a hard time thinking of it any differently than a bank. they both loan money based on ones ability to earn money and pay it back. the only difference is the duration and the size of the loan. a bank allows me to spend money i don't have on a credit card and then charges me 13-18% until i pay them back while they themselves are leveraged 10 to 1 on those dollars loaned. the payday place will only loan me money that will be covered in my NEXT paycheck and charge me a flat fee of $5 or $10 while they themselves have a dollar for every dollar they loan out. when i look at it like that i really had no problem with the payday place, but started to have them with the banks. the payday places are not dragging the economy down because of their recklessness. they are also not enslaving an entire generation by offering them credit they cannot pay back. there are people who use them recklessly, and it is real easy to point them out because they are the fringe. it is a little harder to point out the middle class suburbanite who is a slave to their credit card and bank because they get up and go to work each day and keep a nice yard but are living on credit. both industries lend money and both are technically guilty of charging people who don't have money. they are in business to make money, not give it away. in the end neither is good nor bad just as fire is neither good nor bad. the good or bad all depends on who uses it and how they use it. the payday places service a far less afluent and unsophisticated clientele and therefore gives them very little wiggle room to abuse the system. if they want to stay one paycheck behind for the rest of their lives, that is about all they can do. the bank will let me get decades behind because they assume i am responsible and won't let it come to that but do little to stop me and recently have even encouraged me to do so. in my mind it is a match compared to the bonfire. both can be abused, but the potential abuse of a credit card is far greater. but there may be other payday places that have different policies than where i invested. mind you i don't have equity in the payday place�"they borrowed money from me to lend. in short my money is on deposit to be lent out just as if i put it in a savings account for the bank to lend out on a credit card loan. the main difference is my rate of return is almost 10 times higher but not FDIC insured. the only thing i do struggle with is the 10% they charge for cashing checks. this is outrageous in my opinion. i can't understand why anybody would do that unless they were unable to cash it elsewhere and i won't speculate as to why. but in the end they have their reason and are paying a premium for it. and with that i leave it. cigarettes are another issue and i am totally with you. i feel the same way about other products as well most are not as overtly damaging, but their products do carry liability and they push them with abandon to those who are hurt by them. not just talking guns and alcohol. a few minutes watching saturday morning cartoons was an eyeopener to the type of products marketed to kids. slap a mcdonald's logo on a bucket of mud and i think my kids would want to eat it. a friend of mine who is militant about his hate for phillip-morris and smoking in general (i think he lost a parent to lung cancer) holds half his portfolio in tobacco stocks. he justification was that it "those people" are going to annoy him with their smoke and take his taxes in healthcare, they are going to pay him for it. an interesting take on moral investing practices, but for him it makes sense. i respect your desire to not follow my practice of investing in payday lending. we not only have to undderstand our investments, but repect if not love them. i do not love payday lending, and to be honest would rather be elsewhere, but for the time being it is a good place and i am no so morally apposed to money lending as to not take the opportunity. i do however own no bank stocks for obvious reasons, i think their model is risky. i also think they are on the more unethical side of business. they have laws and loopholes that allow them to do things that are illegal to any other company. id it because we need their services and that is what it takes, or is it because they have power to influence if not make laws that favor them? i think recent events have shown us it is a little of both. before i sound too anti-establishment, let me say i think financial institutions are important and necessary�"ie. banks, insurance companies, the US government, the FED, and even payday lenders. BUT they are in busniness to make themselves rich, not us. if you do not understand what they are doing, how they make money, or worse, what you are doing, they will take advantage of you. thus education. it is through education that you can see the smoke and mirrors they use to make you feel good about making them rich at your expense. one of the most ubiquitous is the home mortgage. i am emphatic that the most expensive ways to buy a house are in this order; cash, paid off early mortgage, continually refinanced mortgage, a 15-year note, a 30-year note, ARM, variable rate, interest only, and deferred interest-AKA sub-prime being the cheapest. that said, i don't like differed interest as it assumes the risk in the real estate market and if used by the uneducated or irresponsible it can (and has) blown up in the borrowers face. what does the bank want you to do? they love you to take out a 30 year and refinance every few years or pay it off early. if you are going to take it to term, they prefer you take out a 15-year because it makes them more money and that is why they have a cheaper rate to take it�"they need to give you incentive to do what benefits them and think you are getting the better end of the deal�"if it makes them more money, how can it also save you money and show up in two places at once? this all sounds like hericy i know. but where do we get our financial education from? our bank? alan greenspan has a nice quote about the variable interest only mortgage being the best deal out there if people only knew how to use it and the 30 year not serving its customers as the think. i will see if i can find it. the mortgage subject was perhaps the most eye-opening and influential education i ever had in finance. it is the lesson that taught me to see the whole equation and not look at a financial strategy in a vacuum. it taught me to understand finance on a macro economic level to understand how to best use products on a micro economic level. it is painful and feels like you brain is removed and turned around and put back in. but i assure you it is all true and useful information, but it requires the user to be responsible for their financial life and some are not willing to do this and for them it is not wise to have control. just as fire in the hands a of one is destructive and to another the opposite. what i am talking about is basic business finance�"in short figuring out the lost opportunity cost and the taking the greatest margin. if done properly with understanding risk is minimized and growth is maximized. some will refuse to believe, but that does not prove those strategies wrong. i myself do not practice whole-heartedly all the strategies i know an believe because of issues regarding timing, my own laziness or whatever. this does not mean i don't acknowledge their strengths or potential. but it serves me to understand alternatives. there are many i have encountered on this forum and in other places who flat out throw up a wall and won't even try to understand that there are several strategies to use in every situation and they all have merits. my beef is with those who claim merits that are not truly there or ignore others. those who emotionally attach themselves to dogma that was sold to them without trying to understand. i have been guilty of this and still am at times and it only hurts myself. when i have a few hours to spend with a calculator, i will start a new thread and actually run the numbers on the most popular mortgage products side-by-side including paying cash. i will treat all as equals. it is amazing how different the outcome is from popular beliefs, but if you look at who is selling the mortgages and the information i guess it is not shocking. it won't prove anything other than which is the most expensive in terms of money and what risks are inherent in each scenario. the individual would have to choose which is best for them. the problem is that most choose the wrong thing for what they claim to want. if you know how they each work you can choose more appropriately for your goals whatever they may be.