At any given time I probably have a couple months' worth of food in my basement because I often shop at Costco so we often have a relatively large quantity of non-perishables waiting to be eaten. Partial 50-pound bags of rice, flour, and sugar, plus various canned beans and tomato sauce and pasta and other stuff could probably keep us alive for some time if it came down to it.
Sure, but how much extra time/money would it take to actually plan it so you had enough to make what you like to eat instead of what you have laying around? It's not much extra work.
Consider that a year's worth for a typical family is a month's worth for you and a few houses around you. I don't think the expectation is that people will be eating that for a year, but having the excess allows you to be generous.
And furthermore I'm not sure a world where such measures were required to survive is a world in which I really want to survive, to be perfectly honest.
Cool. Just, you know, actually
go if it comes to it instead of suddenly deciding that you have an attachment to life and the government needs to come RIGHT VERY MUCH NOW to save your ass.
"I have the recipe for mustard gas and the location of the vent holes for your stocked underground bunker."
;) No. You have a recipe for something that you haven't tested to be mustard gas, and you
think those are vent holes.
In the pax americana era after world war 2, most of the precedents come from places where we can argue back and forth about what counts as developed like the argentine collapse about twenty years ago that left some formerly affluent people unable to afford food. Or look at what's happening right now in venezuala.*
Right. Plenty of examples of "developed nations" where having
food on hand is useful, because money doesn't buy food efficiently.
The problem with the logic here is that, assuming a fixed amount of disposable income, you can either spend that money on food, which you could then eat if you lost your job and couldn't afford to buy groceries, or you could save the money you would have spent on food, and then, if you lost your job, you could spend the money you saved before to buy food as you need it. You might actually be able to get more food for the same amount of money if you were buying food as you needed it.* You really need either hyperinflation or a shortage of food in absolute terms to make the logic of food storage pay off.
Or a failure of a delivery system, which is entirely possible. There are plenty of events in which money does not permit one to buy food for a period of time, and we see them throughout the world on a regular basis.
Your assertion that "you can save money and buy food with it" is tolerably frequently demonstrated to be quite wrong.