Gee wouldn't it be interesting if they grew something other than the same GMO crops everyone else was doing...

tell me about it

Damn, we've revived that whole feudal system thing.

Winning: It's all about greed from the folks buying it, they see these high corn prices and figure they'll stay that wayand spend an absurd amount of money with the assumption that they can make it back quickly without doing the work.

They're rent seekers. Pretty much the same as any large corporation these days, and exactly why we need to shift our property laws to favor use over ownership.

This is all the fault of Barney Frank making the banks give farmland to "minorities."

Sergeant Grumbles: Winning: It's all about greed from the folks buying it, they see these high corn prices and figure they'll stay that wayand spend an absurd amount of money with the assumption that they can make it back quickly without doing the work.

They're rent seekers. Pretty much the same as any large corporation these days, and exactly why we need to shift our property laws to favor use over ownership.

I am curious, how can the laws favor use over ownership?

Blame stupid government subsidies. If you're a big real-esate holding corporation, that row of tenements sitting empty in Detroit is a loss (tax-write-off, but still a loss). Eventually you're going to want to sell it if only to stop losing money on it. Then someone who actually wants to do something with that property will get it at a reasonable cost. But thanks to farmland subsidies, an un-used piece of farm land actually gets you a check from the government in addition to other nice tax breaks on top of your basic business loss write-off. So it makes a lot more sense to hold onto it. Therefore more incentive to squeeze a renter or a potential buyer. Even for something you aren't even using yourself.

At last! It took 235 years but the end of that damn pesky citizen-farmer is in sight!

/actually only 30 years from the "farm aid but really corporate aid" bullshiat they sold to people.
//Thanks Gipper! Your legacy keeps on giving!

jst3p: Sergeant Grumbles: Winning: It's all about greed from the folks buying it, they see these high corn prices and figure they'll stay that wayand spend an absurd amount of money with the assumption that they can make it back quickly without doing the work.

They're rent seekers. Pretty much the same as any large corporation these days, and exactly why we need to shift our property laws to favor use over ownership.

I am curious, how can the laws favor use over ownership?

Tax the fark out of rent seekers.

jst3p: I am curious, how can the laws favor use over ownership?

Meh, been a while since I read up on anything like it, so might be a little rusty.

If you own property you're not using, you're not allowed to sit on it. You either develop it, or anyone with a use for it can purchase it at fair market value. This would apply to renting empty land to others for use and certain things like unoccupied homes and commercial property. No banks' shadow inventory, no Lowe's buying up vacant lots in town to prevent Home Depot from moving in.

Apartment buildings are not included as the owner is developing and maintaining the land for tenants. That is, the owner is actually using it for something.

In the case of Winning's dad, the landowner has no use for the land but renting it to the farmer. Since the farmer actually has a use for the land, as opposed to just rent-seeking, he can buy it from the owner at whatever the appraised value, and the owner has no immunity because he was doing nothing to develop the property. He still gets paid, he just can't refuse.

Exceptions come for occupied homes and commercial properties with certain acreage restrictions, as well as things like private parks, but with safeguards to prevent declaring your vacant lot a public park to avoid sale.

When they go 'moo'
Hey, mooove over!

/ Oooh yeah!
// Uh uh uh

Winning:

It's all about greed from the folks buying it, they see these high corn prices and figure they'll stay that wayand spend an absurd amount of money with the assumption that they can make it back quickly without doing the work.

Please define Greed.

chiefsfaninkc: Please define Greed.

Trying to make money without doing any work predicated upon having a lot of money to begin with isn't greed?
Inserting yourself as a middleman, providing nothing of value, just to skim a little more off the real worker, the farmer, isn't greed?
The property owner desires the fruits of the farmer's labors, having done no work himself. What is YOUR definition of greed if that isn't it?

Much of this is driven by record profits. Yes I know there are investors hunting around but much of the land near me is being paid for in cash by farmers. So can we end the farm program now and save tens of billions each year?

Sweet! Is this part of what the EU was referring to when they were going on about the upcoming global food crisis ?

Step 1) Control the military
Step 2) Control the government
Step 2.5) Control the food supply
Step 3 ) Profit? -maniacal laughter..

Sergeant Grumbles: chiefsfaninkc: Please define Greed.

Trying to make money without doing any work predicated upon having a lot of money to begin with isn't greed?
Inserting yourself as a middleman, providing nothing of value, just to skim a little more off the real worker, the farmer, isn't greed?
The property owner desires the fruits of the farmer's labors, having done no work himself. What is YOUR definition of greed if that isn't it?

That's 'Job Creators' at work, right?

cefm: Blame stupid government subsidies. If you're a big real-esate holding corporation, that row of tenements sitting empty in Detroit is a loss (tax-write-off, but still a loss). Eventually you're going to want to sell it if only to stop losing money on it. Then someone who actually wants to do something with that property will get it at a reasonable cost. But thanks to farmland subsidies, an un-used piece of farm land actually gets you a check from the government in addition to other nice tax breaks on top of your basic business loss write-off. So it makes a lot more sense to hold onto it. Therefore more incentive to squeeze a renter or a potential buyer. Even for something you aren't even using yourself.

Ah yes. It's the left's version of the "Cadillac driving welfare queen", the ever popular "farmer who gets paid for doing nothing". Just as outrage inducing, and just as fictional. If you really believe that you can go out and buy up a bunch of fertile farmland and then go collect a check from the government to leave it sit idle, well, good luck to you. There are still some limited government programs, such as CRP, that allow you to get paid for leaving ground fallow, but they are limited in scope and targeted towards specific types of land (eg wetlands, highly erodible ground, etc).

Here's a dirty little secret: the "Farm" Program is no longer designed to benefit the family farm. The vast majority of that money goes directly into the pockets of those who need it least - the massive corporations. Corporate farms, Monsanto, Cargil, take your pick. Eliminate the farm program, and most small farmers will cheer. It will never happen because the big boys pay damn good money buying enough congressmen to keep it funded.

I keep waiting for some of these suburb housing developments to get torn back down in favor of farming them again like they used to be. Hasn't started happening yet, but in another 10 years I suppose all that cheap Chinese drywall will just disintegrate and make the process a lot more cost efficient.

mod3072: Ah yes. It's the left's version of the "Cadillac driving welfare queen", the ever popular "farmer who gets paid for doing nothing".

Actually, I've almost never heard "the left" complain about the smaller farmers of whom you speak.

In fact, most people who even bring up farm subsidies know that large amounts of farm subsidies favor large corporate operations. Hell you're more likely to get a "bailout" if you're a private mega combine operator who travels the midwest than if you're operating a small, local farm.

And, no, the percentage isn't even close. I hear UNEMPLOYED "righties" complain about the welfare queens who drive giant, lifted trucks and tote around their 15 illegitimate, illegal immigrant children. I rarely hear about farm subsidies except in a broad discussion of government waste. Really, it's comparable to people on "the left" who want, literally, all handguns banned from the US, or comparable to people on "the right" who are complaining about it being too easy to collect unemployment.

If only there were some way to grab the economic surplus accruing to land to dampen such speculative activities . . . . .

jst3p: I am curious, how can the laws favor use over ownership?

Tax deductions for mortgage interest and for renting properties at a loss favor property ownership over property use. It's cheaper to pay $1000/mo in mortgage interest than $1000/month in rent, because the person owning the mortgage gets some of that money back. Not favoring ownership over use might be as straightforward as not giving deductions for mortgage interest, or by also providing a deduction for rent paid - which might not be so bad for landlords, as it might enable people to spend more in rent than they could without the deduction. Actually favoring use over ownership might be difficult to do.

Maybe with farmland, it might be a matter of paying subsidies for growing corn or whatever to the person growing the corn, and not to the person who owns the land on which the corn is grown? I don't know.

puffy999: mod3072: Ah yes. It's the left's version of the "Cadillac driving welfare queen", the ever popular "farmer who gets paid for doing nothing".

Actually, I've almost never heard "the left" complain about the smaller farmers of whom you speak.

In fact, most people who even bring up farm subsidies know that large amounts of farm subsidies favor large corporate operations. Hell you're more likely to get a "bailout" if you're a private mega combine operator who travels the midwest than if you're operating a small, local farm.

And, no, the percentage isn't even close. I hear UNEMPLOYED "righties" complain about the welfare queens who drive giant, lifted trucks and tote around their 15 illegitimate, illegal immigrant children. I rarely hear about farm subsidies except in a broad discussion of government waste. Really, it's comparable to people on "the left" who want, literally, all handguns banned from the US, or comparable to people on "the right" who are complaining about it being too easy to collect unemployment.

I'm late getting back to the thread, so I'm probably talking to myself, but oh well. I guess the reason I framed it the way I did is that I see this point brought up in every single thread about farming. There does seem to be a fair amount of people out there who really believe that the government just hands money to farmers to keep their land fallow.

Sergeant Grumbles: jst3p: I am curious, how can the laws favor use over ownership?

Meh, been a while since I read up on anything like it, so might be a little rusty.

If you own property you're not using, you're not allowed to sit on it. You either develop it, or anyone with a use for it can purchase it at fair market value. This would apply to renting empty land to others for use and certain things like unoccupied homes and commercial property. No banks' shadow inventory, no Lowe's buying up vacant lots in town to prevent Home Depot from moving in.

Apartment buildings are not included as the owner is developing and maintaining the land for tenants. That is, the owner is actually using it for something.

In the case of Winning's dad, the landowner has no use for the land but renting it to the farmer. Since the farmer actually has a use for the land, as opposed to just rent-seeking, he can buy it from the owner at whatever the appraised value, and the owner has no immunity because he was doing nothing to develop the property. He still gets paid, he just can't refuse.

Exceptions come for occupied homes and commercial properties with certain acreage restrictions, as well as things like private parks, but with safeguards to prevent declaring your vacant lot a public park to avoid sale.


So... communism? Im not a big fan of a system that forces people to give up their property because someone else thinks they can do better with it.

If i want to use my money that i worked hard for to grow earthworms than screw you i can! I dont care if its perfect land for a vinyard - its MY FREAKING LAND!!!

And i like how you say that the farmer could buy the land at a fair appraised value... Fair to whom? the farmer? the land owner? What if the land owners all get taken to the bank? what if the farmer cant afford the land even if it was for sale? (hes not buying it now for that very reason)

Your against hoarding and stockpiling -- i get that. But just because im not playing with my toys doesnt mean you get to have them.

mod3072: puffy999: mod3072: Ah yes. It's the left...

I'm late getting back to the thread, so I'm probably talking to myself, but oh well. I guess the reason I framed it the way I did is that I see this point brought up in every single thread about farming. There does seem to be a fair amount of people out there who really believe that the government just hands money to farmers to keep their land fallow.


Yeah -- the family farm is on the out. It used to be that a guy could make a living on a couple hundred acres and raise his kids and have a life -- now the farms are the size of half a township -- You cant make money because the amount of money it TAKES to farm (if you wanna make money these days) is prohibitive. The government money goes to the big industrial farms and the smaller guys sell or die and their kids dont/wont farm and sell, or they rent the land out. This means that the bigger farms get bigger and the smaller farms lose even more of their important community every time a small guy leaves.

\Wife and i grew up on farms 20 mins apart - me grain her beef/dairy/sheep. 5 quarters and 3 quarters respectively.
\\ wont take up farming, but i would like to go back and use some of the land to do a greenhouse / u-pick sort of back to the lander home.
\\\ Ever hear the joke about the farmer with a million bucks? he started the year with 2 million bucks but then he farmed...

mikefinch: So... communism? Im not a big fan of a system that forces people to give up their property because someone else thinks they can do better with it.

If i want to use my money that i worked hard for to grow earthworms than screw you i can! I dont care if its perfect land for a vinyard - its MY FREAKING LAND!!!

And i like how you say that the farmer could buy the land at a fair appraised value... Fair to whom? the farmer? the land owner? What if the land owners all get taken to the bank? what if the farmer cant afford the land even if it was for sale? (hes not buying it now for that very reason)

Your against hoarding and stockpiling -- i get that. But just because im not playing with my toys doesnt mean you get to have them.


farking Christ. You put any more words in my mouth, I'm going to choke.

Basic idea: Rent-seeking is discouraged. You can't own farm land specifically to lease it to farmers. Either you farm it yourself, or you have to sell it to someone who will. Your earthworm farm is a fine idea. It doesn't really matter what you do with the land so long as YOU do SOMETHING with it. If the only reason you own it is to rent it to someone else, then you add no value to the equation and should forfeit your rights to the property.
Besides renting land to farmers, another good example is banks' shadow inventory. Banks aren't allowed to sit on houses in order to decrease supply and manipulate prices. By law, they would be required to sell properties they're not using.

Fair market value. Get an independent appraiser. Not a hard concept.
If the farmer doesn't have enough money, then he doesn't get the property, simple as that. Nothing says the farmer is guaranteed the land just because he wants to work it, just that the original owner be required to sell idle property should a buyer have an immediate use for it.

It's a little hard to explain, but it's supposed to change the value of ownership vs. use by letting use facilitate ownership.
In my town, the downtown area is full of empty storefronts because owners haven't budged on rent in years, and no businesses want to move into an empty downtown just to piss away all of their revenue on rent. Yet strip mall after strip mall keep growing up around the town's fringes because the land there is cheap. Better to have someone actually use all that empty space downtown than someone to sit on it waiting for a rich tenant. Cuts down on all that urban sprawl, too.

Sergeant Grumbles: t. Yet strip mall after strip mall keep growing up around the town's fringes because the land there is cheap. Better to have someone actually use all that empty space downtown than someone to sit on it waiting for a rich tenant. Cuts down on all that urban sprawl, too.

If i make a huge ton of cash - why should i not be able to take that money and buy land to rent out? Isnt it legitimate to spend your money on investing in a mining company? and you should get a return on that money yes? Because you are supplier of capital - the mine needs money to get started and you provide that. FOR A FEE. The farmer needs land so for a return you provide that.

The value they add is the capital. If the farmer doesn't have enough cash to buy the farm and i'm not allowed to rent it to him then hes farkING OUT OF WORK!!!!!

You just took two people with incomes and made two people without incomes. Good jorb.

-- and why should the bank have to sell a foreclosed house its not using? If they spent 20,000 on that house and its worth 10 now why do YOU deserve to benefit and why are you forcing the bank to take a loss?

Under your model investment disappears and it becomes impossible to wait out poor market conditions. If you grow wheat and nobody is going to pay a red cent for it one year but you know they might the next... you might leave your farm fallow, to drive up wheat prices, and lower costs. What WAS me responding to market conditions suddenly became a huge liability because i have to use my land and take a loss or not use it and lose it forever.

And if your downtown is so bad those people will get tired of waiting for a rich tenant. Rich people usually get rich by knowing how much is to much to pay for something...

mikefinch: words

Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth.
I never said no one could invest. I said rent-seeking behavior adds no value and should be curtailed. You buying land just to rent it out is just inserting yourself as a parasitic middle man skimming off value. Investing in a mining company is investing in a business actively using and developing their property.
I also never said renting is 100% illegal, just that owners who do nothing but rent, not actually develop the property themselves, should have to cede that unused property to a buyer with an immediate use for it. Again, no need for the parasitic middle man adding nothing yet taking a cut.

mikefinch: and why should the bank have to sell a foreclosed house its not using?

BECAUSE IT'S NOT USING IT. And there are people who can use it. That's the whole idea. How about the bank actually provide a product or service to make money instead of manipulating housing prices.

mikefinch: What WAS me responding to market conditions suddenly became a huge liability because i have to use my land and take a loss or not use it and lose it forever.

You're using it to farm, aren't you? Then you aren't in danger of losing it. Just because your field is fallow doesn't mean the land's not in use. But an empty house, empty building, or empty lot isn't being used. Better to get it into use than let it sit vacant because some property owner thinks his cut isn't big enough.

Sergeant Grumbles: I never said no one could invest.

buying land and renting it out is an investment. Its not being parasitic because i as a buyer of land facilitate the movement of capital between members of the community. The 80 year old guy down the road from you wants to sell his farm - its a valuable peice of company/property at 10 million dollars (Not an impossible figure). The local farmers will never be able to afford the land and i can -- so if i buy that land and rent it out to those farmers and take my fair cut im the bad guy?

The mine is exactly the same -- you payed money to get money back -- you own something that you get a return from - the return is generated from the companies profit. How is the mine company any different from the farmer and the landlord any different from the investor in the mine? The farmer is being productive for me, in the same way that the mineing company is being productive for its investors.

And the bank has no reason to sell the house -- Your expecting a buisness to be ok with being forced to buy back your house for 40 grand when you cant pay it back, and then force them to sell it for 20 grand when they arent using it. You are in effect bilking the bank out of 20 grand am i not correct? Why should the bank be forced to eat the loss?

Do you just want to punish an industry because some people werent playing by the rules? Because that seems petty and innefective.

And finnaly: Sergeant Grumbles: Just because your field is fallow doesn't mean the land's not in use.

So who determines what land is and isn't being used? Because just so you know -- a fallow could be considered not in use... Seems like a system that would breed corruption... And what about the house? what if i have 52 houses and live in a different one each week? What if i own just two houses but spend equal time in each? What if i want to buy an empty lot because i think property values are going to soar and i want to collect the equity in 10 years?


You sir are a big communist bastard.

mikefinch: The local farmers will never be able to afford the land and i can -- so if i buy that land and rent it out to those farmers and take my fair cut im the bad guy?

Yes. You are. You have nothing to offer but money, and the farmers don't need money to farm, they need land. Having bought the land trying to extract your tribute, you have come between them and the land, a parasitic rent-seeker. If you can't buy the land just to get your cut out of it, it may just depreciate to its actual productive value, rather than the speculative values driven up by all the other rent seekers.

mikefinch: The mine is exactly the same -- you payed money to get money back -- you own something that you get a return from - the return is generated from the companies profit.

The mine is actually doing something with its land. In my scenario, I take no issue with anything there, as long as the mine owns the property it's working. As I've stated many times, a parasitic landlord demanding payment is an unnecessary burden on a business who is using the land, producing a product, and creating jobs.

mikefinch: And the bank has no reason to sell the house -- Your expecting a buisness to be ok with being forced to buy back your house for 40 grand when you cant pay it back, and then force them to sell it for 20 grand when they arent using it. You are in effect bilking the bank out of 20 grand am i not correct? Why should the bank be forced to eat the loss?

The crux of my idea was that use was favored above ownership, and thus, use should facilitate ownership. Yes, I expect the bank to eat the loss. They do no one but themselves any favors by keeping homes out of circulation. Homes that could be filled with families. A home, a place to live, a community. Not just some line item on the bank's ledger. It's just as easy to turn the situation around and say "Why should homeowners eat the higher cost of a new home when the bank is restricting supply?" And in the vein of use vs. ownership, the homeowners are actually using the property, and thus should receive favor.

If the banks don't want to eat the loss, they can try harder to keep people in their homes rather than go straight to foreclosure. In these situations, it's never the banks that have to take the hit, it's always the homeowner. Perhaps they could, I dunno, share the burden? Work out a deal? Hell, just letting people refinance would be enough in some cases.

mikefinch: So who determines what land is and isn't being used? Because just so you know -- a fallow could be considered not in use... Seems like a system that would breed corruption... And what about the house? what if i have 52 houses and live in a different one each week? What if i own just two houses but spend equal time in each? What if i want to buy an empty lot because i think property values are going to soar and i want to collect the equity in 10 years?

Pretty sure there are ag laws that designate what is and isn't a farm, so why not use those? And last I checked, there are plenty of good reasons to leave a field fallow that fit within farm usage.
Getting into nitpicky details for what was pretty much a generalized statement. There are already homestead laws that can be referenced to new rules regarding home ownership and usage. A summer home doesn't seem out of line. 52 seems abusive. If you want to buy an empty lot to speculate, that's exactly the kind of rent-seeking parasitical behavior the entire scenario is predicated against. If you buy the property, either develop it, or let someone else do it. If you want to make money, provide a product or service people want. Don't be a parasite and play with land values.

mikefinch: You sir are a big communist bastard.

Almost. You say it like it's a bad thing to favor families who would dare live in houses over banks who would let them sit empty.
You're welcome to mention Stalin, Mao, purges, collective farms, the Holodomor, gulags, and/or anything else completely unrelated to this conversation. I'll know then that there's no point to continued discussion.

Whatever way you fold it some asshole who sat on his ass gets to burn me because i have accumulated wealth and he has not. Sergeant Grumbles: If the banks don't want to eat the loss, they can try harder to keep people in their homes rather than go straight to foreclosure. In these situations, it's never the banks that have to take the hit, it's always the homeowner. Perhaps they could, I dunno, share the burden? Work out a deal? Hell, just letting people refinance would be enough in some cases.

see - you keep punishing the banks. Treating a pool of money like its scum isnt a good way to encourage that pool to grow...

If the banks are acting in a predatory fashion (making mortgages they know will default) then isnt that an issue on its own?

And why aren't the people in homes already? Shouldnt they take part of the blame for takeing part in such a greedy system? They allowed the banks to prey on them. Imean - the bank didnt force them to sign the morgatge -- being poorly educated and not being able to spot a clearly bad deal seem like pretty big faults aswell.

Sergeant Grumbles: Yes. You are. You have nothing to offer but money, and the farmers don't need money to farm, they need land. Having bought the land trying to extract your tribute, you have come between them and the land, a parasitic rent-seeker. If you can't buy the land just to get your cut out of it, it may just depreciate to its actual productive value, rather than the speculative values driven up by all the other rent seekers.

They do need the money. Observe: Farmer joe runs a solid farm for 45 years. Hes got a few thousand acres and a nice homestead. Farmer joe is now 80 and about to die. He wants to leave something behind for his kids so he sells his farm. Based on the size of the farm the bank says its worth 10 million. No farmer in the region can afford to pay farmer joe the fair price for the land, so i come in, give joe the money he needs to retire, and i can make a solid return on my investment and the other farmers can continue to do buisness for another year.

Do you see here how you need someone to lend money? How lending money and taking on risk can be a "job"?

If i didn't buy that land the only way the other farmers could use it would be to fark over a fragile old man...

I don't know why you think its ok to just shift the problem to the wealthy just because you think they can afford it.


Assumption of risk and supply of capital is a job. Its what banks do. Lending is a service. A VALUABLE service.

mikefinch: And why aren't the people in homes already? Shouldnt they take part of the blame for takeing part in such a greedy system? They allowed the banks to prey on them. Imean - the bank didnt force them to sign the morgatge -- being poorly educated and not being able to spot a clearly bad deal seem like pretty big faults aswell.

To me, hundreds of thousands of people in need of homes and banks unwilling to sell the homes in their inventory is a problem. The bank is more culpable in this situation because not only are they not using the property they own, they're artificially pricing many of the people who need homes out of the market. Either we free up all this unused property, putting people up in cheaper homes, and building and enriching communities, or we keep some bank's bottom line where they think it should be. I'll side with people every time.

mikefinch: They do need the money. Observe: Farmer joe runs a solid farm for 45 years. Hes got a few thousand acres and a nice homestead. Farmer joe is now 80 and about to die. He wants to leave something behind for his kids so he sells his farm. Based on the size of the farm the bank says its worth 10 million. No farmer in the region can afford to pay farmer joe the fair price for the land, so i come in, give joe the money he needs to retire, and i can make a solid return on my investment and the other farmers can continue to do buisness for another year.

Do you see here how you need someone to lend money? How lending money and taking on risk can be a "job"?

You have provided ZERO value. You are just a parasitic middle-man that thinks his money is worth more than honest work. The idea is to eliminate these useless speculators, idle landlords, and middlemen who think renting their property produces value. If it weren't for all these leeches driving up the price, maybe Farmer Joe's farm would be valued at something other farmers could actually afford. After all, how did Farmer Joe afford his farm to start with?

mikefinch: I don't know why you think its ok to just shift the problem to the wealthy just because you think they can afford it.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth.

mikefinch: Assumption of risk and supply of capital is a job. Its what banks do. Lending is a service. A VALUABLE service.

There is no risk involved in rent-seeking. There is no value. It's imaginary, inflated by round after round of speculation. The only person who should be concerned with cornfield is the farmer, not some speculator who thinks he can inflate the value enough to cash out in a few years. The farmer works. The farmer produces. The speculator does neither.

Sergeant Grumbles: There you go again, putting words in my mouth.

reducing your argument to its base components is hardly putting words in your mouth.

Sergeant Grumbles: After all, how did Farmer Joe afford his farm to start with?

He inherited it from his father who inherited it from his father who cleared the land and homesteaded it. Through the years the land has acquired fencing, dugouts, irrigation, and road access. There is good timber value on the land too. Farmer joe is the end result of years upon years of sweat equity. Farmer Joe knows that land is worth 10 million and that he deserves that money because he worked his fingers to the bone for it.

Why should he not have the right to wait for a fair price? If i make a product that i know cost 50 dollars to manufacture why should i be forced to sell it for less? Just because the market doesnt appreciate the true price of a product now doesnt mean they wont realize it later. (im not putting word in your mouth here - this is an "analogy")

Sergeant Grumbles: There is no risk involved in rent-seeking.

Yes there is - you are tying up a huge amount of capital and allot of the time when it comes to land your rent is sometimes a percent of the crop taken that year. My dad rents 5 quarters to our neighbor who has a way bigger farm and can afford to hire the people to work it (irony?)

My dad had to get a new job because he couldn't afford to farm his land - should our rich neighbors who can hire the people to work the land (how thats different from renting it out i don't know) be allowed to buy our land for cheap because the market doesn't favor small business? Cause thats a dick move.

An economy is like a pipe that moves water. To shallow a grade (to much regulation) and the water (money) doesnt flow. To steep (to little regulation) and the system air locks and plugs (wealth shouldn't be able to concentrate indefinitely ).

My hope would be that over the years the local farmers would if they so desired be able to save up and eventually afford to offer me a fair price for the land. In wich case i would likely be inclined to sell it as i would likely be paying a mortgage on the land myself and it would behoove me to try to find an even better investment for that money.

I dont want my millions tied up in sketchy land deals - i as a renter am inclined to rent only to those who i know can pay. My mom manages an apt building -- she will NOT rent an apt to anyone making less than 4 grand a month as those people usually end up being sketchy. -- Why would i want to rent out my land to people if i was suspect of their credit?

Admit it -- your just pissed that some people are assholes and they tried to fark everyone over. Its ok to be mad. I am. I'm just suggesting (and someone had to suggest it to me too) that taking the shackles off of the poor is right - that doesn't mean putting shackles on the rich is also the right solution.

mikefinch: reducing your argument to its base components is hardly putting words in your mouth.

I was actually going to read the rest of your post, but if you're going to act that way, I see I shouldn't waste my time.

I value use over ownership. If that's somehow anti-rich, it just means the rich have too much stuff they're not using.

Sergeant Grumbles: mikefinch: reducing your argument to its base components is hardly putting words in your mouth.

I was actually going to read the rest of your post, but if you're going to act that way, I see I shouldn't waste my time.

I value use over ownership. If that's somehow anti-rich, it just means the rich have too much stuff they're not using.

please read the rest - i was truly enjoying our discourse.

I suggesting - and its not something i have always agreed with -- but im starting to see that lending is a valuble and benifitial tool to the movement of capital through an economy. Leverage is important. We should not deny ourselves usefull economic tools just because some have use them without scruples in the past.

You know -- canadian banks didnt go through the upheaval the american ones did because they had a much mor fair and user based lending policy.

I dont disagree that stagnating production is bad -- i just dont think that your ideas of wealth redistribution are fair.

Capitalism disgusts me -- but communism disgusts me just a touch more. I think your upset with a dynamic in our society that rewards assholes. If you dick over everyone else somehow you rise to the top. I get it - its retarded. But broad sweeping reforms like user based wealth redistribution i think might do way more harm than good. Replacing a system with a system you KNOW is atleast equally/comparitivley flawed is just extra retooling cost and shifting the inequality to a different segment of the population.

If nothing else Grumbles, be pleased with the fact that your text will forever appear a minty shade of green in my browser. Anyone willing to piss away so much time to reading what i wrote on the internet couldnt be half bad.

mikefinch: please read the rest - i was truly enjoying our discourse.

Fine, fine. A reasonable Fark poster is truly a diamond in the rough.

We're just approaching this from two very different places. I've been trying to point out how I think it should work. Use facilitates ownership. If the only thing you bring to the table is money, and the only thing you take away is money, you aren't needed in the equation. Speculators driving up the price of any commodity benefit the speculators, not the people who actually want to use the commodity. They'll find themselves priced out of the market and beholden to their landlords. Landlords, like I said, whom I don't believe add any real value.

That's not to say landlords never add value, but bank shadow inventories and speculators buying up farmland when corn prices are high are not adding anything to the process.

You're mostly speaking as to how things already work, and giving that as a reason why my method won't work. I concede this point. My way won't work with the way things are now. It's why I proposed the change in the first place. Has its merits and pitfalls like our current system, but I just can't see any justification for letting property go unused because the owner wants a cut.