Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

chicagotribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 284 posts

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#11

Post by snarf21 »

edwardbernays wrote: post #3

Forget China. The greatest threat to American freedom and global power is robber baron billionaires. We live in a full-on kleptocracy. It's about time we add some new amendments to the constitution to relevel the balance of powers.

The problem is that they have bought all three systems of government so they can do whatever they want. They own all the media as well. Even something like PBS that is supposed to be more independent is highly dependent on "philanthropy" from these same billionaires and they've fallen victim to what I'm going to moniker as Sinclair's Law ("It is difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends upon not understanding it" -Upton Sinclair)

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#12

Post by WillPostForFood »

bell-cot wrote: post #8

If you look at history, this is an ancient pattern. In Judaeo-Christian scriptures, the prohibitions against anyone acquiring ownership of land go all the way back to the Torah. Though like pretty much every religious prohibition on behaviors which the well-to-do want to do - those commandments fall under the "we never talk about that part" rule. EDIT: - Please note my "against anyone ACQUIRING ownership of" phrasing…

There is no biblical prohibition against owning land, but there is plenty of debate, discussion and grappling with the problems of ownership and accumulation. It shows it always an issue, and rules and laws and social norms always need to be debated and changed.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#13

Post by actionfromafar »

edwardbernays wrote: post #9
cozzyd wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately the Illinois governor can be counted on to take a stand against billionaires.

true, we wish this brave and powerful man the best of luck as he takes on his matched opponents: the people in his socioeconomic bracket. amen.

You jest, but the harsh truth is that almost no change in society is possible unless at least some of the societal elites are on the bandwagon.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#14

Post by dlcarrier »

Most farms are not owned by farmers, most housing is not owned by tenants, most airplanes are not owned by airlines, etc., etc..

Vertical integration can have benefits, but it isn't necessary and has drawbacks. Even when vertically integrated, regulations are often written under the assumption that everything is leased, not owned, so compliance is easier if you own a company that owns an asset, instead of owning that asset directly.

For example, if two people carpool in a car that one of them owns, instead of hiring a taxi, they'll usually split the costs of the fuel and the wear on the car. On the other hand, if they were flying in a small airplane owned by one of them, it's illegal to split the costs of wear on the airplane, unless its a rental or air taxi. Because of this, and other similar effects of FAA regulations, many small airplane owners own a company that owns the airplane, instead of owning it outright, and rent the airplane from themselves, whenever they use it.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#16

Post by autoexec »

cozzyd wrote: post #7
edwardbernays wrote: post #3

Forget China. The greatest threat to American freedom and global power is robber baron billionaires. We live in a full-on kleptocracy. It's about time we add some new amendments to the constitution to relevel the balance of powers.

Fortunately the Illinois governor can be counted on to take a stand against billionaires.

I have to admit that for as corrupt as Illinois is, Pritzker has managed to support a few things which his billionaire buddies weren't too fond of. It's not all good, but it's better than I expected. He's called for higher taxes on the rich, stronger labor protections, higher minimum wages and better support for the poors.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#18

Post by KaiserPro »

bell-cot wrote: post #8

If you look at history, this is an ancient pattern. In Judaeo-Christian scriptures, the prohibitions against anyone acquiring ownership of land go all the way back to the Torah. Though like pretty much every religious prohibition on behaviors which the well-to-do want to do - those commandments fall under the "we never talk about that part" rule. EDIT: - Please note my "against anyone ACQUIRING ownership of" phrasing…

owning land? no, holding debt for longer than 7 years very much so.

but you know, that interferes with commerce too much. (also part of the reason for huge amounts of anti-Semitism from about 1100-now )

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#19

Post by nemomarx »

farceSpherule wrote: post #17

How about the US government stop subsidizing farmers? Let them fend for themselves like any other business.

If the price of food goes up, the public revolts. Not without a good reason honestly.

I think you could definitely move the subsidies around, but subsidizing food is a basic good idea for any state really.

Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers

#20

Post by edwardbernays »

actionfromafar wrote: post #13
edwardbernays wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

true, we wish this brave and powerful man the best of luck as he takes on his matched opponents: the people in his socioeconomic bracket. amen.

You jest, but the harsh truth is that almost no change in society is possible unless at least some of the societal elites are on the bandwagon.

It's both sardonic and genuine. If he's genuine, then I genuinely wish him the best luck. However, it is very hard for me to believe that any billionaire would ever do something generally disfavorable to the current billionaire class. It's even harder for me to believe that, if one of them was to do so, that it would not be for their own further gain, just to the detriment of their peer cohort. I'm a bit jaded from having been lied to too many times.

Again, however, if he is genuine: I genuinely wish him the best luck taking on his matched opponents.

Post reply on HN