why is it not viable to grow food with vertical hydroponic setups or whatever?
Only suits particular crops. For most things, the infrastructure would be needlessly expensive. More viable to plant and harvest at scale with massive machinery.
Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers
241–250 of 284 posts
Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers
#242Most 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…
> 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. This isn't true: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/... That AC and the regulations cited in it couldn't be clearer-- if you and the pilot are both going to $destination for $reasons, you and the pilot can definitely split…
It's pretty common for a single person to form a trust or LLC to buy an airplane, but it's mostly only worth the cost when the airplane is very expensive or when it's going to be used for commercial activity. I used the only example I could think of, off hand, that applies to non-commercial activity, because it's more relatable.
Also, I think it's worth mentioning that the advisory circulars, legal interpretations, and other letters the FAA writes aren't regulations, and it takes a ruling going to a federal court, not an FAA panel or tribunal, to set a precedent for what is and isn't legal. As far as I understand, this has never happened with FAR 61.113, which is a bit self contradictory and the FAA's overly broad definition of compensation where "the building up of flight time may be compensatory in nature if the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft" (https://www.faa.gov/media/15611) is extremely unlikely to ever hold up to a jury.
Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "conforming" mean here? Because I suspect there will be a reference in there that is a pointer to something involving government subsidy. Everything ag related is rife with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conforming_loan I love government subsidies through implicit and explicit loan guarantees. It’s the reason a 30 year mortgage exists. It’s the reason one can default on an FHA mortgage with almost no consequences (while being almost impossible to default on student loan debt). To your point this is “subsidized by the rest of us,” the bottom 50% of American earners only pay 2.3% of total…
>I love government subsidies through implicit and explicit loan guarantees
Like student loans?
>It’s the reason a 30 year mortgage exists.
Which is a large part of the reason houses cost what they do.
>the bottom 50% of American earners only pay 2.3% of total federal income tax collected,
"Well the poors aren't paying for it, you are" isn't the endorsement you think it is. And the poors still get kicked in the dick by spending driven inflation same as the rest of us anyway.
Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the ick that comes with running other businesses Also non-judgmental curious question: what is this "ick" related to non-farming businesses?
I own both a farm business and non-farm business. I feel the "ick" he talks about. I don't know how to exactly describe it, but I'd suggest it has to do with more autonomy in non-farming businesses, where you are always trying to balance between trying to make the business work and not taking advantage of people. Or if you end up taking advantage of people... In farming, it is all laid out for you. Prices are already…
> I don't know how to exactly describe it, but I'd suggest it has to do with more autonomy in non-farming businesses, where you are always trying to balance between trying to make the business work and not taking advantage of people. Or if you end up taking advantage of people...
What about all the non-organic farming, use of pesticides/antibiotics/etc., poor treatment of animals (sometimes), water waste in some cases (like almonds in CA), being beholden to & inevitably supporting the wonderful companies that are John Deere and Monsanto, having to use proprietary seeds and IP for such a basic human need, etc.? Some of our largest problems on the planet trace back to modern industrial farming.
To be clear, I love and respect farmers a ton, my comment isn't about them at all. They're amazing and hardworking and anybody in the the business would be dealing with the same problems. I'm just talking about the purity of the business itself that you're talking about. The idea that the job is somehow so morally pure compared to all the other jobs baffles me. Your average local job (waiter, cashier, postal delivery worker, janitor, etc.) would seem to have a much more direct positive and impact on people's happiness and much less of an opportunity to take advantage of other beings, as you put it.
Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers
#245Most 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…
Most housing is not owned by tenants? That surprises me quite a bit. Would you supply a source for that?
I guess it depends a lot on what you measure in "most": housing per head or housing in square feet? Lots of heads cramped into rented minimum viable housing. Lots of square feet held by owners who occasionally live there, when they do happen to be in town.
(the general upwards trajectory of real estate makes it an investment even when it does not generate any income, do much better than owning a boat!)
Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the ick that comes with running other businesses Also non-judgmental curious question: what is this "ick" related to non-farming businesses?
There’s something righteous in farming where it’s really hard to feel like you’re doing wrong even if you’re getting rich — you are just feeding people. It’s like being a doctor.
its why farmers are always such jolly folk
Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, but as mentioned, 5 million also buys 20 year treasuries that yield 4.90%, or about 245k a year. I probably wouldn't buy them on margin tho.
> I probably wouldn't buy them on margin tho. Yeah, this is the pertinent detail. The whole point is putting down only a fraction of the amount. When you calculate the rate of return on a financed property, the rate of return is versus the capital you put down, not the value of what you financed. Plus accruing equity in the property is part of the return. If you put down $1.25 million and you get a $5 million propert…
You say you only calculate rate of return on the "capital you put down"...Im not following here, do you think because youre spending profit from the farming operation that loan for the farm is paying for itself? The tbills pay for themself.... you have to work the farm for 20 years to pay back that 5 million. Its an apples and oranges comparison there.
Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers
#248I own the farm and farm it in Illinois. I owe the land through an LLC, because farming is dangerous and I don't want to go bankrupt if somebody sues me. Farms are expensive and hard to subdivide, so people will put them into a legal entity and pass down to the next generation via a trust. All of my neighbors are doing the same, so we're all counted as "not farmers" here Farming is a terrible business. My few hundred…
> Farming is a terrible business. My few hundred acres (maybe worth $5M) will only churn out a few hundred grand in profit Well, it is ultimately a real estate business. The "hundred grand" in profit is really there only to support the mortgage payments — meaning that's what other farmers are counting on, so they're going to drive the prices down to that point. It is like a tech startup. You are counting on the asset…
What is the thesis for speculating on farm land? Theres no reason for me to think it will appreciate any faster than inflation because demand is stagnant.
Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a use case where I think a current LLM shines. Ask it to summarize the important points of n papers, and slow read only the ones that pique your interest. It won't be perfect, but it will save you a ton of time while letting you focus on the things that need more attention.
I'm not anti-LLM even if the following statement sounds like it. I don't trust LLMs, even to summarize for me. I have to fact-check every single statement. For instance, if I ask ChatGPT, "Is PLA more dense than ABS?" it answers, "No, PLA is not more dense than ABS." Those are direct quotes. In the third paragraph, ChatGPT says, "So technically, PLA is denser than ABS, not less — I misspoke earlier." I find LLMs good…
I am researching LLMs as a summarizing tool for medical research and early results show that LLMs do a better job than the current status quo of volunteer doctors. Pre print hopefully coming soon, until then youll just have to trust me that they are really good at summarizing and critiquing research.
Re: Most Illinois farmland is not owned by farmers
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Farming is a terrible business. My few hundred acres (maybe worth $5M) will only churn out a few hundred grand in profit Well, it is ultimately a real estate business. The "hundred grand" in profit is really there only to support the mortgage payments — meaning that's what other farmers are counting on, so they're going to drive the prices down to that point. It is like a tech startup. You are counting on the asset…
What is the thesis for speculating on farm land? Theres no reason for me to think it will appreciate any faster than inflation because demand is stagnant.
Get a mortgage on the land. Farm pays the interest. The price of the land goes up with inflation, the size of the loan doesn't. Difference is low tax profit.