4 ms·
> It's a sad state of affairs, really. The only people who have enough money to play the game are either corporations or are in their 90's and bought the ground
by jonknee 8y ago
> It's a sad state of affairs, really. The only people who have enough money to play the game are either corporations or are in their 90's and bought the ground when it was $30/acre.
I don't think it's sad, more efficient users of resources are bidding them up which is exactly what they should be doing. The idea of a small farmer is great and has a lot of American nostalgia, but in general a giant company that produces much more food on the same land is way better for the country as a whole. It gets messy with subsidies, but the idea of more efficient players replacing small timers is how we keep upping productivity year after year and get richer as a country.
- Sileni 8y agoWe're not getting stronger as a country. A handful of corporations are gaining massive influence over our political and legal systems. The "small farmer" is precisely what our country was founded on and was considered our strength. It allowed us to be something closer to a true democracy as opposed to the functional oligarchy we're running at this point. You're not an independent citizen if you have to depend on an employer to keep you fed, sheltered, and healthy. It's only more efficient if you consider "generation of theoretical GDP" the ultimate badge of efficiency. If it's sitting in some banker's pocket, extra productivity doesn't really benefit anyone.
- Loughla 8y agoYou nailed it. Honestly I couldn't say that any better. It is more than nostalgia. It's a strength. What we're seeing in SO many areas is just a race to the bottom.