6 ms·

If the farmers have decades long relationship with the landowners this looks like a power play by tillable/VCs to get in there and take a recurring cut. They kn

If the farmers have decades long relationship with the landowners this looks like a power play by tillable/VCs to get in there and take a recurring cut. They know the farmers have no option but to rent land and the VCs know it. So they are using their money to pay cash to landowners and get them on the site. Probability wise there is a 90% chance that the land will be rented by the same farmer as before because of land proximity issues. So it’s just free money for tillable.

creddit 6y ago
So, why would the farmer use it then?
- est31 6y ago
  For now it's fueled by VC cash so people will adopt it because of it. This gives Tillable growth numbers that impress investors to give even more money and so on, until it's so large that it can apply ideas of scale, like integrating vertically in some form. The vertical integration Uber envisions is self driving cars. Any company which has a foot in the hauling market will have an advantage over a purely self driving research company. The vertical integration of Tillable would involve things like buying the land, renting out machines, completely automating the work, etc. Something like that.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Because he needs land to farm on, or he stops being a farmer and has to shut down his business. He will now pay e.g. $1000. Tillable will offer $1100 upfront to the land owner and then "offer" it to the farmer for the low price of $1200. Since he can't just farm on some piece of land 500 miles away, he can either pay the new price, or stop farming. Tillable offers no significant service here. It's not that there's a lot of land sitting idle because farmers and land owners have no way to come in contact, they are not solving a problem, they are just injecting themselves to extract rent with VC money.
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    Bingo. It's literal rent seeking.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    If the farmer is willing to accept a $1200 price, then what prevents the land owner from charging $1200 right now? All the factors you list which push the price up apply just as well for the current owner-renter negotiations. The scenario you describe is possible only if there is a lot of land that's severely mispriced / underpriced - in which case the price should and would get corrected, and after that the arbitrage opportunity disappears because, as you say, the land owner can come in contact directly with the farmer and make arrangements.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      > If the farmer is willing to accept a $1200 price, then what prevents the land owner from charging $1200 right now? Basic human decency? These are often long-term relationships between neighbours, whose families lived next to each other for decades or hundreds of years.
      - randomdata 6y ago
        But those with such decency wouldn't turn to Tillable to capture an extra buck, so it remains unclear where you think Tillable fits.
        luckylion 6y ago
        Apparently nobody turns to Tillable. It's Tillable that's turning to land owners and tries to convince them to not renew their contracts with farmers so Tillable can negotiate new contracts with higher prices, likely with the same farmers (as farming is very much a local thing, you can't farm a piece of land from a thousand miles away).
        randomdata 6y ago
Finnucane 6y ago
Yeah, they quote Parker Smith saying they’re making connections that wouldn’t otherwise happen, but that’s obviously a lie. The farmers don’t need a ‘market maker’ if they’re already renting land from landlords they know. And it’s not like they can move operations around randomly, like an apartment or hotel room.
toss1 6y ago
Yes, but he smart landowners will realize that the same farmers will now need to pay more, and have a less direct and shorter-term connection to the land. The farmer will have less means, and less motivation to invest in proper fertilization & care of the land. This pushes everyone to a pure extractive business model, and away from investment. The result will be land that is worth less until it is worthless. All for a few more bucks up front. Capitalism is not solving any problem here, it is creating a massive problem. What's the solution when a massive portion of the arable land is worthless?

creddit 6y ago

So, why would the farmer use it then?

est31 6y ago
For now it's fueled by VC cash so people will adopt it because of it. This gives Tillable growth numbers that impress investors to give even more money and so on, until it's so large that it can apply ideas of scale, like integrating vertically in some form. The vertical integration Uber envisions is self driving cars. Any company which has a foot in the hauling market will have an advantage over a purely self driving research company. The vertical integration of Tillable would involve things like buying the land, renting out machines, completely automating the work, etc. Something like that.
luckylion 6y ago
Because he needs land to farm on, or he stops being a farmer and has to shut down his business. He will now pay e.g. $1000. Tillable will offer $1100 upfront to the land owner and then "offer" it to the farmer for the low price of $1200. Since he can't just farm on some piece of land 500 miles away, he can either pay the new price, or stop farming. Tillable offers no significant service here. It's not that there's a lot of land sitting idle because farmers and land owners have no way to come in contact, they are not solving a problem, they are just injecting themselves to extract rent with VC money.
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  Bingo. It's literal rent seeking.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  If the farmer is willing to accept a $1200 price, then what prevents the land owner from charging $1200 right now? All the factors you list which push the price up apply just as well for the current owner-renter negotiations. The scenario you describe is possible only if there is a lot of land that's severely mispriced / underpriced - in which case the price should and would get corrected, and after that the arbitrage opportunity disappears because, as you say, the land owner can come in contact directly with the farmer and make arrangements.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    > If the farmer is willing to accept a $1200 price, then what prevents the land owner from charging $1200 right now? Basic human decency? These are often long-term relationships between neighbours, whose families lived next to each other for decades or hundreds of years.
    - randomdata 6y ago
      But those with such decency wouldn't turn to Tillable to capture an extra buck, so it remains unclear where you think Tillable fits.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        Apparently nobody turns to Tillable. It's Tillable that's turning to land owners and tries to convince them to not renew their contracts with farmers so Tillable can negotiate new contracts with higher prices, likely with the same farmers (as farming is very much a local thing, you can't farm a piece of land from a thousand miles away).
        randomdata 6y ago

Finnucane 6y ago

Yeah, they quote Parker Smith saying they’re making connections that wouldn’t otherwise happen, but that’s obviously a lie. The farmers don’t need a ‘market maker’ if they’re already renting land from landlords they know. And it’s not like they can move operations around randomly, like an apartment or hotel room.

toss1 6y ago

Yes, but he smart landowners will realize that the same farmers will now need to pay more, and have a less direct and shorter-term connection to the land. The farmer will have less means, and less motivation to invest in proper fertilization & care of the land. This pushes everyone to a pure extractive business model, and away from investment. The result will be land that is worth less until it is worthless. All for a few more bucks up front. Capitalism is not solving any problem here, it is creating a massive problem. What's the solution when a massive portion of the arable land is worthless?