4 ms·

Thanks for the extremely insightful context. With so much first-hand knowledge of this situation, I’m having a hard time processing how you don’t have an opini

Thanks for the extremely insightful context. With so much first-hand knowledge of this situation, I’m having a hard time processing how you don’t have an opinion on it. It seems that this is exceedingly detrimental to the well being of literally everyone and everything involved except for those that profit from it.

redis_mlc 6y ago
A similar story is unfolding in mostly small-time US aviation mfg. Chinese companies have bought around 20 makers, like Mooney and Cirrus, in the past decade. > With so much first-hand knowledge of this situation, I’m having a hard time processing how you don’t have an opinion on it. Similarly, I don't have an opinion since the US regulators have decided to do nothing, and private capital is scarce in that sector - it is what it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Air_Parts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Air_Parts https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2011/february/28/cirrus-sold-to-china https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2011/february/2... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_International_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_International_Corporati...
- m463 6y ago
  That reminds me of this (vagueyly related) article on unions and airlines: https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    Phil's a great aviation writer. Beyond what he wrote, the regionals were created to union-bust, but the 1,500 hour rule has already closed most of them, giving captains even more power. :)
wjnc 6y ago
This is somewhat for discussion purposes. Farmers make a profit, a farmer retiring can liquidate his assets by selling his land to a pension fund where in the olden days he 'needed a son', the lessee of the land usually wouldn't start farming there is there isn't a profit involved. The produce gets sold to a middle man and an end user, again for a profit. The company I work for is in finance (non-US) and has a pretty large investment in farmland, which we lease out up to very, very long contracts. As far as I can tell people are quite happy with our stewardship. We provide liquidity and give farmers the optionality to choose a different time horizon for their firm. We lease out lands for biological farming, sometimes have historical properties we maintain and lease out, do solar parks. It's like real estate but with a different time horizon. Re the 'long game' discussion for finance and machinisation. The firm has literally been doing this for a few centuries so this hasn't been the original goal. I don't think it's come up yet as a current goal, although in all honesty I can see the appeal from a finance perspective. The farmer is the middleman we can cut out and replace by machines. First thought then is - what does it matter what the background of the owner doing the machinisation is?
- jdc 6y ago
  > Re the 'long game' discussion for finance and machinisation. The firm has literally been doing this for a few centuries so this hasn't been the original goal. I don't think it's come up yet as a current goal, although in all honesty I can see the appeal from a finance perspective. The farmer is the middleman we can cut out and replace by machines. First thought then is - what does it matter what the background of the owner doing the machinisation is? Sounds an awful lot like deskilling, so hopefully the labour concerned has an exit strategy.
  - wjnc 6y ago
    I don't want to sound totally econofuturoptimistic, but No, it's not de-skilling in my book. I'd venture robotisation is actually re-skilling or up-skilling. Or in other words: the average education level of the employees after more and more capital flows in, goes up. And automisation / robotisation is nothing new in agriculture. You need a lot less labour, that's true. But that's the trend in agriculture for about 150 years (as far as I understand rice is one of the few crops that's pretty constant in hours per bushel). Modern day large farms are run by a handful of people (and an enormous supply chain on both sides). An example: The Netherlands is a substantial exporter of food, and farming is about 1.5% of GDP. That's astonishing.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
> I’m having a hard time processing how you don’t have an opinion on it. It's admirable! There's almost nothing as rare on this site as a commenter who hasn't yet leapt to a conclusion.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
It’s a very tangled web. If I were to summarize in one word, it is due to Subsidies. Pensions and social security and international trade and Wall Street and subsidies are all tied together. It’s an infuriatingly tight ball of yarn. If I have to be uncharitable, I would say that American macro economics is a Ponzi scheme. But..on the other hand..this is also why food is so cheap in the USA. As a country, we run on credit. This too gives an illusion of prosperity. Just think about it. How can you get 6 chicken nuggets do for $1.00 from Mickey D? Because. America. And that’s because of that ball of yarn. Try taking away the Happy Meal’esque comfort from Americans and there will be a (weak)revolution. It makes me surmise that this what America wants. Is that a good or a bad thing? Does it matter if I or anyone else have an opinion? Here is what I am sure of and what troubles me: 1. You can’t ‘make’ land anymore. It’s a fixed asset and resource(water rights, mineral rights). 2. Land rights and resources are not renewable. 3. Land owning farmers have become poorer and poorer over the years..saddled by debt due to ..well..farming. Mostly in credit. 4. This is due to subsidies, credit to buy everything from expensive tractors, inputs, fertiiisers, seed etc. 5. Increase in population means more have to be grown in a smaller foot print of cultivable land. 6. Pressure to grow more. In farming, the more successful you are, you lose. Because of glut and law of economics(demand/supply/price). 7. Farmers are set up for failure. Value is derived from scarcity. When farmers are more productive, their margins shrink. I don’t know any other sector where this is true. 8. The credit lines and loans and debt is real tho’. 9. This will separate farmers from their land. 10. Money and financial instruments are man made constructs. Which means they are replicable. Land is fixed and can’t be created. When one is traded for another and the terms are written by one party, it’s is essentially a land grab. 11. This is why our dairy industry is almost gone. We rely on imports for food. Most mid west farming is corn and soy which is feed, fuel and fodder. Tyson exports to China. Smithfield is owned by China as are many livestock farms in az and Iowa. 12. Middle Eastwrn countries and China own acres and acres of farm land. And many more we don’t know through shell companies. This is rather common. 13. True for other places as well. Fonterra.. NZ’d dairy Co-op sold a portion to China and its milk powder division sells to China directly. China ships water from Australia and NZ. Canadian pension funds has invested in Australian dairy and cattle farms. I am not sure this is a good idea. 14. China has chronic food shortages and has to import to feed its 1.3 billion people. 15. Contrast this to India where they export excess in grains, spices, pulses etc with equivalent population and shrinking farmland. Main reason is the protection of farmland. Foreigners or foreign passport holders even if born in India can’t own farmland. (Unless they inherit farmland). Food self sufficiency is very important. The first step to achieving it is to divorce food from speculation channels and interests. Protect farmland and water resources. This is something that has to be done globally and not just USA. Edited to add: here is one more puzzle. American farmers growing corn and soy get subsidies to grow cheap food. But this is mostly for export. So in a way,...considering subsidies are funded by tax payer monies...aren’t we all paying taxes to subsidize exports? We are subsidizing American exports of cheap grain and not American farmers. The lion’s share of American farmers expenses(because what they make is so little compared to what they spend) goes to John Deere and Monsanto and seed companies and Syngenta et al. all publicly listed and traded companies. In a way American Ag IS Wall Street when you untangle this. But do we really want to do that? Do we really want to know where this leads?

redis_mlc 6y ago

A similar story is unfolding in mostly small-time US aviation mfg. Chinese companies have bought around 20 makers, like Mooney and Cirrus, in the past decade. > With so much first-hand knowledge of this situation, I’m having a hard time processing how you don’t have an opinion on it. Similarly, I don't have an opinion since the US regulators have decided to do nothing, and private capital is scarce in that sector - it is what it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Air_Parts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Air_Parts https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2011/february/28/cirrus-sold-to-china https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2011/february/2... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_International_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooney_International_Corporati...

m463 6y ago
That reminds me of this (vagueyly related) article on unions and airlines: https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  Phil's a great aviation writer. Beyond what he wrote, the regionals were created to union-bust, but the 1,500 hour rule has already closed most of them, giving captains even more power. :)

wjnc 6y ago

This is somewhat for discussion purposes. Farmers make a profit, a farmer retiring can liquidate his assets by selling his land to a pension fund where in the olden days he 'needed a son', the lessee of the land usually wouldn't start farming there is there isn't a profit involved. The produce gets sold to a middle man and an end user, again for a profit. The company I work for is in finance (non-US) and has a pretty large investment in farmland, which we lease out up to very, very long contracts. As far as I can tell people are quite happy with our stewardship. We provide liquidity and give farmers the optionality to choose a different time horizon for their firm. We lease out lands for biological farming, sometimes have historical properties we maintain and lease out, do solar parks. It's like real estate but with a different time horizon. Re the 'long game' discussion for finance and machinisation. The firm has literally been doing this for a few centuries so this hasn't been the original goal. I don't think it's come up yet as a current goal, although in all honesty I can see the appeal from a finance perspective. The farmer is the middleman we can cut out and replace by machines. First thought then is - what does it matter what the background of the owner doing the machinisation is?

jdc 6y ago
> Re the 'long game' discussion for finance and machinisation. The firm has literally been doing this for a few centuries so this hasn't been the original goal. I don't think it's come up yet as a current goal, although in all honesty I can see the appeal from a finance perspective. The farmer is the middleman we can cut out and replace by machines. First thought then is - what does it matter what the background of the owner doing the machinisation is? Sounds an awful lot like deskilling, so hopefully the labour concerned has an exit strategy.
- wjnc 6y ago
  I don't want to sound totally econofuturoptimistic, but No, it's not de-skilling in my book. I'd venture robotisation is actually re-skilling or up-skilling. Or in other words: the average education level of the employees after more and more capital flows in, goes up. And automisation / robotisation is nothing new in agriculture. You need a lot less labour, that's true. But that's the trend in agriculture for about 150 years (as far as I understand rice is one of the few crops that's pretty constant in hours per bushel). Modern day large farms are run by a handful of people (and an enormous supply chain on both sides). An example: The Netherlands is a substantial exporter of food, and farming is about 1.5% of GDP. That's astonishing.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

> I’m having a hard time processing how you don’t have an opinion on it. It's admirable! There's almost nothing as rare on this site as a commenter who hasn't yet leapt to a conclusion.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

It’s a very tangled web. If I were to summarize in one word, it is due to Subsidies. Pensions and social security and international trade and Wall Street and subsidies are all tied together. It’s an infuriatingly tight ball of yarn. If I have to be uncharitable, I would say that American macro economics is a Ponzi scheme. But..on the other hand..this is also why food is so cheap in the USA. As a country, we run on credit. This too gives an illusion of prosperity. Just think about it. How can you get 6 chicken nuggets do for $1.00 from Mickey D? Because. America. And that’s because of that ball of yarn. Try taking away the Happy Meal’esque comfort from Americans and there will be a (weak)revolution. It makes me surmise that this what America wants. Is that a good or a bad thing? Does it matter if I or anyone else have an opinion? Here is what I am sure of and what troubles me: 1. You can’t ‘make’ land anymore. It’s a fixed asset and resource(water rights, mineral rights). 2. Land rights and resources are not renewable. 3. Land owning farmers have become poorer and poorer over the years..saddled by debt due to ..well..farming. Mostly in credit. 4. This is due to subsidies, credit to buy everything from expensive tractors, inputs, fertiiisers, seed etc. 5. Increase in population means more have to be grown in a smaller foot print of cultivable land. 6. Pressure to grow more. In farming, the more successful you are, you lose. Because of glut and law of economics(demand/supply/price). 7. Farmers are set up for failure. Value is derived from scarcity. When farmers are more productive, their margins shrink. I don’t know any other sector where this is true. 8. The credit lines and loans and debt is real tho’. 9. This will separate farmers from their land. 10. Money and financial instruments are man made constructs. Which means they are replicable. Land is fixed and can’t be created. When one is traded for another and the terms are written by one party, it’s is essentially a land grab. 11. This is why our dairy industry is almost gone. We rely on imports for food. Most mid west farming is corn and soy which is feed, fuel and fodder. Tyson exports to China. Smithfield is owned by China as are many livestock farms in az and Iowa. 12. Middle Eastwrn countries and China own acres and acres of farm land. And many more we don’t know through shell companies. This is rather common. 13. True for other places as well. Fonterra.. NZ’d dairy Co-op sold a portion to China and its milk powder division sells to China directly. China ships water from Australia and NZ. Canadian pension funds has invested in Australian dairy and cattle farms. I am not sure this is a good idea. 14. China has chronic food shortages and has to import to feed its 1.3 billion people. 15. Contrast this to India where they export excess in grains, spices, pulses etc with equivalent population and shrinking farmland. Main reason is the protection of farmland. Foreigners or foreign passport holders even if born in India can’t own farmland. (Unless they inherit farmland). Food self sufficiency is very important. The first step to achieving it is to divorce food from speculation channels and interests. Protect farmland and water resources. This is something that has to be done globally and not just USA. Edited to add: here is one more puzzle. American farmers growing corn and soy get subsidies to grow cheap food. But this is mostly for export. So in a way,...considering subsidies are funded by tax payer monies...aren’t we all paying taxes to subsidize exports? We are subsidizing American exports of cheap grain and not American farmers. The lion’s share of American farmers expenses(because what they make is so little compared to what they spend) goes to John Deere and Monsanto and seed companies and Syngenta et al. all publicly listed and traded companies. In a way American Ag IS Wall Street when you untangle this. But do we really want to do that? Do we really want to know where this leads?