4 ms·

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 t

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 7y 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
        That only brings us back to the question of why landowners wouldn't go directly to the farmer and ask for the hypothetical $1,200 that Tillable would also ask of them? It is not exactly difficult to figure out who the farmers are in your local area, and it is especially not very difficult to figure out which ones are the hungry ones willing to pay top dollar, if that is your goal. Chances are they have already been hounding you for years. Exactly because people don't normally seek farmland a thousand miles away, where there could potentially be a benefit in new introductions, it remains unclear where Tillable fits.
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        And that brings us back to my original answer: why would they? Trying to extract maximum profit from the counterparty is adversarial, whereas a relationship between a land owner and a neighbourhood farmer most likely is cooperative. EDIT: for the same reason, I don't think Tillable has a chance of working, and to the extent it does, it's actively destructive.
        randomdata 6y ago
        And now we're just talking in circles. Before your original 'answer', the scenarios presented were that farmers who: 1. Want to extract as much money as possible will turn directly to the farmers willing to pay top dollar to maximize the take. 2. Want to build solid relationships with farmers will turn directly to farmers to find a suitable fit. The question presented before your original reply was in trying to understand where Tillable fits. Your answer did not provide that information, and your follow up still does not attempt to answer the question. Your edit seems to suggest that they don't fit, as was already established, which leaves us wondering what your original response was for?
- luckylion 6y ago
  "Willingness" vs "No other choice but shut down". It's similar to how you're "willing" to "accept" increased taxes. You don't have to, of course, you can leave the country, but I wouldn't consider that willing acceptance. As TeMPOral mentioned in a sibling comment, mostly their long-standing relationship, and his non-predatory business model. Right now, he's a land owner. If he uses Tillable, he's a property investor.
- gdhbcc 6y ago
  Presumably tillable will make the same dela to every landowner in the area, reducing the competition between landowner and therefore enabling the increase in prices. In essence, tillable becomes the only landowner
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  >> If the farmer is willing to accept a $1200 price, then what prevents the land owner from charging $1200 right now? The same reasons that have kept my landlord from raising the rent me and my partner pay in over 14 years now. When we asked him if he didn't want a raise (we were concerned he was not making enough and would have to sell the house) he said that no, he prefers to know that the house is rented long-term and he doesn't have to find a new tennant every few months. So, basically: stability. Some people tend to value that very highly. I know I (and my partner) do, which is btw the reason why we've stayed in the same place for over 14 years. That and all the scare stories of asshole landlords we've heard from friends who moved frequently (we're in the UK btw).

EdwardDiego 7y 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
      That only brings us back to the question of why landowners wouldn't go directly to the farmer and ask for the hypothetical $1,200 that Tillable would also ask of them? It is not exactly difficult to figure out who the farmers are in your local area, and it is especially not very difficult to figure out which ones are the hungry ones willing to pay top dollar, if that is your goal. Chances are they have already been hounding you for years. Exactly because people don't normally seek farmland a thousand miles away, where there could potentially be a benefit in new introductions, it remains unclear where Tillable fits.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        And that brings us back to my original answer: why would they? Trying to extract maximum profit from the counterparty is adversarial, whereas a relationship between a land owner and a neighbourhood farmer most likely is cooperative. EDIT: for the same reason, I don't think Tillable has a chance of working, and to the extent it does, it's actively destructive.
        randomdata 6y ago
        And now we're just talking in circles. Before your original 'answer', the scenarios presented were that farmers who: 1. Want to extract as much money as possible will turn directly to the farmers willing to pay top dollar to maximize the take. 2. Want to build solid relationships with farmers will turn directly to farmers to find a suitable fit. The question presented before your original reply was in trying to understand where Tillable fits. Your answer did not provide that information, and your follow up still does not attempt to answer the question. Your edit seems to suggest that they don't fit, as was already established, which leaves us wondering what your original response was for?
luckylion 6y ago
"Willingness" vs "No other choice but shut down". It's similar to how you're "willing" to "accept" increased taxes. You don't have to, of course, you can leave the country, but I wouldn't consider that willing acceptance. As TeMPOral mentioned in a sibling comment, mostly their long-standing relationship, and his non-predatory business model. Right now, he's a land owner. If he uses Tillable, he's a property investor.
gdhbcc 6y ago
Presumably tillable will make the same dela to every landowner in the area, reducing the competition between landowner and therefore enabling the increase in prices. In essence, tillable becomes the only landowner
YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
>> If the farmer is willing to accept a $1200 price, then what prevents the land owner from charging $1200 right now? The same reasons that have kept my landlord from raising the rent me and my partner pay in over 14 years now. When we asked him if he didn't want a raise (we were concerned he was not making enough and would have to sell the house) he said that no, he prefers to know that the house is rented long-term and he doesn't have to find a new tennant every few months. So, basically: stability. Some people tend to value that very highly. I know I (and my partner) do, which is btw the reason why we've stayed in the same place for over 14 years. That and all the scare stories of asshole landlords we've heard from friends who moved frequently (we're in the UK btw).