4 ms·

And yet this is exactly what is done for farming: Paying farmers to leave fields fallow in order to maintain supply and thereby pricing. Dropping property pri

And yet this is exactly what is done for farming: Paying farmers to leave fields fallow in order to maintain supply and thereby pricing. Dropping property prices shouldn't even be an issue for owners. Property value and thereby property taxes should also go down. As long as they can cover that, then they can continue to own the property. Except in reality everyone is actually leveraged against their property and don't own outright. In which case, sounds like their leveraged risk failed and losing the property is supposed to be the outcome of that. And the new buyer can get it at a cheaper and more maintainable price. I want to be clear that I'm discussing business owners of commercial property -- including residential rentals. Obviously the above is less desirable when we're talking about real people becoming homeless. But no one is going homeless if a business loses a leveraged property to another buyer.

leetcrew 6y ago
> And yet this is exactly what is done for farming: Paying farmers to leave fields fallow in order to maintain supply and thereby pricing. I'm sure there are some subtleties I'm missing, but this has always struck me as a little odd. why do we subsidize agricultural production and then turn around and also pay farmers not to use fields to stop the price from falling too low? also a price collapse isn't necessarily cataclysmic for someone with a mortgage. as long as they can keep making the monthly payments, nothing immediately changes. it's only a problem if you need to sell or if the prices never recover.
- Retric 6y ago
  It’s mostly about buying votes cheaply. There are significant incentives to consistently maintain a food surplus, but one you start handing out government subsidies you get the usual corruption. As subsides crash prices it’s cheaper to just pay farmers to do nothing than to pay them to create a crop that’s just going to rot. Basically, you don’t want to pay 1$ to farmers per ton of corn just to lower the price of a ton of corn by 1$. The goal is to hand that dollar to the farmers not the general public.
- grawprog 6y ago
  >I'm sure there are some subtleties I'm missing, but this has always struck me as a little odd. why do we subsidize agricultural production and then turn around and also pay farmers not to use fields to stop the price from falling too low? Farm fields need to be left fallow every four years or so to replenish the soil https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallow https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallow >Fallow is a farming technique in which arable land is left without sowing for one or more vegetative cycles. The goal of fallowing is to allow the land to recover and store organic matter while retaining moisture and disrupting the lifecycles of pathogens by temporarily removing their hosts. Fallow fields also tend to be good habitat for small mammals, which in turn draws in birds of prey and stuff and provides habitat for them. These guys go a step further https://deltafarmland.ca/ https://deltafarmland.ca/ They work with farmers and pay them to actually plant native grasses and nitrogen fixing cover crops for a couple years to allow natural habitat to develop. As far as I remember, those farmers tend to have a couple fields they rotate every 4 years or so. Leaving one fallow with natural grasses while planting the others with crops.
onecommentman 6y ago
I propose a moratorium on all analogies using, and discussions on, agricultural practices on any media based in the Bay Area or NYC. Not beating up on these posters. But geez, people... Our generation is unique in the history of the world in the social and cultural chasm between the vast majority of first-world people and the agricultural systems that generate their food. Practically everything written off-the-top on agricultural sciences and practices by this generation by the average smart person on these sites, although it sounds simple and logical, is somewhere between naive and wrong. A hundred years ago this wasn’t true. It is now. As analogies, it is not worth the off-topic thread to clarify things. On actual practices, farmers have better things to do than correct posters on these sites. It’s harvest season for most of them, they have enough problems. Although bean prices are up, so many are smiling...
- jdmichal 6y ago
  You had all the time to type that, but no time to type what was actually incorrect? I'd love to learn.

leetcrew 6y ago

> And yet this is exactly what is done for farming: Paying farmers to leave fields fallow in order to maintain supply and thereby pricing. I'm sure there are some subtleties I'm missing, but this has always struck me as a little odd. why do we subsidize agricultural production and then turn around and also pay farmers not to use fields to stop the price from falling too low? also a price collapse isn't necessarily cataclysmic for someone with a mortgage. as long as they can keep making the monthly payments, nothing immediately changes. it's only a problem if you need to sell or if the prices never recover.

Retric 6y ago
It’s mostly about buying votes cheaply. There are significant incentives to consistently maintain a food surplus, but one you start handing out government subsidies you get the usual corruption. As subsides crash prices it’s cheaper to just pay farmers to do nothing than to pay them to create a crop that’s just going to rot. Basically, you don’t want to pay 1$ to farmers per ton of corn just to lower the price of a ton of corn by 1$. The goal is to hand that dollar to the farmers not the general public.
grawprog 6y ago
>I'm sure there are some subtleties I'm missing, but this has always struck me as a little odd. why do we subsidize agricultural production and then turn around and also pay farmers not to use fields to stop the price from falling too low? Farm fields need to be left fallow every four years or so to replenish the soil https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallow https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallow >Fallow is a farming technique in which arable land is left without sowing for one or more vegetative cycles. The goal of fallowing is to allow the land to recover and store organic matter while retaining moisture and disrupting the lifecycles of pathogens by temporarily removing their hosts. Fallow fields also tend to be good habitat for small mammals, which in turn draws in birds of prey and stuff and provides habitat for them. These guys go a step further https://deltafarmland.ca/ https://deltafarmland.ca/ They work with farmers and pay them to actually plant native grasses and nitrogen fixing cover crops for a couple years to allow natural habitat to develop. As far as I remember, those farmers tend to have a couple fields they rotate every 4 years or so. Leaving one fallow with natural grasses while planting the others with crops.

onecommentman 6y ago

I propose a moratorium on all analogies using, and discussions on, agricultural practices on any media based in the Bay Area or NYC. Not beating up on these posters. But geez, people... Our generation is unique in the history of the world in the social and cultural chasm between the vast majority of first-world people and the agricultural systems that generate their food. Practically everything written off-the-top on agricultural sciences and practices by this generation by the average smart person on these sites, although it sounds simple and logical, is somewhere between naive and wrong. A hundred years ago this wasn’t true. It is now. As analogies, it is not worth the off-topic thread to clarify things. On actual practices, farmers have better things to do than correct posters on these sites. It’s harvest season for most of them, they have enough problems. Although bean prices are up, so many are smiling...

jdmichal 6y ago
You had all the time to type that, but no time to type what was actually incorrect? I'd love to learn.