27 ms·
That's the current incentive structure for better or worse. Someone (maybe the USDA, maybe SV) needs to pony up money to compete with using that ground for crop
by kickout 6y ago
That's the current incentive structure for better or worse. Someone (maybe the USDA, maybe SV) needs to pony up money to compete with using that ground for cropland. In an ideal scenario, the ground surrounding waterways should be easily worth $300/acre (which enables it to compete with row crop rental prices).
Problem is people laugh at that concept and then complain we have overproduction, dwindling soil health, and poor water quality.
- davexunit 6y agoI do laugh at the idea that some more capitalism is the solution. In an ideal scenario, the ground surrounding waterways would be unowned wild riparian buffers that prevent erosion and provide long stretches of contiguous habitat for animals.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoyeah but the people deprived of the opportunity to develop that land seem to prefer a system where they have opportunities rather than a system where entrenched interests use the power of the state to inhibit anyone from competing. In an ideal scenario agriculture would not have been discovered but once it was then it became necessary to compete or be assimilated.
- Game_Ender 6y agoUsing less labor to grow food is what makes society productive enough for scientific and medical research. Those in turn address common public health issues and create more labor saving technologies allowing people to do things that they enjoy.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoYes, in essence, capitalism. But the discussion was about regulating the use of undeveloped land (“idle capital”) and that disproportionately benefits those in society who already own land (“capital”).