4 ms·

I don't see why. The purpose of a corporation is to provide a hierarchy for organization of collective effort. In order to farm efficiently (i.e. not a small fa

by xxpor 6y ago

I don't see why. The purpose of a corporation is to provide a hierarchy for organization of collective effort. In order to farm efficiently (i.e. not a small farm that mostly grows for farmer's market sales) in 2021, you can't simply have two adults and a bunch of children running around a farm. If you're going to hire anyone to help, it almost always makes sense to create at least an LLC.

kickout 6y ago
Well, farming in 2021 is stupidly efficient. Not much efficiency to squeeze out really. The productivity/efficiency has been incredible. Take a look at first set of charts: https://thinkingagriculture.io/what-agriculture-has-and-doesnt-have/ https://thinkingagriculture.io/what-agriculture-has-and-does...
- AngryData 6y ago
  Producing more crops in less land is not really more "efficient" because it requires significantly more synthetic (fossil fuel derived) fertilizer. Good top soil produces fertilizer itself, so growing the same yield on less acreage means higher fertilizer usage which means less efficiency, not more. Not to mention corporate farmland is more likely to grow monoculture crops and do less crop rotation, which also increases fertilizer usage and decreases topsoil depth. Corporate farming COULD be more efficient, but in common practice it is not.
  - kickout 6y ago
    > Producing more crops in less land is not really more "efficient" I'm open to different definitions of efficiency, but this isn't really in question. HOW they are getting that efficiency (more fertilizer, etc.) we can agree/disagree. But they are more efficient in the most basic sense possible [more production, less land].
    - AngryData 6y ago
      Would you consider transportation more efficient if it got you to your destination faster and cheaper, but put out 5x the pollution?
fastball 6y ago
I worry about it because unlike most other things, land is a zero sum game. To my mind, corporations are only good if they 1. provide value 2. capture some fraction of that value, because you have a win-win situation on your hands. This applies well to production of products, which is obviously not zero-sum. Land is, however, so whenever a corporation is making a profit off of land ownership, it means an individual (or government) is not.
- xxpor 6y ago
  land is zero sum, but the economic value of land isn't. Farming actual food or other commodities provides value, and the better techniques allows you to provide more value. I basically agree about pure land ownership though. Obviously this is one of the main leftist critiques of capitalist societies. I'm not sure if state ownership is any better on net though (in general, I'm fine with national parks or whatever), mostly for logistical reasons. There's a lot of external factors to consider with land too. You don't want people to do whatever and poison said land via poor management or irresponsible resource extraction.
- OscarCunningham 6y ago
  Doesn't the parent comment already anticipate this argument? They're saying that the corporation does provide value because it gets more from the land than individuals would.
  - fastball 6y ago
    But this is only true of running the land. I feel that it would be better for land to be owned by real people (preferably citizens of whichever country it is) given that there is a finite amount of it. If corporations are better farmers, they will still be keen to rent it / run it for the owner. The alternative is probably a future where all land is owned by corporations and all people are just renting, which to me sounds like a recipe for disaster.
    - xxpor 6y ago
      I guess it'd help to explain why I, Joe Farmer, would care if I'm renting land from Acme Inc or Bob Gentry. Basically, it sounds like you believe there's differnet incentives for individuals vs corporations here, and I'm not entirely sure there is.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Because public listed companies are swayed by winds of speculation
standardUser 6y ago
"The purpose of a corporation is to..." ...insulate management and shareholders from losses and litigation.
- xxpor 6y ago
  Which facilitates collective action. Don't get me wrong, we need to be able to pierce the corporate veil a lot easier in the US, but the setup isn't born from pure cynicism.
burkaman 6y ago
There's nothing wrong with a corporation in principle, just like there's nothing wrong in principle with for-profit universities or payday loans. In practice, it's easy to see that many people who run corporations use them as an excuse for taking entirely self-interested actions that harm the rest of society. "I'm sorry, but I have to act in the best interest of the company, you understand." Of course there's nothing magic about corporations, and it's perfectly possible for individuals and private owners to be just as cruel. For purely cultural reasons, it's easier for most people to act in self interest when it feels like they're doing it for The Company rather than themselves. Note that there are other ways to organize people to farm efficiently, like worker cooperatives.

by xxpor 6y ago

kickout 6y ago

Well, farming in 2021 is stupidly efficient. Not much efficiency to squeeze out really. The productivity/efficiency has been incredible. Take a look at first set of charts: https://thinkingagriculture.io/what-agriculture-has-and-doesnt-have/ https://thinkingagriculture.io/what-agriculture-has-and-does...

AngryData 6y ago
Producing more crops in less land is not really more "efficient" because it requires significantly more synthetic (fossil fuel derived) fertilizer. Good top soil produces fertilizer itself, so growing the same yield on less acreage means higher fertilizer usage which means less efficiency, not more. Not to mention corporate farmland is more likely to grow monoculture crops and do less crop rotation, which also increases fertilizer usage and decreases topsoil depth. Corporate farming COULD be more efficient, but in common practice it is not.
- kickout 6y ago
  > Producing more crops in less land is not really more "efficient" I'm open to different definitions of efficiency, but this isn't really in question. HOW they are getting that efficiency (more fertilizer, etc.) we can agree/disagree. But they are more efficient in the most basic sense possible [more production, less land].
  - AngryData 6y ago
    Would you consider transportation more efficient if it got you to your destination faster and cheaper, but put out 5x the pollution?

fastball 6y ago

I worry about it because unlike most other things, land is a zero sum game. To my mind, corporations are only good if they 1. provide value 2. capture some fraction of that value, because you have a win-win situation on your hands. This applies well to production of products, which is obviously not zero-sum. Land is, however, so whenever a corporation is making a profit off of land ownership, it means an individual (or government) is not.

xxpor 6y ago
land is zero sum, but the economic value of land isn't. Farming actual food or other commodities provides value, and the better techniques allows you to provide more value. I basically agree about pure land ownership though. Obviously this is one of the main leftist critiques of capitalist societies. I'm not sure if state ownership is any better on net though (in general, I'm fine with national parks or whatever), mostly for logistical reasons. There's a lot of external factors to consider with land too. You don't want people to do whatever and poison said land via poor management or irresponsible resource extraction.
OscarCunningham 6y ago
Doesn't the parent comment already anticipate this argument? They're saying that the corporation does provide value because it gets more from the land than individuals would.
- fastball 6y ago
  But this is only true of running the land. I feel that it would be better for land to be owned by real people (preferably citizens of whichever country it is) given that there is a finite amount of it. If corporations are better farmers, they will still be keen to rent it / run it for the owner. The alternative is probably a future where all land is owned by corporations and all people are just renting, which to me sounds like a recipe for disaster.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    I guess it'd help to explain why I, Joe Farmer, would care if I'm renting land from Acme Inc or Bob Gentry. Basically, it sounds like you believe there's differnet incentives for individuals vs corporations here, and I'm not entirely sure there is.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

Because public listed companies are swayed by winds of speculation

standardUser 6y ago

"The purpose of a corporation is to..." ...insulate management and shareholders from losses and litigation.

xxpor 6y ago
Which facilitates collective action. Don't get me wrong, we need to be able to pierce the corporate veil a lot easier in the US, but the setup isn't born from pure cynicism.

burkaman 6y ago

There's nothing wrong with a corporation in principle, just like there's nothing wrong in principle with for-profit universities or payday loans. In practice, it's easy to see that many people who run corporations use them as an excuse for taking entirely self-interested actions that harm the rest of society. "I'm sorry, but I have to act in the best interest of the company, you understand." Of course there's nothing magic about corporations, and it's perfectly possible for individuals and private owners to be just as cruel. For purely cultural reasons, it's easier for most people to act in self interest when it feels like they're doing it for The Company rather than themselves. Note that there are other ways to organize people to farm efficiently, like worker cooperatives.